The question whether all human clinical trials undertaken in India are
conducted ethically has been answered. The final report of the
three-member committee appointed by the central government to go into
the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the human papilloma virus
(HPV) vaccine trial reveals gross ethical violations.
The trial,
suspended since March 2010, was carried out by the Program for
Appropriate Technology and Health (PATH), an NGO, in collaboration with
the Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat governments and the Indian Council of
Medical Research. It was conducted on nearly 23,500 girls in the 10-14
years age group in Khammam district (Andhra Pradesh) and Vadodra
(Gujarat). The “casual approach,” which saw the informed consent forms,
the most sacrosanct trial documents, being filled “very carelessly”
with “incomplete and probably inaccurate” information is shocking. In
Andhra Pradesh, nearly 2,800 consent forms were signed by a hostel
warden or headmaster, as the ‘guardian'.
The justification: the parents
were not easily reachable! That being the case, and since it was a
research study and not an emergency, should such children have been
enrolled at all? What ethical justification can there be for the warden
or headmaster acting as a “legally acceptable representative” to meet
the requirements of the 1945 Schedule Y of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules?
Since students have “reduced autonomy,” the fact that teachers played a
“primary role” in explaining and “obtaining consent” meant that the
consent was obtained under duress, in a legally untenable way.
The trial came under scrutiny following a public outcry
over the death of seven children. Although the cause of the deaths was
found to be unrelated to vaccination, the incident revealed a total
failure of the mechanism to monitor the ‘volunteers' for both serious
and non-serious adverse events following vaccination. There was a
five-month delay in reporting a death, while two deaths in Khammam
district went unreported. Ironically, while measuring and reporting the
adverse events after vaccination were the “primary end points of the
study,” the Principal and Co-Principal investigators failed to report
all such events to the sponsor within a day, as required under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.
That widespread transgressions of prescribed
procedures and norms have been detected in conducting the trial,
despite the apex medical body being a part of it, and that the
investigating committee has done little by way of fixing
responsibility, sends out a highly damaging message.
Comments