Investigator knowledge, awareness, and registrations of academic clinical trials with the Clinical Trial Registry of India: An observational study

Abstract

Introduction: In 2019, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) introduced the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 (NDCTR), which separated the research guidelines for “Clinical Trials” and “Biomedical and Health Research.” As a result, guidelines issued by Indian Council of Medical Research were stated to apply to academic clinical trials (ACTs). This change is important because academic studies are crucial for scientific advancement and repurposing of approved drugs in health-care industry. However, conducting an ACT can pose challenges. We assessed the level of awareness, knowledge, and challenges faced by investigators. Our aim is to overcome some of these challenges and encourage more academic studies for the betterment of healthcare and scientific knowledge in India. Methodology: The study was conducted in two phases after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (EC) of three tertiary care hospitals in Mumbai. In the first phase, the number of ACTs was assessed from the clinical trial registry India website, while the number of registered and re-registered ECs were assessed from the CDSCO website. The second phase involved assessing investigator awareness and knowledge about ACTs using a prevalidated questionnaire with a content validity index score of 0.93. Results: In 2020, the highest numbers of studies were registered, with the highest numbers of registered and re-registered ECs from Maharashtra. All participants completed the questionnaire and were aware of the need to follow guidelines for clinical trials. Sixty-seven percent of participants knew that the guidelines for ACTs differed from those of sponsored clinical trials, but only 58% were aware of the exact definition of an ACT as per NDCTR, 2019. Eighty-five percent of participants knew who could initiate an ACT, but only 27% knew about the applicability of results of an ACT and 33% had in-depth knowledge about the required approvals, while only 10% knew the archival period. Although 71% of participants had knowledge about serious adverse event reporting, few answered in-depth questions correctly. Only 31 participants reported facing varied challenges. Conclusion: To conduct ACTs effectively and contribute to healthcare and scientific advancement, it is crucial to enhance investigators’ existing knowledge about ACTs.