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 It is no secret that these developed countries had withdrawn some of the high profile drugs like rimonabant, rosiglitazone, nimesulide, cisapride and phenylpropanolamine from the market some years of their launches on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.


ᐧ

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Registration of herbal trials in CTRI is not mandatory

A trial patient visited the site complaining breathlessness and tachycardia. The investigator advised hospitalization but as subject could not afford the expenses, he refused for admission. Is this an SAE because investigator advised hospitalization? G Praveen Kumar. If the patient was not hospitalized, it does not fall into SAE criteria of hospitalization. However, it appears from your mail that the PI felt that the event was serious enough to admit the subject for treatment. This makes it an “important medical event." As per ICH E2A such event also are considered serious. See the ICH E2A excerpt below: Medical and scientific judgement should be exercised in deciding whether expedited reporting is appropriate in other situations, such as important medical events that may not be immediately life-threatening or result in death or hospitalisation but may jeopardise the patient or may require intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed in the defin...

Evidence for Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs Called into Question

Despite massive advertising and booming prescriptions, use and sales, the new atypical antipsychotic medications such as Seroquel and Abilify – used to treat schizophrenia , bipolar disorder, depression and other illnesses – lack sufficient evidence to support their widespread and generalized usage. This according to a new study out of the Stanford University School of Medicine and University of Chicago. In the past decade, atypical antipsychotics have rocketed past many commonly prescribed, but older antidepressant and other psychiatric medications. Although initially touted as having few side effects, followup studies have found that atypical antipsychotics have serious side effects, including significant weight gain that can lead to diabetes and heart disease. “Because these drugs have safety issues, physicians should prescribe them only when they are sure patients will get substantial benefits,” said Randall Stafford, M.D., Ph.D., a Stanford associate pro...

In India, there is no separate guidance on pregnancy reporting

How will we conclude that the subject is illiterate? Dr Prakash Atlam The guidelines don’t use the term illiterate. Their focus is subject’s ability to read and/or write. Schedule Y treats anyone who is unable to read or write in the same way. See the excerpt below. If the subject or his/her legally acceptable representative is unable to read/write - an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent process who must append his/her signatures to the consent form. While designing a protocol we found that there are high likely chances of worsening of some of the symptoms. Do we have to wait for these to happen and report it as SAE or in case we define them in the protocol upfront then can we prevent from expediting reporting it as SAE? Om Please see suggested guidance from ICH. Exemption from reporting such events would require prior agreement with regulatory authorities. ICH E3 12.2.2 Display of Adverse Events: All adverse events occurrin...