Search

ABSTRACTAZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) is a replication-deficient adenoviral vectored coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccine that is manufactured as SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 by the Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd following technology transfer from Oxford University/AstraZeneca. The non-inferiority of SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with AZD1222 was previously demonstrated in an observer-blind, phase 2/3 immuno-bridging study (trial registration: CTRI/2020/08/027170). In this analysis of immunogenicity and safety data 6 months post first vaccination (Day 180), 1,601 participants were randomized 3:1 to SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or AZD1222 (immunogenicity/reactogenicity cohort n = 401) and 3:1 to SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or placebo (safety cohort n = 1,200). Immunogenicity was measured by anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike (anti-S) binding immunoglobulin G and neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers. A decline in anti-S titers was observed in both vaccine groups, albeit with a greater decline in SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccinees (geometric mean titer [GMT] ratio [95% confidence interval (CI) of SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 to AZD1222]: 0.60 [0.41–0.87]). Consistent similar decreases in nAb titers were observed between vaccine groups (GMT ratio [95% CI]: 0.88 [0.44–1.73]). No cases of severe COVID-19 were reported following vaccination, while one case was observed in the placebo group. No causally related serious adverse events were reported through 180 days. No thromboembolic or autoimmune adverse events of special interest were reported. Collectively, these data illustrate that SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 maintained a high level of immunogenicity 6 months post-vaccination. SII-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was safe and well tolerated.

Summary: Background: NVX-CoV2373, a Covid-19 vaccine was developed in the USA with ∼90% efficacy. The same vaccine is manufactured in India after technology transfer (called as SII-NVX-CoV2373), was evaluated in this phase 2/3 immuno-bridging study. Methods: This was an observer-blind, randomised, phase 2/3 study in 1600 adults. In phase 2, 200 participants were randomized 3:1 to SII-NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. In phase 3, 1400 participants were randomized 3:1 to SII-NVX-CoV2373 or NVX-CoV2373 (940 safety cohort and 460 immunogenicity cohort). Two doses of study products (SII-NVX-CoV2373, NVX-CoV2373 or placebo) were given 3 weeks apart. Primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority of SII-NVX-CoV2373 to NVX-CoV2373 in terms of geometric mean ELISA units (GMEU) ratio of anti-S IgG antibodies 14 days after the second dose (day 36) and to determine the incidence of causally related serious adverse events (SAEs) through 180 days after the first dose. Anti-S IgG response was assessed using an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and neutralizing antibodies (nAb) were assessed by a microneutralization assay using wild type SARS CoV-2 in participants from the immunogenicity cohort at baseline, day 22, day 36 and day 180. Cell mediated immune (CMI) response was assessed in a subset of 28 participants from immunogenicity cohort by ELISpot assay at baseline, day 36 and day 180. The total follow-up was for 6 months. Trial registration: CTRI/2021/02/031554. Findings: Total 1596 participants (200 in Phase 2 and 1396 in Phase 3) received the first dose. SII-NVX-CoV2373 was found non-inferior to NVX-CoV2373 (anti-S IgG antibodies GMEU ratio 0.91; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.06). At day 36, there was more than 58-fold rise in anti-S IgG and nAb titers compared to baseline in both the groups. On day 180 visit, these antibody titers declined to levels slightly lower than those after the first dose (13–22 fold-rise above baseline). Incidence of unsolicited and solicited AEs was similar between the SII-NVX-CoV2373 and NVX-CoV2373 groups. No adverse event of special interest (AESI) was reported. No causally related SAE was reported. Interpretation: SII-NVX-CoV2373 induced a non-inferior immune response compared to NVX-CoV2373 and has acceptable safety profile. Funding: SIIPL, Indian Council of Medical Research, Novavax.

