Watchdog condemns drug trial firm
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government's drug watchdog today criticised the firm behind a disastrous drug trial which left six men seriously ill.
Research firm Parexel failed to follow some correct procedures and made errors over contracts and patient records, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said in its final report into the incident earlier this year.
But, it said, the adverse reaction seen in the men was most likely down to an "unpredicted biological action of the drug in humans".
That conclusion is the same one the MHRA came to in its previous interim report.
In the report, the MHRA outlines an inspection of Parexel carried out after it suspended the trial when the men fell ill in March.
All six previously healthy men suffered multiple organ failure after being given TGN1412, which is designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis.
They were placed in intensive care and one sufferer was described as looking like "The Elephant Man".
The report said Parexel, which is based at Northwick Park Hospital in north west London, had "failed to complete the full medical background of a trial subject in writing".
One investigator had not updated records after a verbal consultation with one of the volunteers, it said.
The placebo volunteers were also allowed to leave the premises "before appropriate checks were undertaken to confirm that they were the two subjects that had received the placebo", it added.
This should have been done, despite the fact that events suggested they were the ones taking the placebo, the MHRA said.
Furthermore, the bank screening physician - the doctor who screens the volunteers before they enter a trial - did not have a contract.
The report said: "Having interviewed the bank screening physician as part of their inspection, MHRA inspectors were not satisfied that the individual had adequate training and experience for their role."
There was also no "formal system" in place for 24-hour medical cover and no contract in place between manufacturer TeGenero and Parexel, although one was subsequently issued, it said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments