Skip to main content

Controversies with Clinical Trial Regulations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrity of Scientific Research
  • 761 Accesses

Abstract

Low- and middle-income countries are increasingly selected as locations for international clinical trials. The consequences have been debated within and beyond the academic literature. Low- and middle-income countries are also referred to as nontraditional countries. This chapter reviews the extant literature related to this debate and identifies the three main—partially interrelated—concerns: a lack of contribution to building up local innovation capacity, a lack of local regulatory capacity, and the prevalence of questionable clinical research practices and fraud. A call for long-term capacity-building efforts of local researchers and regulators in nontraditional countries is a priority.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cantner U, Rake B (2014) International research networks in pharmaceuticals: structure and dynamics. Res Policy 43:333–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haeussler C, Rake B (2017) The changing geography of clinical research: a critical analysis of its drivers. Ind Corp Chang 26:285–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thiers FA, Sinskey AJ, Berndt ER (2008) Trends in the globalization of clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Disc 7:13–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Drain PK, Parker RA, Robine M, Holmes KK (2018) Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration. PLoS One 13:e0192413

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lang T, Siribaddana S (2012) Clinical trials have gone global: is this a good thing? PLoS Med 9:e1001228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nundy S, Gulhati CM (2005) A new colonialism? — Conducting clinical trials in India. New Eng J Med 352:1633–1636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khin NA, Yang P, Hung HMJ, Maung-U K, Chen Y-F, Meeker-O’Connell A et al (2013) Regulatory and scientific issues regarding use of foreign data in support of new drug applications in the United States: an FDA perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 94:230–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Varsakelis NC (2006) Education, political institutions and innovative activity: a cross-country empirical investigation. Res Policy 35:1083–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fagerberg J, Srholec M (2008) National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Res Policy 37:1417–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haakonsson SJ, Jensen PDØ, Mudambi SM (2013) A co-evolutionary perspective on the drivers of international sourcing of pharmaceutical R&D to India. J Econ Geogr 13:677–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Maiti R, Raghavendra M (2007) Clinical trials in India. Pharmacol Res 56:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Crone RK (2008) Flat medicine? Exploring trends in the globalization of health care. Acad Med 83

    Google Scholar 

  13. White K (2019) Science and engineering publication output trends: 2017 shows U.S. output level slightly below that of China but the United States maintains lead with highly cited publications. nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19317/. Accessed 5 Sept 2021

    Google Scholar 

  14. Petryna A (2009) When experiments travel: clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Gassmann O, Han Z (2004) Motivations and barriers of foreign R&D activities in China. R&D Manag 34:423–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein RJ (2007) Growth of the Asian health-care market: global implications for the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Disc 6:785–792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson JF, Weale ME, Smith AC, Gratrix F, Fletcher B, Thomas MG et al (2001) Population genetic structure of variable drug response. Nat Genet 29:265–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, Cairns CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, Schulman KA (2009) Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. New Eng J Med 360:816–823. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb0803929

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Varawalla N, Jain R (2011) Chapter 7–Clinical trials in India. In: Chin R, Bairu M (eds) Global clinical trials. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 119–157

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Furman JL, Porter ME, Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res Policy 31:899–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Neill O (2002) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Glantz LH, Annas GJ, Grodin MA, Mariner WK (1998) Research in developing countries: taking “benefit” seriously. Hast Cent Rep 28:38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher JA (2009) Medical research for hire: the political economy of pharmaceutical clinical trials. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  24. Annas GJ (2009) Globalized clinical trials and informed consent. New Eng J Med 360:2050–2053

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang PL (2017) The abandoned stakeholders: pharmaceutical companies and research participants. J Bus Ethics 143:721–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yegros-Yegros A, van de Klippe W, Abad-Garcia MF, Rafols I (2020) Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: the potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives. Health Res Pol Sys 18:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barrenho E, Miraldo M, Smith PC (2019) Does global drug innovation correspond to burden of disease? The neglected diseases in developed and developing countries. Health Econ 28:123–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pécoul B, Chirac P, Trouiller P, Pinel J (1999) Access to essential drugs in poor countries: a lost battle? JAMA 281:361–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Merz S (2020) Global trials, local bodies: negotiating difference and sameness in Indian for-profit clinical trials. Sci Technol Hum Values. 0162243920963813

    Google Scholar 

  30. Largent EA, Fernandez LH (2017) Paying research participants: regulatory uncertainty, conceptual confusion, and a path forward. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 17:61–141

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Leuker C, Samartzidis L, Hertwig R, Pleskac TJ (2020) When money talks: judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials. PLoS One 15:e0227898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Mantzari E, Vogt F, Marteau TM (2014) Does incentivising pill-taking ‘crowd out’ risk-information processing? Evidence from a web-based experiment. Soc Sci Med 106:75–82

