India's next challenge: Rebooting recruitment

Recruitment and retention of the participants in clinical trials: Challenges and solutions

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.

Drugs for cardiovascular disease in India: perspectives of pharmaceutical executives and government officials on access and development-a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

India shoulders the greatest global burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which are the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Drugs are the bedrock of treatment and prevention of CVD. India's pharmaceutical industry is the third largest, by volume, globally, but access to CVD drugs in India is poor. There is a lack of qualitative data from government and pharmaceutical sectors regarding CVD drug development and access in India.

METHODS

By purposive sampling, we recruited either Indian government officials, or pharmaceutical company executives. We conducted a stakeholder analysis via semi-structured, face-to-face interviews in India. Topic guides allow for the exploration of key issues across multiple interviews, along with affording the interviewer the flexibility to examine matters arising from the discussions themselves. After transcription, interviews underwent inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten participants were interviewed (Government Officials: n = 5, and Pharmaceutical Executives: n = 5). Two themes emerged: i) 'Policy-derived Factors'; ii) 'Patient- derived Factors' with three findings. First, both government and pharmaceutical participants felt that the focus of Indian pharma is shifting to more complex, high-quality generics and to new drug development, but production of generic drugs rather than new molecular entities will remain a major activity. Second, current trial regulations in India may restrict India's potential role in the future development of CVD drugs. Third, it is likely that the Indian government will tighten its intellectual property regime in future, with potentially far-reaching implications on CVD drug development and access.

CONCLUSIONS

Our stakeholder analysis provides some support for present patent regulations, whilst suggesting areas for further research in order to inform future policy decisions regarding CVD drug development and availability. Whilst interviewees suggested government policy plays an important role in shaping the industry, a significant force for change was ascribed to patient-derived factors. This suggests a potential role for Indian initiatives that market the unique advantages of its patient population for drug research in influencing national and multinational pharmaceutical companies to undertake CVD drug development in India, rather than simply IP policy-directed factors.

Reasons why patients fail screening in Indian breast cancer trials

Introduction:

An increased number of screen failure patients in a clinical trial increases time and cost required for the recruitment. Assessment of reasons for screen failure can help reduce screen failure rates and improve recruitment.

Materials and Methods:

We collected retrospective data of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) positive Indian breast cancer patients, who failed screening for phase 3 clinical trials and ascertained their reasons for screen failure from screening logs. Statistical comparison was done to ascertain if there are any differences between private and public sites.

Results:

Of 727 patients screened at 14 sites, 408 (56.1%) failed screening. The data on the specific reasons for screen failures was not available at one of the public sites (38 screen failures out of 83 screened patients). Hence, after excluding that site, further analysis is based on 644 patients, of which 370 failed screening. Of these, 296 (80%) screen failure patients did not meet selection criteria. The majority -266 were HER2 negative. Among logistical issues, 39 patients had inadequate breast tissue sample. Sixteen patients withdrew their consent at private sites as compared to six at public sites. The difference between private and public sites for the above three reasons was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Use of prescreening logs to reduce the number of patients not meeting selection criteria and protocol logistics, and patient counseling to reduce consent withdrawals could be used to reduce screen failure rate.

Consent for audio-video recording of informed consent process in rural South India

Introduction and Objectives:

In recent times, audio-video (A-V) recording of consent process for all the study subjects entering a clinical trial has been made mandatory. A-V recording of informed consent process is a big challenge due to confidentiality and the sociocultural environment in India. It is important to find out the acceptability for A-V recording of the consent process and reasons for refusal, if any to address this new challenge.

Materials and Methods:

A descriptive survey was done among 150 residents of a rural community of South India. Acceptability for A-V recording of consent process was assessed among those who had given the informed written consent for participation in the study. An attempt to find the factors determining the refusal was also made.

Results:

More than one-third (34%) of the study subjects refused to give consent for A-V recording of consent process. Not interested in recording or don’t like to be recorded (39%) were the most common reasons to refuse for A-V recording of consent process. The refusal was higher among female and younger age-group adult subjects. Socioeconomic status was not found to be significantly associated with refusal to consent for A-V recording.

Conclusion:

Refusal for A-V recording of consent process is high in the South Indian rural population. Before any major clinical trial, particularly a field trial, an assessment of consent for A-V recording would be helpful in recruitment of study subjects.