Skip to main content

New drugs without trials!

Image result for clinical trials

The Union health ministry is reported to be considering to do away with the mandatory three phase clinical trials before launching new drugs if they have proved their safety and efficacy in developed countries. For this exemption, these new drugs should have been approved and marketed for at least two years in the markets of European Union, UK, US, Australia, Canada and Japan. The health ministry already sent the draft proposal in this regard to the ministry of law and justice for clearance. Permission to market new drugs are usually granted by the regulatory authorities in any country including in India only after carefully assessing the adverse drug reactions during the clinical trials. 

The health ministry thinks that the decision can avoid unnecessary repetition of trials and speed up the introduction of new drugs in the country. The health ministry thinks that change in trial rules should make it easier for the pharmaceutical companies to introduce drugs in India which are already in use in regulated markets. Currently, apart from top MNCs like Pfizer, GSK, Novartis and Novo Nordisk, a large number of contract research organizations and Indian companies are doing clinical trials in India for more than 20 years.

The health ministry is probably right in holding the view that introduction of new drugs get delayed to the extend of five to six years in India after they are launched in the developed markets just because of the stipulation of fresh clinical trials in India too for marketing approval. Such a decision of the health ministry now will be of great advantage to multinational companies as they do not have to conduct highly expensive clinical trials, recruit subjects at high costs and wait for the approval of the regulatory authorities. And whatever new drugs are coming out are from the research labs of MNCs in the developed countries. 

Granting marketing permission to new drugs without clinical trials in India only on the ground that they are in the markets of developed countries for two years is may not be a perfect move. It is no secret that these developed countries had withdrawn some of the high profile drugs like rimonabant, rosiglitazone, nimesulide, cisapride and phenylpropanolamine from the market some years of their launches on account of serious side effects. And Indian drug regulator followed it up by recalling from Indian market also. 

All these drugs were introduced in various markets after three phase trials. No chemical drug is totally safe and a marketing permission is given after weighing the extent of benefit over its adverse reactions. Safety is more important than efficacy of a new drug so as to avoid serious injuries to patients. Therefore, a stricter evaluation of safety and efficacy of any new drug should be upon the regulators of individual countries.

Source

ᐧ

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BE guidelines regarding investigator

BE guidelines recommend investigator should possess appropriate medical qualification, experience for conducting pharmacokinetic studies Can chairperson of EC directly write to sponsor to clarify some of the queries of clinical trial raised in EC meeting? Dr. Sreevatsa Please see an extract from FDA's comment on IRB-sponsor relationship. The interrelationship and interaction between the research sponsor (e.g., drug, biologic and device manufacturers), the clinical investigator and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) may be very complex. The regulations do not prohibit direct sponsor-IRB contacts, although, the sponsor-IRB interaction customarily occurs through the investigator who conducts the clinical study. The clinical investigator generally provides the communication link between the IRB and the sponsor. Such linkage is agreed to by the sponsors and investigators when they sign forms FDA-1571 and FDA-1572, respectively, for drug and biologic studies or a...
Post a Comment
Read more

ICH GCP requires EC members to be independent of investigator and sponsor to avoid conflicts of interest

Can an Ethics Committee member e.g. layman/chairman or anyone in the committee participate in the trial as a subject? Vidya If an Ethics Committee member becomes a trial subject on a trial that he/she was involved in approving then there has been a major conflict of interest. The following situations need to be considered: ● IEC member reviews study without any prior knowledge of the study, votes, and then afterwards is approached by clinical research team to participate. Possibly this is OK but the member should no longer be part of the IEC that reviews that study. This will be difficult in practice, so therefore it is not advisable. ● IEC member already knows about the study and is voting in order to be able to participate. This is clearly not acceptable and made worse if there is additional financial incentive for the study (e.g. volunteer study). ICH GCP requires Ethics Committee members to be independent of the investigator and the sponsor to avoid confl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Combination Vaccine for Kids withdrawn

A vaccine that combines conventional MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) with Chikenpox has been withdrawn in the United States due to a higher rate of seizures in children. In a study children aged 12 to 23 months who received the combined MMR cum Chickenpox vaccine had double the rate of seizures compared to children who got separate vaccine for MMR and chickenpox. This equates to one additional case of convulsion per 2000 vaccinations.
Post a Comment
Read more