A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa

Objectives: To assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa. Design: Construction and analysis of a comprehensive database of completed randomised controlled clinical trials based on clinicaltrials.gov from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010 and drug approval data from 2006 until 2013 for India and South Africa. Setting: USA, the EU, India and South Africa. Main outcome measures: Percentage of completed randomised clinical trials for an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) leading to new drug approval in India and South Africa. Results: A total of 622 eligible randomised controlled trials were identified as per search criteria for India and South Africa. Clustering them for the same sponsor and the same Investigational New Drug (IND) resulted in 453 eligible trials, that is, 224 for India and 229 for South Africa. The distribution of the market application approvals between the EU/USA as well as India and South Africa revealed that out of clinical trials with the participation of test centres in India and/or South Africa, 39.6% (India) clinical trials and 60.1% (South Africa) clinical trials led to market authorisation in the EU/USA without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. Conclusions: Despite an increase in clinical trial activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population.

Clinical Research and Standard of Care — An Unresolved Question?

Ever since the 1996 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, the World Medical Association has attempted to address ethical and scientific concerns of its diverse stakeholders for Articles 33 (use of placebo) and 34 (posttrial provisions), most recently in 2013. Both are inextricably linked to standard of care, an essential element of any comparative, interventional clinical trial. But has this now 20-year-long ethical debate truly been put to rest? The choice of standard of care in clinical trials remains a complex issue, particularly for comparative trials conducted in emerging countries.