Introduction: The Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) that initially permitted retrospective registration moved to mandatory prospective registration of studies with effect from April 1, 2018. The present study was an audit that compared registration 1 year post the rule versus a year prior to it. Materials and Methods: All studies registered with the CTRI from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and subsequently from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, were included for the analysis. The extents of retrospective registration a year pre and a year post April 1, 2018, of all studies were evaluated. Results: A total of 4628 studies were registered prior to April 1, 2018, and 5438 post that. Pre April 1, 2018, 2687 / 4628 (58.06%) studies were retrospectively registered, while post that, 1100 / 5438 (20.23%) studies were retrospectively registered (cOR: 5.46 [5.0, 5.9], P < 0.001). Regardless of whether the studies were PG theses, regulatory studies, observational studies, or interventional studies, there was a statistically significant reduction in the number retrospectively registered post April 1, 2018, relative to the year predating it. Discussion and Conclusion: The success of CTRI's decision to move to prospective registration is seen in the overall reduction in the total number of retrospective registrations from nearly two-thirds in the year predating April 1, 2018, to just a quarter in the year post that, indicating significant inroads made by the CTRI with regard to raising awareness. Some regulatory studies continue to be retrospectively registered and this presents a significant ethical and regulatory breach. This could be potentially addressed by linking ethics committee approval with trial registration.

Background: The approval process of every drug regulatory agency differs, and hence, the time required for the approval of a new drug varies. This results in a drug lag and India is no exception to this phenomenon. A drug lag precludes Indian patients from accessing new medicines at the same time as they are approved elsewhere. Against this backdrop, we assessed the absolute and relative drug lags of the Indian regulator relative to three regulators in mature markets, namely United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan. Methods: International nonproprietary names were used to identify new drugs. Their dates of approval (2004-2018) from the online database of four regulatory agencies were identified. Both absolute and relative drug lags were calculated for India as compared to US, EU, and Japan as well for all the agencies relative to the Indian regulator. Results: We identified a total of 453, 473, 424, and 472 new drugs approved over the study period in India, US, EU, and Japan, respectively. The absolute drug lag of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) was 19 and 18 relative to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), respectively. The relative drug lag for the CDSCO vis-a-vis the US FDA, European Medicines Agency, and PMDA was 43.2 (2.1–1287.8), 25.6 (0.03–1310.5), and 30.3 (1.2–1242) months, respectively. Conclusion: Our study shows a significant drug lag between India and other three developed nations (US, EU, and Japan). However, in some therapeutic areas, Indian regulator has proactively approved new drugs much before other agencies. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rule of 2019 has brought hope for reduction in drug lag in the near future.

Introduction: The Investigational New Drug (IND) committee advises the Drug Controller General of India on matters pertaining to clinical trials (CTs) of IND for clinical development. An audit of the minutes of this committee's meetings would shed light on the drug discovery in India. Methods: Minutes of the IND committee meetings available in the public domain (2-year period) were evaluated. The applications which were postponed were excluded from the study. Outcome measures were therapeutic areas of IND, purpose of the applications, status of registration with the CT Registry of India (CTRI), and the innovator country. Results: The minutes of N = 7 meetings were available in the public domain for the period January 2017–December 2018 with N = 45 agenda items. One agenda item was excluded, and n = 44 agenda items were finally analyzed. The total number of therapeutic agents discussed was N = 29, of which n = 7/29 and n = 6/29 belonged to infectious diseases (ID) and oncology, respectively. The total number of purposes of these applications was N = 46, of which n = 35/46 (76%) were to seek permission to conduct a CT, and n = 31/35 (88.6%) were found registered with CTRI as on April 01, 2019. Of the N = 46 purposes, n = 33/46 (71.7%) were approved. Of the n = 29 INDs discussed, n = 19/29 (65.52%) were of the Indian origin. Conclusions: Although a majority (65%) of INDs discussed in the meetings were of the Indian origin, the drug discovery was not in line to tackle the top ten causes of years of life lost prematurely (barring ID).

