| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 4
| Issue : 3 | Page : 160-164 |
|
|
Clinical trials in India: Where do we stand globally?
Sandhiya Selvarajan1, Melvin George2, S Suresh Kumar1, Steven Aibor Dkhar1
1 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India
2 Department of Cardiology, SRM Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, India
Correspondence Address:
Sandhiya Selvarajan
Senior Resident, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry -605 006
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.115373
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
