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.

No abstract

No abstract