Background: A conflict of interest (COI) in publication exists when the primary interest of publication is influenced by a secondary interest (financial or non-financial). International guidelines are available that can be used by journal editors to formulate their own COI policies. The present study was carried out with the objective of evaluating COI policies existing among Indian biomedical journals. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed and MedIND/IndMed databases were searched. Inclusions were journals that were active and indexed. Outcome measures were proportion of journals: (a) mentioning COI disclosure statement for authors, reviewers, and editors, (b) adequately explaining COI, (c) referring to three international guidelines, and (d) the proportion of PubMed/other than PubMed indexed journals mentioning COI policy for authors, reviewers, and editors and providing an adequate explanation for COI. Apart from descriptive statistics, associations between indexing and COI Policy for all three stakeholders were evaluated. Results: A total of n = 106 journals formed the final sample. Among them, 82 (77%) were PubMed and 24 (23%) were MedIND/IndMed indexed. COI disclosure statement was mentioned in 93 (87.7%) journals for authors, 10 (9.4%) for reviewers, and 06 (5.6%) for editors. Only 35 (33%) journals adequately explained COI. A total of 61 (57.5%) journals endorsed all the three international guidelines. PubMed indexing was found to be associated with approximately 19 times the odds of COI policies being present on the journal's home page relative to the journals indexed with other indexing agencies (crude odds ratio - 18.8, 95% confidence interval [4.6, 77],P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Very few Indian biomedical journals have COI policies for reviewers and editors and most did not explain it adequately. Nearly, a fifth of the journals we evaluated did not follow any guideline for disclosing COI.

Introduction: A key determinant of the success of any study is the recruitment and subsequent retention of participants. Screen failure and dropouts impact both the scientific validity and financial viability of any study. We carried out this audit with the objective of evaluating the recruitment and retention of participants in clinical studies conducted over the last five years at our center. Methods: Studies completed between 2014 and 2018 at our center were included. Screening ledgers and study trackers were hand searched for screen failures and dropouts. Four pre-identified predictors were evaluated – risk as per the classification of Indian Council of Medical Research 2017 Ethical Guideline, nature of funding, study design, and nature of participants. Association of the predictors with screen failures and dropouts was determined using crude odds ratios along with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were done at 5% significance using Microsoft Excel 2016. Results: A total of n = 19 completed studies had n = 2567 screened and n = 2442 enrolled participants with a screen failure and dropout rate of 5% and 4%, respectively. We found 59% screen failures due to abnormal laboratory values. The main reasons for dropouts were lost to follow-up 86 (88%). High-risk and interventional studies were the predictors for both screen failures and dropouts, but pharmaceutical industry-funded studies and healthy participants were predictors for only screen failures. Conclusion: Risk, funding, study design, and nature of participants are important to be considered while planning studies to minimize screen failures and dropouts.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recently released their updated Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Guide (2019). The pocket guide for practicing clinicians states that “the 2019 GINA strategy report represents the most important change in asthma management in 30 years.” An important recommendation is the change in treatment strategy for the management of mild asthma where the guideline recommends that” all adults and adolescents with asthma should receive either symptom driven (in mild asthma) or daily low dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing controller treatment to reduce the risk of serious exacerbations.” Our study critically appraises the SYGMA-2 trial, a key trial that largely formed the basis of this recommendation and discusses the potential consequences of using only long-acting beta-2-agonist + ICS as needed as against regular, daily low-dose ICS with as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist. Our critique covers airway inflammation, disease heterogeneity, understanding the noninferiority margin and its consequences, the Hawthorne effect, and conflict of interest. It is our view that statement of this magnitude will have far-reaching implications for clinical practice which will be in the interests of some patients but also against the interests of others.

Drug development is a tedious and expensive procedure and it takes roughly 10 to 15 years to take a potential treatment from bench to bedside and costs the pharmaceutical companies as much as USD ~2 billion for the process. Delay in investigator-initiated studies can cause financial loss to grant providers (either public or private) and investigator's reputation may also be at stake. Participant recruitment and retention are two major bottlenecks in conducting clinical trials and contribute vastly to the delays. They are essential for both scientific validity of the clinical study and economic reasons. Thus, issues in recruitment and retention should be addressed and minimized. A proper recruitment and retention plan incorporating adequate communication between all stakeholders will eventually avoid the delays in drug development and make treatments available to the consumer at an earlier date and at a more affordable price. Awareness of challenges and reviewing strategies that can optimise recruitment and retention will facilitate drug development. The article gives a first-person perspective on challenges and proposed solutions from an experienced clinical study centre in a tertiary care hospital.

Background: In January 2015, the Drugs Controller General of India approved the formation of 25 Subject Expert Committees [SEC] to aid the office of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization [CDSCO] with regards to decision making. The present study is an audit of the minutes of the meetings the SECs held over the past three years. Methods: All minutes during the period 1st July 2014 to 31st October 2017 were accessed from the CDSCO website. Applications were classified as those for clinical trials [CT] and those for marketing authorization [MA]. Each application was classified as being approved, amendment requested for or rejected. Results: A total of n = 317 meetings were held over a 40 month period with n = 2616 agenda items. The Oncology/Hematology SEC had the maximum number of meetings at n = 48 [15.1%]. Only n = 2030 [77.6%] were evaluable agenda items. There were 1082 [53%] applications for clinical trials, and 948 [47%] applications for MA with or without a request for a clinical trial waiver[CTW]. Applicants seeking CTW were 5 times more likely to be rejected [for the waiver] relative to those not seeking waivers (cOR 5 [3.8, 7], P

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.

Purpose: The Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury committee report recommended the accreditation of Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs). Rule 122DD of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (and Rules) mandates that only registered ECs can accord approval for regulatory studies. We evaluated the current status of registered, reregistered, and accredited ECs in the country to assess the impact of both the recommendation and rule. Materials and Methods: Websites of stakeholders-the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) were assessed. Information on registration status was then compared with regulatory clinical trials in the Clinical Trials Registry of India, population demographics of all states, and the Medical Council of India recognized postgraduate medical colleges in the various states. Results: A total of 1268 ECs were registered with CDSCO. Of these, 1008 (79.5%) were institutional and 256 (20.18%) independent ECs. A total of 499/1268 (39.4%) ECs were reregistered. Of which 449/499 (90%) were institutional and 50/499 (10%) were independent. Institutional ECs were five times more likely to be reregistered with CDSCO relative to independent ECs (cOR 4.52 [3.12, 6.54], P < 0.0001). A total of 15/233 (7%) applications to NABH had received accreditation. A wide skew was seen in the distribution of ECs across various states as also their oversight of regulatory clinical trials. Conclusions: Registration and reregistration of ECs along with accreditation is not commensurate with the needs of the country at this time and must be vigorously promoted.

Monitoring and audits are two distinct processes that ensure that the rights and safety of the participants are protected, and data integrity is maintained. The present narrative summates authors' experiences with monitoring and audits by sponsor along with challenges faced by the site. It also offers potential solutions for challenges faced during the process of monitoring and audits. It is important to remember that no monitoring or audit can ever substitute for a well-designed and articulated protocol. In addition, a determined approach by the investigator and his/her team to ensure that all aspects of the protocol are adhered to in totality will go a long way in assuring quality.

Investigator-initiated studies (IISs) help by generating data on effectiveness and safety of a drug in the real-world setting and attempt to answer questions that clinicians face in their day-to-day practice. These are studies that are initiated and managed by a nonpharmaceutical company researcher/s who could be an individual investigator, an institution or a group of institutions, and a collaborative study group or a cooperative group. They are largely driven by questions that arise beyond the completion of Phase III studies that have not been studied during Phases I–III of drug development. The benefits of doing IISs are often offset by the myriad challenges posed by an IIS. These include finances, regulatory submissions, continuous oversight, training of study personnel, lack of expertise in statistics, data management, and medical writing Nonetheless, doing an IIS is extremely rewarding for the investigator and has the capacity to contribute to evidence and eventually impact policy. The present article presents both a brief literature review of IISs and a personal narrative of experience gained during the conduct several IISs in the last two decades. Challenges and potential solutions are described.

The quality of the written informed consent process is one of the most important aspects of clinical research, as it is the single tool that serves as a metric of autonomy. Several challenges have been identified with the informed consent process in developing countries the most important of which is the ability to assimilate and understand the information presented in the consent form. In India, a unique aspect of the informed consent process is the need for audio-video [AV] recording of the process for vulnerable populations and new chemical entities. The present narrative summates authors' experiences as investigators with A-V recording of the informed consent process as also providing a brief narrative review of relevant literature. It also offers potential solutions for challenges faced during this process.

