Clinical Research Environment in India: Challenges and Proposed Solutions.

India has compelling need and keen aspirations for indigenous clinical research. Notwithstanding this need and previously reported growth the expected expansion of Indian clinical research has not materialized. We reviewed the scientific literature, lay press reports, and ClinicalTrials.gov data for information and commentary on projections, progress, and impediments associated with clinical trials in India. We also propose targeted solutions to identified challenges. The Indian clinical trial sector grew by (+) 20.3% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) between 2005 and 2010 and contracted by (-) 14.6% CAGR between 2010 and 2013. Phase-1 trials grew by (+) 43.5% CAGR from 2005-2013, phase-2 trials grew by (+) 19.8% CAGR from 2005-2009 and contracted by (-) 12.6% CAGR from 2009-2013, and phase-3 trials grew by (+) 13.0% CAGR from 2005-2010 and contracted by (-) 28.8% CAGR from 2010-2013. This was associated with a slowing of the regulatory approval process, increased media coverage and activist engagement, and accelerated development of regulatory guidelines and recuperative initiatives. We propose the following as potential targets for restorative interventions: Regulatory overhaul (leadership and enforcement of regulations, resolution of ambiguity in regulations, staffing, training, guidelines, and ethical principles [e.g., compensation]).Education and training of research professionals, clinicians, and regulators.Public awareness and empowerment. After a peak in 2009-2010, the clinical research sector in India appears to be experiencing a contraction. There are indications of challenges in regulatory enforcement of guidelines; training of clinical research professionals; and awareness, participation, partnership, and the general image amongst the non-professional media and public. Preventative and corrective principles and interventions are outlined with the goal of realizing the clinical research potential in India.

Developing a simplified consent form for biobanking.

BACKGROUND: Consent forms have lengthened over time and become harder for participants to understand. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of creating a simplified consent form for biobanking that comprises the minimum information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements. We then gathered preliminary data concerning its content from hypothetical biobank participants. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We followed basic principles of plain-language writing and incorporated into a 2-page form (not including the signature page) those elements of information required by federal regulations and recommended by best practice guidelines for biobanking. We then recruited diabetes patients from community-based practices and randomized half (n = 56) to read the 2-page form, first on paper and then a second time on a tablet computer. Participants were encouraged to use "More information" buttons on the electronic version whenever they had questions or desired further information. These buttons led to a series of "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) that contained additional detailed information. Participants were asked to identify specific sentences in the FAQs they thought would be important if they were considering taking part in a biorepository. On average, participants identified 7 FAQ sentences as important (mean 6.6, SD 14.7, range: 0-71). No one sentence was highlighted by a majority of participants; further, 34 (60.7%) participants did not highlight any FAQ sentences. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that our 2-page form contains the information that most prospective participants identify as important. Combining simplified forms with supplemental material for those participants who desire more information could help minimize consent form length and complexity, allowing the most substantively material information to be better highlighted and enabling potential participants to read the form and ask questions more effectively.