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Cryder CE, John London A, Volpp KG, Loewenstein G (2010) Informative inducement: study payment as a signal of risk. Soc Sci Med 70:455–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Millum J, Garnett M (2019) How payment for research participation can be coercive. Am J Bioeth 19:21–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gelinas L, White SA, Bierer BE (2020) Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation. Clin Trials 17:264–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jamrozik E, Selgelid MJ (2020) Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy. J Med Ethics 46:601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chingarande GR, Moodley K (2018) Disparate compensation policies for research related injury in an era of multinational trials: a case study of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BMC Med Ethics 19:8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kremer M (2002) Pharmaceuticals and the developing world. J Econ Perspect 16:67–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. White CM (2020) Current system of overseeing drug trials in developing countries by the FDA is dangerous. Ann Pharmacother 54:928–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodríguez FS (2010) Governing ethical clinical research in developing countries: exploring the case of Mexico. Sci Public Policy 37:583–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhou Q, Chen X-Y, Yang Z-M, Wu Y-L (2017) The changing landscape of clinical trial and approval processes in China. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:577–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jayaraman K (2012) India mulling stricter laws to curb unethical trials. Nat Med 18:182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gupta YK, Padhy BM (2011) India’s growing participation in global clinical trials. Trends Pharmacol Sci 32:327–329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aguilera B, DeGrazia D, Rid A (2020) Regulating international clinical research: an ethical framework for policy-makers. BMJ Glob Health 5:e002287

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hull D (2015) Reining in the commercialized foreign clinical trial. J Legal Med 36:367–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Challenges to FDA’s ability to monitor and inspect foreign clinical trials. ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2010114711.xhtml. Accessed 5 Sept 2021

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hoekman J, Frenken K, Zeeuw D d, Heerspink HL (2012) The geographical distribution of leadership in globalized clinical trials. PLoS One 7:e45984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rake B, Haeussler C (2019) Did relaxing clinical trial regulation enhance the stock of scientific knowledge in India? Not necessarily. PLoS One 14:e0210163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Reid SE, Ramani SV (2012) The harnessing of biotechnology in India: which roads to travel? Technol Fore Soc Change 79:648–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dickersin K, Rennie D (2012) The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. JAMA 307:1861–1864

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Viergever RF, Li K (2015) Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013. BMJ Open 5:e008932

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kumari S, Mohan A, Saberwal G (2020) Hidden duplicates: 10s or 100s of Indian trials, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, have not been registered in India, as required by law. PLoS One 15:e0234925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Anderson ML, Chiswell K, Peterson ED, Tasneem A, Topping J, Califf RM (2015) Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. New Eng J Med 372:1031–1039

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. DeVito NJ, Bacon S, Goldacre B (2020) Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. Lancet 395:361–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Resnik DB (2003) From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Account Res 10:123–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Carlisle JB (2021) False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 76:472–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Woodhead M (2016) 80% of China’s clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds. BMJ 355:i5396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Watson R (2015) EU to suspend hundreds of drug authorisations after doubts over clinical studies in Hyderabad. Brit Med J 350:h574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Seife C (2015) Research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature. JAMA Intern Med 175:567–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang D, Freemantle N, Cheng KK (2011) Are randomized trials conducted in China or India biased? A comparative empirical analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 64:90–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Desai K, Carroll I, Asch S, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP (2019) Extremely large outlier treatment effects may be a footprint of bias in trials from less developed countries: randomized trials of gabapentinoids. J Clin Epidemiol 106:80–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Panagiotou OA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA (2013) Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment. Brit Med J 346:f707

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ray S, Shah I, Nundy S (2016) The research output from Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014. Curr Med Res Pract 6:49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Chen W, Xing Q-R, Wang H, Wang T (2018) Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics 114:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Elango B, Kozak M, Rajendran P (2019) Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics 119:1081–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P (2011) Changing incentives to publish. Science 333:702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Walsh JP, Lee Y-N, Tang L (2019) Pathogenic organization in science: division of labor and retractions. Res Policy 48:444–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wong DR, Bhattacharya S, Butte AJ (2019) Prototype of running clinical trials in an untrustworthy environment using blockchain. Nat Commun 10:917

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Cutter GR (2017) To catch a crook, you might try statistics. Nat Rev Neurol 13:9–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Porter G (2018) Regulating clinical trials in India: the economics of ethics. Dev World Bioeth 18:365–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bastian Rake .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rake, B. (2022). Controversies with Clinical Trial Regulations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99679-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99680-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics