부산대학교 도서관

In multinational trials that have run in India, we wished to determine whether there was too much (60% or higher) recruitment from India. We downloaded all trial records from Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI, and stored them in a local SQLite database. We queried records registered in a recent 8-year period, ie 2013–2020 and evaluated the fraction of local participants in interventional Phase 2 or Phase 3 studies. 62 trials were completed, with completion dates available. Five trials (8%) had 60% or more planned recruitment from India. Four of the five (7% of 62) had a foreign sponsor, and therefore there was an unfair burden-benefit ratio on the Indian population. Seven trials (11%), of which six (10% of 62) had foreign sponsors, had 60% or more (of the total) actual recruitment from India, and for two trials (both with foreign sponsors), the data were meaningless. There were 362 studies that were listed as not completed, although, given their start date and estimated duration, some of them ought to have been. Twenty five cases (7% of 362) had 60% or more planned recruitment from India. Of these, 18 (5% of 362) had foreign sponsors and were potentially problematic. Even allowing for some delays in completion, 128 (35% of 362) studies ought to have been completed by the time of our study. As such, we identified several problematic trials for which the planned recruitment from India in multinational studies was 60% or more. We also identified trials in which the actual recruitment was significantly higher than the planned recruitment. Further, the records of several studies that were probably completed were not updated in CTRI in a timely manner. The Indian drug regulator needs to be particularly alert to the planned, or actual, over-recruitment of participants from India. Further, CTRI, alone or in collaboration with the regulator, needs to ensure that multinational trial records for the enrollment fields in particular are updated, in a timely manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]