Medical ethics

New government regulations water down clinical trial safety norms

Two circulars empower ethics panels to remove requirements on the size of trials facilities and the number of trials principal investigators can work on.

Crucial changes made in the regulation of clinical trials in India recently seem to have been made to align the industry to the favourite mantra of the Narendra Modi government – ease of doing business.

Experts say that two circulars that the government issued on August 2 has reversed advances for better regulation of such trials made previously through the intervention of the Supreme Court.

The circulars – issued by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, the apex body of the Government of India to regulate clinical trials and quality of drugs – put immense powers in hands of ethics committees, which have been at the centre of controversies for not regulating clinical trials adequately.

The first circular has taken away the requirement that any hospital conducting clinical trials must have a minimum of 50 beds. Instead, an ethics committee can decide the trial site.

The second circular has removed a restriction on the number of trials a principal investigator can work on at any given time. The cap was set at three. The final authority for this decision will also be the ethics committee.

Role of the ethics committee

Ethics committees are supposed to be formed by qualified individuals – a medical speciality being a minimum qualification – who have been approached by scientists and companies seeking approval for trials of their medicines. These are private bodies which can operate within a health facility or independently.

Critics of this new policy say that for ethics committees to decide on principal investigators and clinical trial sites – the two most important components of trials apart from human subjects – they need capacity building. For instance, ethics committee members should be able to judge scientific standards of a trial site, an indicator of which is the number of beds at the facility.

“Number of beds signify how complex an organisation is with various facilities,” said Amar Jesani, editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. “It gives an idea about the number of departments, intensive care, blood bank, etc. These are important in case of an emergency.”

S Srinivasan, co-founder of Vadodara-based organisation Low Cost Standard Therapeutics said that it was a bad idea to allow one principal investigator to monitor several trials.

“Ideal is one trial at a time," he said. "But in some exceptional cases, where that person might be the only one with required expertise, more trials can be considered. But leaving it completely in the hands of the ethics committee is not good.”

Trials that went wrong

A widespread debate on clinical trials in India started in 2009 when seven girls between the ages of 10 and 14 from tribal belts in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh died during clinical trials of the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine for cervical cancer. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health was conducting the vaccination trials. The HPV vaccines tried were products of companies GlaxoSmithKline and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

In 2013, a Parliamentary Standing Committee report indicted government officials for colluding with other stakeholders to conduct unethical clinical trials.

They were conducted on young girls before being tried on adults, a major violation of rules in India. The Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health described the project as an observational study rather than a clinical trial. The Parliamentary committee concluded that this was done to avoid lengthy procedures and hit the vaccination market at the earliest.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India had asked the government to put proper regulation in place before permitting any pharmaceutical company to proceed with clinical trials. This was in response to a public interest litigation filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch.

Citing government data, the NGO showed that there had been 3,458 deaths and 14,320 cases of serious side effects related to clinical trials in India between 2005 and 2012. The Supreme Court has been taking a tough stand against unethical practices in various other cases.

"The circulars go against the spirit of the Supreme Court orders," said Amulya Nidhi, of Swasthya Adhikar Manch. "SC has said that the problem lies with the existing law which has to be completely changed. Any new rules have to be within SC's framework."

Any new rule or circular has to abide by the three principles laid down by the court – that is testing for commercial benefit analysis, that the trial is for a new molecules and ones that have an established history, and the medical need of the country.

The loopholes

"Many trials are conducted in India for diseases which are not prevalent here," said Nidhi. "Thus, the country and patients do not benefit from them. SC has said such trials should not be conducted."

Nidhi also points out that the new circulars do not specify penalties on principal investigators who don't meet these Supreme Court mandated paremeters.

Just last month, the Indian Council of Medical Research came up with draft guidelines to conduct such trials in an ethical and fair manner so that poor patients don’t end up being guinea pigs for medicines that won’t even treat them.

“The recent circulars are a reversal of all this progress that has been made to regulate clinical trials in the country,” said Jesani. “So much power in the hands of the ethics committee, where we have more than 600 of them in India, goes against the principle of strict regulation.”

Ethics committees have come under fire by health experts and activists for not working independently and instead playing into the hands of organisations interested in conducting clinical trials. This results in slips in supervision and in the enforcement of rules and regulations.

After a hue and cry over the past few years, the government made it mandatory to register an ethics committee with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation before taking approval for the trials.

“There is a lot of paper work,” said Jesani. “But before putting so much power in the hands of the committee, the government should have generated evidence of substantial improvement in their functioning. There is no such evidence.”

Clinical researchers, however, have welcomed the circulars. “The earlier restrictions impacted a sponsor’s ability to choose the best qualified investigators and sites for a study,” said Suneeta Thatte, president of the Indian Society for Clinical Research. “The new announcements vest this decision with ethics committees who are best positioned to deliberate on this and take a well calculated decision.”

Srinivasan of Low Cost Standard Therapeutics disagreed. “This is a clear cut case of inviting pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials in India and signal them for ‘ease of doing business’,” he said. “The decisions seem to have been taken under pressure from the pharma lobby to make it convenient to test their drugs in India.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.