Clinical Trials Registry--India: redefining the conduct of clinical trials

A review of clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022 to describe the first-in-human trials

Aim

This analysis was conducted to review the number, and describe the characteristics of first-in-human (FIH) Phase 1 clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022.

Materials and Methods

The data were extracted from the Clinical Trials Registry - India database for all FIH Phase 1 clinical trials registered between 2008 and 2022. Early-phase trials that were not FIH trials (e.g., pharmacokinetic studies and drug-drug interaction studies) were excluded from the study.

Results

A total of 1891 trials were retrieved and 220 were included in the analysis. Most of the investigational products were drugs (55%) followed by vaccines (38.2%). The most common therapeutic class of drugs was cancer chemotherapy (19.8%), followed by antimicrobial chemotherapy and endocrinology (18.2% each). The most common vaccine was the influenza vaccine (21.4%), followed by the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (15.5%). The pharmaceutical industry was the predominant sponsor for most (91%) of the Phase 1 trials. Of the top five sites where most of the Phase 1 trials were conducted, three were private nonacademic centers (cumulatively 31%) and two were tertiary care medical colleges (cumulatively 9%).

Conclusion

Phase 1 clinical trials seem to be conducted in India predominantly with industry sponsorship. There is a need to have an alternate ecosystem to take forward molecules that do not receive adequate attention from the industry and molecules that are of national health priority other than areas such as chemotherapy, antimicrobials, and endocrinology. The Indian Council of Medical Research is setting up Phase 1 clinical trial capacity for molecules that predominantly may arise from nonindustry channels.

Discrepancies between FDA documents and ClinicalTrials.gov for Orphan Drug-related clinical trial data

Clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) hold large amounts of data regarding trials. Drugs for rare diseases are known as orphan drugs (ODs), and it is particularly important that trials for ODs are registered, and the data in the trial record are accurate. However, there may be discrepancies between trial-related data that were the basis for the approval of a drug, as available from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents such as the Medical Review, and the data in CTG. We performed an audit of FDA-approved ODs, comparing trial-related data on phase, enrollment, and enrollment attribute (anticipated or actual) in such FDA documents and in CTG. The Medical Reviews of 63 ODs listed 422 trials. We used study identifiers in the Medical Reviews to find matches with the trial ID number, 'Other ID' or 'Acronyms' in CTG, and identified 202 trials that were registered with CTG. In comparing the phase data from the 'Table of Clinical Studies' of the Medical Review, with the data in CTG, there were exact matches in only 75% of the cases. The enrollment matched only in 70% of the cases, and the enrollment attribute in 91% of the cases. A similar trend was found for the sub-set of pivotal trials. Going forward, for all trials listed in a registry, it is important to provide the trial ID in the Medical Review. This will ensure that all trials that are the basis of a drug approval can be swiftly and unambiguously identified in CTG. Also, there continue to be discrepancies in trial data between FDA documents and CTG. Data in the trial records in CTG need to be updated when relevant.

Analysis of AYUSH studies registered in clinical trials registry of India from 2009 to 2020

Background

The Clinical Trials Registry—India (CTRI) is an initiative of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India (ICMR) and monitored by the ICMR-National Institute of Medical Statistics (NIMS) since July 20, 2007. Randomized clinical trials are considered as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. Registration of clinical trials enables disseminating evidence among clinicians, researchers, and patients. It promotes transparency and avoids duplication. The registration process is mandatory for AYUSH clinical trials also.

Objectives

This analysis is aimed to determine the different characteristics of registered AYUSH clinical trials in CTRI from 2009 to 2020.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional retrospective analysis was conducted. The information on registered clinical trials about AYUSH was obtained from the website www.ctri.nic.in from 2009 to 2020 (n = 3632; last accessed on July 30 2020). Data analysis considered the following factors for analysis using descriptive statistics. The number of clinical trials registered in AYUSH stream were classified according to registration type (retrospective/prospective), postgraduate dissertations (yes/no), primary sponsor, type of trial (interventional/observational), study design, health condition and State-wise distribution of sites of studies.

Results

The number of clinical trial registrations among AYUSH streams (3632) descends from Ayurveda (2054), followed by Siddha (635), Yoga (408), Unani (366) and Homoeopathy (169). Interventional studies dominate observational studies among all AYUSH registered trials. AYUSH streams took four years to register in CTRI due to an increase in reporting trials from 2013. Significant number of trials were registered retrospectively. The order of closure of retrospective registration has influenced an increase in prospective enrolment between 2017–2019.

Conclusion

Registration of clinical trials in the CTRI should be encouraged. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) occupy a rear seat which exposes an opportunity for trials and alarms about weak trials. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are registered more comparatively, which reflects the strength of AYUSH in NCDs. Most of the trials fall under phase 2, which seems to have an increasing opportunity for more trials. Certain visible flaws like registering Phase 2 trials as Phase 3 or 4 and domestic trials as international trials reflect human resources crunch in ICMR-CTRI in Issuing Certificates. These errors should be rectified by training the stakeholders effectively.

•

This cross-sectional study measures compliance of AYUSH registered clinical trials and their coherence with the regulations.

•

The study has highlighted SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity & Threat) with all AYUSH streams involving all stakeholders.

•

Preparedness for registration as prospective and generating evidence.

A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one

Background

It is an ethical and scientific obligation to register each clinical trial, and report its results, accurately, comprehensively and on time. The WHO recognizes 17 public registries as Primary Registries, and has also introduced a set of minimal standards in the International Standards for Clinical Trial Registries (ISCTR) that primary registries need to implement. These standards are categorized into nine sections—Content, Quality and Validity, Accessibility, Unambiguous Identification, Technical Capacity, Administration and Governance, the Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS), Partner registries and Data Interchange Standards. This study compared the WHO’s primary registries, and the US’s ClinicalTrials.gov, to examine the implementation of ISCTR, with the aim of defining features of an interim ideal registry.

Methods and findings

The websites of the 18 registries were evaluated for 14 features that map to one or more of the nine sections of ISCTR, and assigned scores for their variations of these features. The assessed features include the nature of the content; the number and nature of fields to conduct a search; data download formats; the nature of the audit trail; the health condition category; the documentation available on a registry website; etc. The registries received scores for their particular variation of a given feature based on a scoring rationale devised for each individual feature analysed. Overall, the registries received between 27% and 80% of the maximum score of 94. The results from our analysis were used to define a set of features of an interim ideal registry.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the widely divergent quality of the primary registries’ compliance with the ISCTR. Even with this limited assessment, it is clear that some of the registries have much work to do, although even a few improvements would significantly improve them.

Relationship between clinical trials and disease burden of India: A cross-sectional study

Background:

Research output/efforts in a country should be reflective of the disease burden. India is a site for several national and multinational clinical trials. However, whether clinical trials performed in India reflect the disease burden is not well known.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between disease burden and clinical trials performed in India.

Materials and Methods:

We extracted data on the disease burden from the World Health Organization (WHO) website and on characteristics of clinical trials performed in India from the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CRTI). The correlation between disease burden parameters of overall mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), years lost due to disability (YLD) and years of life lost (YLL), and the frequency of clinical trials associated with a particular disease was assessed. Additional subgroup analysis according to the number of trial centers, study phase, and medicine type was also performed.

Results:

Only 18% of clinical trials addressed top 10 diseases associated with 68.3% of overall mortality, and 8% of clinical trials addressed top 10 diseases associated with 52.3% of DALYs. Similarly, 16% of clinical trials addressed top 10 diseases associated with 53.2% YLDs. Furthermore, top 10 diseases associated with 65.9% of YLLs were addressed in only 8% of ongoing clinical trials. The overall correlation between any disease burden parameters with the diseases being explored in clinical trials was poor.

Conclusion:

There is a mismatch between diseases for which clinical trials are happening in the India and the disease burden of India. Measures need to be taken to fulfill this gap between demand and need.

Clinical Trials Registry - India: A decadal perspective

OBJECTIVE:

To present a descriptive analysis of the clinical studies registered in the Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) and deduce its impact.

METHODS:

We searched the CTRI database for all registered clinical studies from July 20, 2007 to May 31, 2018. Extracted data were analyzed in three time periods i.e., Periods 1, 2, and 3 based on the major activities and milestones of the CTRI. In addition, comparative registrations of the various Primary Registries of the WHO were compiled and registration policy of Indian journals with regard to trial registration assessed.

RESULTS:

A total of 20,160 clinical studies were submitted to the CTRI in the designated study period. Of the registered 14,341 clinical studies, 10,485 (76.3%) were interventional trials which were either regulatory (n = 2004), academic non-regulatory (n = 3855), or those conducted as part of PG thesis (n = 4626) trials. Regulatory trials registration numbers varied according to the Indian regulatory scenario. PG thesis trial registrations showed a steep rise, although unlike regulatory trials, these were mostly retrospective registrations. CTRI registration numbers were comparable to that in other Primary Registries. Instructions to authors of 48% indexed Indian journals made a mention of trial registration.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CTRI has a strong global presence and has enhanced the transparency of regulatory trials as well as academic research particularly thesis-based work. The latter is expected to help improve standard of research and prevent repetitive research. Additional support from Indian journal editors by strict implementation of prospective registration is crucial for increasing compliance by researchers.

An audit of studies registered retrospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India: A one year analysis

Background:

The Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) was launched in July 2007 and will enter its tenth year in 2017. While its mission is to encourage prospective trial registration, CTRI does permit retrospective trial registration. Against this backdrop, the present audit was carried out with the primary objective of assessing the nature and extent of trials retrospectively registered with CTRI.

Methods:

All studies registered in the year 2016 were searched within CTRI using the keyword “CTRI/2016.” The total number of trials registered in that year, their phase, the source of funding and their nature (Interventional or observational; whether postgraduate theses or otherwise, source of funding (pharmaceutical industry/Government of India/Institute Funded), whether prospectively or retrospectively registered were noted. We also tested for the association between the nature of the trial and retrospective registration using the Chi-square test and generated crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results:

A total of 1147 studies were registered in 2016, of which 719 (63%) were retrospectively registered. Interventional studies formed the majority of studies at n = 926 (81%), while postgraduate theses constituted half of the studies (384; 53%). Postgraduate theses (relative to all other studies) were twice as likely to be retrospectively registered (cOR 2.4 [1.8, 3.0], p < 0.0001). Studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry were four times more likely to be registered prospectively relative to nonindustry funded studies (cOR 4.4 [3.2, 5.9], p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Given that CTRI will be insisting on prospective registration effective April 1, 2018, and as trial registration is an ethical, scientific and moral imperative, prospective registration must always be done as prerequisite to participant protection.

An Unusual Presentation of Rectal Carcinoma in a Child

Colorectal carcinoma is a well-known malignancy in adults. However, it is rare in children. Besides, it also has different behaviour in paediatric age-group and usually presents with non-specific symptoms like abdominal pain, weight loss, and anaemia. This usually leads to delay in diagnosis. Adenocarcinoma in children has unfavourable tumour histology (mucinous subtype) and advanced disease stage at presentation which lead to poorer prognosis in children. Family history, genetic typing and sibling screening are essential components of management as this malignancy is frequently seen associated with hereditary syndromes. We describe a case of unusual presentation of rectal carcinoma in a 12-year-old girl.

Ethics in Psychiatric Research: Issues and Recommendations

Psychiatric research has increased remarkably over recent decades to help in understanding the current trends and better therapeutic options for illness. On the other hand, there is also a trend toward higher rates of retraction of published papers in the recent years. Ethics is required to maintain and increase the overall quality and morality of research. Psychiatric research faces several unique ethical challenges. Ethical guidelines are very important tool of research which safeguards participants; however, there is a dearth of such guidelines in India. The present paper aims to review available ethical issues and guidelines pertaining to psychiatric research. A search was conducted on Pubmed using search terms (e.g., "ethics," "psychiatry," "research"). Relevant studies were selected for the review after manual screening of title/abstract. Additional sources were referred to using cross references and Google Scholar. Psychiatric research has several important ethical issues which are different from other medical disciplines. These issues are related to informed consent, confidentiality, conflict of interest, therapeutic misconception, placebo related, vulnerability, exploitation, operational challenges, among others. The current paper has made several recommendations to deal with ethical challenges commonly faced in psychiatric research. The ethical guidelines are utmost needed for Indian psychiatric research. Specific guidelines are lacking pertaining to psychiatric research. The issues and recommendations merit a further discussion and consideration.

