Dataset Information

Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category.

Objective

To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex.

Exposures

The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase.

Main outcomes and measures

Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials.

Results

Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.

SUBMITTER: Steinberg JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderrepresentation of females in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) limits generalizability and quality of the evidence guiding treatment of females. This study aimed to measure the sex disparities in participants' recruitment in RCTs of atrial fibrillation (AF) and determine associated factors, and to describe the frequency of outcomes reported by sex.MethodsMEDLINE was searched to identify RCTs of AF published between January 1, 2011, and November 20, 2021, in 12 top-tier journals. We measured the enrollment of females using the enrollment disparity difference (EDD) which is the difference between the proportion of females in the trial and the proportion of females with AF in the underlying general population (obtained from the Global Burden of Disease). Random-effects meta-analyses of the EDD were performed, and multivariable meta-regression was used to explore factors associated with disparity estimates. We also determined the proportion of trials that included sex-stratified results.ResultsOut of 1133 records screened, 142 trials were included, reporting on a total of 133 532 participants. The random-effects summary EDD was -0.125 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.143 to -0.108), indicating that females were under-enrolled by 12.5 percentage points. Female enrollment was higher in trials with higher sample size (<250 vs. >750, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.065, 95% CI: 1.008-1.125), higher mean participants' age (aOR: 1.006, 95% CI: 1.002-1.009), and lower in trials conducted in North America compared to Europe (aOR: 0.945, 95% CI: 0.898-0.995). Only 36 trials (25.4%) reported outcomes by sex, and of these 29 (80.6%) performed statistical testing of the sex-by-treatment interaction.ConclusionFemales remain substantially less represented in RCTs of AF, and sex-stratified reporting of primary outcomes is infrequent. These findings call for urgent action to improve sex equity in enrollment and sex-stratified outcomes' reporting in RCTs of AF.

Project description:ImportanceThe underenrollment of women in randomized clinical trials represents a threat to the validity of the evidence supporting clinical guidelines and potential disparities in access to novel treatments.ObjectiveTo determine whether women were underenrolled in contemporary randomized clinical trials of acute stroke therapies published in 9 major journals after accounting for their representation in underlying stroke populations.Data sourcesMEDLINE was searched for acute stroke therapeutic trials published between January 1, 2010, and June 11, 2020.Study selectionEligible articles reported the results of a phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients with stroke and/or transient ischemic attack and examined a therapeutic intervention initiated within 1 month of onset.Data extractionData extraction was performed by 2 independent authors in duplicate. Individual trials were matched to estimates of the proportion of women in underlying stroke populations using the Global Burden of Disease database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the enrollment disparity difference (EDD), the absolute difference between the proportion of trial participants who were women and the proportion of strokes in the underlying disease populations that occurred in women. Random-effects meta-analyses of the EDD were performed, and multivariable metaregression was used to explore the associations of trial eligibility criteria with disparity estimates.ResultsThe search returned 1529 results, and 115 trials (7.5%) met inclusion criteria. Of 121 105 randomized patients for whom sex was reported, 52 522 (43.4%) were women. The random-effects summary EDD was -0.053 (95% CI, -0.065 to -0.040), indicating that women were underenrolled by 5.3 percentage points. This disparity persisted across virtually all geographic regions, intervention types, and stroke types, apart from subarachnoid hemorrhage (0.117 [95% CI, 0.084 to 0.150]). When subarachnoid hemorrhage trials were excluded, the summary EDD was -0.067 (95% CI, -0.078 to -0.057). In the multivariable metaregression analysis, an upper age limit of 80 years as an eligibility criterion was associated with a 6-percentage point decrease in the enrollment of women.Conclusions and relevanceFurther research is needed to understand the causes of the underenrollment of women in acute stroke trials. However, to maximize representation, investigators should avoid imposing age limits on enrollment.

Project description:ImportanceDiverse, representative enrollment in pivotal clinical trials is vital to sufficiently power subgroup analyses and ensure equity and validity of trial results.ObjectiveTo evaluate the racial/ethnic representation, trends, and disparities in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ophthalmology drug approvals from 2000 to 2020.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from participants in clinical trials of drugs for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), open-angle glaucoma (OAG), and expanded indications for diabetic retinopathy (DR) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020. Trial data were sourced from FDA reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant linked studies. National expected racial/ethnic proportions were sourced from public National Eye Institute prevalence data as well as published rates scaled using US Census Bureau data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures were the distribution of and change over time in the racial/ethnic proportion of participants in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of drugs for AMD, OAG, and DR.ResultsDuring the 20-year period, 31 clinical trials were identified for 13 medications with 18 410 participants. The distribution of trial participants was different from the expected trial distribution for most approvals with regard to race/ethnicity (12 drugs) and sex (10 drugs). Compared with the first decade (2000-2010), trials conducted in the second decade (2011-2020) showed increases in enrollment of Asian (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97-2.68; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.49-2.03; P < .001) for AMD, Asian participants (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.46-3.42; P < .001) for DR, and Black (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.43-1.78; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 10.31; 95% CI, 8.05-13.35; P < .001) for OAG. There was a decrease in Black participants in DR trials (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P < .001). Based on these trends, the enrollment incidence ratio is expected to worsen by 2050, with overrepresentation of white participants vs underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latinx participants in trials of drugs for AMD (1.08 vs 0.04 vs 0.77), DR (1.83 vs 0.87 vs 0.59), and OAG (1.62 vs 0.90 vs 0.37).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and other non-White participants were underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA ophthalmology drug approvals compared with the expected disease burden and racial/ethnic distribution in the US. Although there was meaningful improvement from 2000 to 2020, further efforts to increase minority enrollment in clinical trials seem to be warranted.