Abstract The radial distribution of Plasmodium vivax malaria burden has evoked enormous concern among the global research community. In this study, we have investigated the serum proteome alterations in non-severe vivax malaria patients before and during patient recuperation starting from the early febrile to the defervescence and convalescent stages of the infection. We have also performed an extensive quantitative proteomics analysis to compare the serum proteome profiles of vivax malaria patients with low (LPVM) and moderately-high (MPVM) parasitemia with healthy community controls. Interestingly, some of the serum proteins such as Serum amyloid A, Apolipoprotein A1, C-reactive protein, Titin and Haptoglobin, were found to be sequentially altered with respect to increased parasite counts. Analysis of a longitudinal cohort of malaria patients indicated reversible alterations in serum levels of some proteins such as Haptoglobin, Apolipoprotein E, Apolipoprotein A1, Carbonic anhydrase 1, and Hemoglobin subunit alpha upon treatment; however, the levels of a few other proteins did not return to the baseline even during the convalescent phase of the infection. Here we present the first comprehensive serum proteomics analysis of vivax malaria patients with different levels of parasitemia and during the acute and convalescent phases of the infection.

Background: Genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolizing enzymes (DMEs) impart distinct drug metabolizing capacity and a unique phenotype to an individual. Phenytoin has large inter-individual variability in metabolism due to polymorphisms in CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. As per Ayurveda, Prakriti imparts a unique phenotype to an individual. Objective: To assess whether Prakriti can substitute phenotyping [therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)] and genotyping in individualizing therapy with phenytoin in epilepsy patients. Methods and materials: This was a cross-sectional study conducted over a period of three years. Prakriti was assessed using standardized and validated software. Polymorphisms in CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 were assessed using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-Restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Plasma concentrations of phenytoin (phenotype) were determined using reverse phase-high performance liquid chromatography (RF-HPLC). Results: Total 351 patients were enrolled for the study. Kapha vata (KV) (39%) was the predominantly observed Prakriti followed by vata kapha (VK) (20.8%) and vata pitta (VP) (8.83%) among the patients. The CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 genotype distributions were in accordance with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. There was no association between Prakriti and genotypes and Prakriti and phenotype (p > 0.05 each). Patients with CYP2C9 *1/*3 genotype were thrice more likely to have toxic plasma concentrations of phenytoin as compared to those with wild-type genotype (*1/*1) (Adjusted odds ratio – 3.36; 95% C.I. 1.61, 7.01). However, no such association was observed between polymorphisms of CYP2C19 and phenotype. Conclusions: We did not find any association between Prakriti and either phenotype or genotypes suggesting that Prakriti assessment would be of limited utility in individualizing phenytoin therapy in epilepsy patients.

Purpose: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors mandates trial registration as a precondition for publication. Growing evidence indicates that information in registry may not correlate with eventual publication. The present study was carried out with the objective of comparing content of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in one year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), with the information contained in trial registries. Methods: All RCTs published in JAMA in 2013 were included. 11 data set items were matched for content between registry entry and published RCT: Title, Primary and Secondary Objectives, Study type, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria, Treatment Age Group, Follow up, Sample Size, Primary and Secondary Outcomes. A fully correct match was scored 2, partially correct 1 and incorrect 0. Thus, maximum possible score for each paper was number of items multiplied by 2, i.e., 22. Results: The median [range] total score achieved by RCTs was 15. No RCT achieved a perfect score of 22. The largest proportion of RCTs reported secondary objectives, study type, treatment age group, follow up, sample size and primary outcomes fully correctly. However, only 13.5 %, 12 % and 13.5 % of RCTs were a perfect match with registry entries in terms of title, primary objective and secondary outcomes respectively. Almost three quarters did not match perfectly in selection criteria. Conclusion: There exist discrepancies between trial registration and published paper even in a high impact factor journal. Both authors and editors should adhere to CONSORT guidelines to ensure transparency of published research.

Valbenazine is the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with tardive dyskinesia (TD) on April 11, 2017. It acts as a reversible inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter 2. It is available orally with a starting dose of 40 mg once daily which can be increased after 1 week to the recommended dose of 80 mg. Clinical trials showed positive outcomes in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale and Clinical Global Impression - Global Improvement of TD score with respect to placebo. Valbenazine has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, the most common side effect observed is somnolence. However, long-term study is lacking, and more data are required to establish its full benefits and concomitant risks which can be missed in the recent trials.

The academician forms the backbone of any medical college, hospital or university and shoulders the quadruple responsibilities of patient care, teaching, administration and research. Of these, research, though long and difficult, is extremely fulfilling. Academicians often carry out research that is based on observations in practice or in response to their patient's needs. These are called as “Investigator- initiated studies” and these may not have the funding support of the pharmaceutical industry. Hence, the investigator must make sure that he/she complies with the country's regulatory requirements. In the past decade, several changes have dotted the regulatory landscape in the country and have changed the way in which academic research is carried out. The present article outlines regulatory requirements for academic research giving their historical evolution, the key bodies in India that govern or oversee research, along with “must know” and “good to know” facets for the conduct of clinical research in the country.

Background: India continues to contribute disproportionately to the global burden of disease and public health research output from India is also known to be not commensurate with her healthcare needs. We carried out the present study to assess if clinical trials were in line with the health care needs of the country by auditing the clinical trials registry of India. Materials and Methods: All the clinical studies registered in CTRI between July 20, 2007 and December 31, 2015 were searched in the “Trial Search” section. The total number of studies, their phases of development, and therapeutic areas were assessed. Trials in each therapeutic area was compared with the disease burden (DALYs) in that area taken from Global Health Estimates [2014] Summary Tables of the WHO. The number of trials conducted per state in India was also compared with the population of that state [Census 2011]. Results: A total of 6474 studies were registered of which 3325 (51.4%) were clinical trials. The state of Maharashtra had the highest number trials [16.4%] followed by Karnataka ( 11.6%) and Tamil Nadu (10%). Populous states like Uttar Pradesh (5.3%) and Bihar (1.4%) had far fewer trials. The largest number of trials was in the area of cancer (16.4%), followed by diabetes (12.1%) and cardiovascular diseases (10.1%). Infectious and parasitic diseases had the highest DALYs (82,681) and ranked first in disease burden but accounted for only 5% of the total trials and ranked 7th according to number of trials. Cancer ranked first in the number of trials (16.4%), but ranked 6th based on DALYs. Conclusion: Clinical trials conducted in India are not in consonance with her health care needs. Strengthening the capacity for conducting trials in the populous states and the north-eastern part of the country is necessary to allow a more equitable selection of participants. The government should introduce policies to encourage new drug development in areas where needed the most.

Objective: Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 play major role in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin, respectively. Purpose of our study was to assess the utility of pretesting patients for the above mutations in predicting tendency for bleeding and achieving target INR. Methods: This was an audit of data collected between July 2011 and December 2016. For safety and efficacy, patients were divided into two subgroups: those with or without bleeding and those who achieved target INR or not. Chi square test was applied to compare the between group differences and crude Odds Ratio (cOR) calculated. Results: Among 521 patients evaluated, most common indication for warfarin therapy was valvular heart disease (210/521 = 40%); 36% (187/521) had at least one bleeding episode; 56% (269/479) had below target INR. 26% (136/521) had polymorphic alleles of CYP2C9 and 69% (358/521) had the GG haplotype of VKORC1. Polymorphic alleles of CYP2C9 or AG/AA haplotype had twice the odds of bleeding (cOR = 2.14 and 2.44 respectively) relative to those with wild CYP2C9 allele or GG haplotype. Combined CYP2C9 mutant alleles and/or AG/AA haplotypes had thrice the odds of bleeding (cOR = 3.12) relative to those with wild CYP2C9 alleles and GG haplotype. Those with GG haplotype had twice the odds (cOR = 1.81) and those with GG haplotype along with wild CYP2C9 allele had four times the odds (cOR = 4.27) of not achieving the target INR relative to those with other haplotype/alleles. All these associations were statistically significant (p