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.

Do health care providers use online patient ratings to improve the quality of care?

Background: Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care. Objective: Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care. Methods: We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers' demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care. Results: Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings. Conclusions: Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.