Clinical trials in dentistry in India: Analysis from trial registry

Introduction:

Evidence-based practice requires clinical trials to be performed. In India, if any clinical trial has to be performed, it has to be registered with clinical trial registry of India. Studies have shown that the report of clinical trials is poor in dentistry. Hence, the present study has been conducted to assess the type and trends of clinical trials being undertaken in dentistry in India over a span of 6 years.

Methodology:

All the clinical trials which were registered with the Central Trial Registry of India (CTRI) (www.ctri.nic.in) from January 1, 2007 to March 3, 2014 were evaluated using the keyword “dental.” Following information were collected for each of the clinical trials obtained from the search; number of centres (single center/multicentric), type of the institution undertaking the research (government/private/combined), study (observational/interventional), study design (randomized/single blinded/double-blinded), type of health condition, type of participants (healthy/patients), sponsors (academia/commercial), phase of clinical trial (Phase 1/2/3/4), publication details (published/not published), whether it was a postgraduate thesis or not and prospective or retrospective registration of clinical trials, methodological quality (method of randomization, allocation concealment). Descriptive statistics was used for analysis of various categories. Trend analysis was done to assess the changes over a period of time.

Results:

The search yielded a total of 84 trials of which majority of them were single centered. Considering the study design more than half of the registered clinical trials were double-blinded (47/84 [56%]). With regard to the place of conducting a trial, most of the trials were planned to be performed in private hospitals (56/84 [66.7%]). Most (79/84, 94.1%) of the clinical trials were interventional while only 5/84 (5.9%) were observational. Majority (65/84, 77.4%) of the registered clinical trials were recruiting patients while the rest were being done in healthy participants. From 2011, some of the postgraduate thesis trials had also been registered (2011-8; 2012-8; 2013-13; 2014-6). Inadequacy in reporting the method of randomization and allocation concealment was observed in 37/67 (55.2%) and 31/67 (46.2%) clinical trials respectively. A considerable number of postgraduate theses was also registered with CTRI in dentistry and majority of the clinical trials despite being completed are not yet published.

Conclusion:

The number of clinical trials in dentistry are low in India, and more focus should be placed by dental investigators regarding the reporting standards. Furthermore, researchers and trial sponsors should aim at publication of the research findings so that it is made publically available for use. A clear-cut need exists for an increase in both the quantity and quality of clinical trials in dentistry.

Colorectal carcinoma in the first decade of life: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to better understand the main aspects related to colorectal carcinoma diagnosed in the first 10 years of life, through a systematic review.

METHODS

We carried out a bibliographic search in PubMed and LILACS, focusing on identifying publications or case reports about colorectal carcinoma in the first 10 years of life. The bibliographical analysis was made in two steps. During the first phase, we excluded those articles whose titles or abstracts did not correspond with the objective settled. Publications without abstract were also included in this phase. During the second phase, we look at the articles and evaluated their content, selecting the cases with colorectal cancer under 10 years old.

RESULTS

From 3880 publications, 132 were selected in the first phase and 84 were evaluated in the second phase. Based on these conditions, 33 articles have cases presented which 4 articles were case reviews and 29 were case reports. Duplicated cases were excluded from the analysis. Fifty-nine cases were described in English and Latin literature. There is an apparent similar proportion between the sexes, and the mean age was 8.6 years old. The main localization was the rectum and sigmoid (45.8 %). Pathologic findings showed that 86.4 % were adenocarcinoma. These tumors are frequently advanced at diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier 60-month overall survival was 15.3 %. Dukes classification represents a factor related to survival (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In children, colorectal carcinoma presents distinctive characteristics, which determines poor survival.

Colorectal carcinoma in first decade of life: our experience

INTRODUCTION

Though the lifetime risk of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in general population is 5-6 %, it is uncommon in pediatric age group. Here, we are reporting our experience of CRC in the first decade of life.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2013, seven patients with histopathologically confirmed colorectal carcinoma were treated in the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Chittagong Medical College and hospital. Age, sex, presenting symptoms, location of the primary tumor, serum CEA level, treatment modalities and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were four male and three female patients and age ranged from 6.5 to 10.5 years. Rectum (3 patients) and rectosigmoid (2 patients) were the most common primary sites. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen level was obtained in six patients and in only one patient the level was raised markedly (137 ng/ml). Two patients of familial adenomatous polyposis had localized disease and others presented in an advanced stage. Histopathologically, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma was noted in five patients with one signet ring cell type and well differentiated in rest of the two patients. Only one patient was surviving at the last follow up.

CONCLUSION

Advanced stage at diagnosis, aggressive histologic subtype and poor survival are the hallmarks of pediatric CRC.

Clinical trials in India: Where do we stand globally?

Aims:

To evaluate the trend of clinical trials in India over the last 4 years compared to the well-established countries using clinical trial registries since the advent of clinical trial registry of India (CTRI).

Materials and Methods:

The data of clinical trials registered in India, United States (US), and European Union (EU) were obtained from websites of CTRI, clinicaltrial.gov and EU clinical trial registry, respectively from July 20, 2007 to August 29, 2011 for a period of 4 years. Trials registered in Australia, Canada, China, and Japan were obtained from WHO's international clinical trial registry platform for the same period. We used search words for the common diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc.,

Results:

The total number of clinical trials registered during the study period was 67,448 across seven study nations. Clinical trials from India constituted only 2.7% of the total number of trials carried out, compared to US constituting 47% of the total number of trials registered, followed by 18% from EU and 11% from Japan. However, India, China, and Japan have been found to show an increase of 3.7%, 5.1%, and 13.1% increase in the number of trials registered in 2011 compared to 2007. In contrast, US and EU showed a decline of 11.3% and 11.95% respectively in the total number of trials registered in 2011 compared to 2007.

Conclusions:

Although India shows gradual increase in trials registered since the advent of CTRI, still it continues to lag behind established countries in clinical research.

CTRI - Clicking to greater transparency and accountability

A clinical trial registry (CTR) is an official platform for registering a clinical trial (CT) with an objective of providing increased transparency and access to CTs to the public at large. Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) is a free online public record system for registration of CTs being conducted in India. The vision of the CTRI is to ensure that every CT conducted in the region is prospectively registered with full disclosure of the trial data set items. With more number of CTs being conducted in the country, with a large number being global multicentre trials, it is binding on the industry/investigators/sponsor to comply with the requirements laid down. While there are pros and cons, there is enough scope for improvement of CTRI.

Prospective registration of clinical trials in India: strategies, achievements & challenges

OBJECTIVE

This paper traces the development of the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) against the backdrop of the inequities in healthcare and the limitations in the design, conduct, regulation, oversight and reporting of clinical trials in India. It describes the scope and goals of the CTRI, the data elements it seeks and the process of registering clinical trials. It reports progress in trial registration in India and discusses the challenges in ensuring that healthcare decisions are informed by all the evidence.

METHODS

A descriptive survey of developments in clinical trial registration in India from publications in the Indian medical literature supplemented by first hand knowledge of these developments and an evaluation of how well clinical trials registered in the CTRI up to 10 January, 2009 comply with the requirements of the CTRI and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry (WHO ICTRP).

RESULTS

Considerable inequities exist within the Indian health system. Deficiencies in healthcare provision and uneven regulation of, and access to, affordable healthcare co-exists with a large private health system of uneven quality. India is now a preferred destination for outsourced clinical trials but is plagued by poor ethical oversight of the many trial sites and scant information of their existence. The CTRI's vision of conforming to international requirements for transparency and accountability but also using trial registration as a means of improving trial design, conduct and reporting led to the selection of registry-specific dataset items in addition to those endorsed by the WHO ICTRP. Compliance with these requirements is good for the trials currently registered but these trials represent only a fraction of the trials in progress in India.

CONCLUSION

Prospective trial registration is a reality in India. The challenges facing the CTRI include better engagement with key stakeholders to ensure increased prospective registration of clinical trials and utilization of existing legislative opportunities to complement these efforts.