Dataset Information

Representation of sex, race, and ethnicity in pivotal clinical trials for dermatological drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is of paramount importance that clinical trials are designed with adequate health equity considerations to prevent disproportionate analyses of specific demographics.

Objective

In this study, we investigated the representation of sex, race, and ethnicity in pivotal clinical trials for drugs with dermatological disease indications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 1995 and 2019.

Methods

Thirty-six novel drugs with indications to treat dermatological diseases, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between January 1995 and December 2019 were abstracted from Drugs@FDA. The drug approval label, statistical review, official record, and trial publication were reviewed for data on disease indication, approval year, pathway, number of participants, participant demographics (sex, race, and ethnicity), location, and sponsor type.

Results

The overall female representation was 45.6% (n = 17,492 of 38,320). Adequate female representation was noted for five of six disease indications. Caucasians were predominantly overrepresented (80.4%; n = 28,065 of 34,890); Blacks (9.8%; n = 3242 of 33,240) and Asians (5.5%; n = 1535 of 27,696) were consistently underrepresented. Across sponsor types, there was a significant difference in the distribution of women (χ² = 6.332; p = .042), as well as Caucasians (χ² = 12.813; p = .002), Blacks (χ² = 13.002; p = .002), and Hispanics/Latinos (χ² = 7.747; p = .021).

Conclusion

Persistence of disparities disproportionately affect the quality of data behind therapies for certain demographics; as such, enrollment practices must continue to address the issue of underrepresentation. Efforts to facilitate demographic equity among clinical trial participants must be supported to ensure that safety and efficacy conclusions are drawn from representative population samples.

SUBMITTER: Ding J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8484973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors.MethodsWe analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively.FindingsAmong 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials.InterpretationOver the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time.FundingStanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.

Project description:ObjectiveVulnerable populations, including women and racial and ethnic minorities, have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. We, therefore, studied the demographics of patients enrolled in pivotal endovascular aortic device trials in the United States.MethodsWe queried the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical devices database for all FDA-approved endografts for the treatment of aortic aneurysms, transections, and dissections from September 1999 to November 2021. These included abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), thoracic EVAR (TEVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) devices, and dissection stents. Multiple cases of approval for expanded indications were included separately. The primary outcomes included the proportion of trials reporting participant sex, race, and ethnicity and the proportion of enrolled participants across sex, racial, and ethnic groups.ResultsThe FDA provided 29 approvals from 29 trials of 24 devices: 15 EVAR devices (52%), 12 TEVAR devices (41%), 1 FEVAR device (3.4%), and 1 dissection stent (3.4%). These trials had included 4046 patients. Of the 29 trials, all had reported on the sex of the participants, and the median female enrollment was 21% (interquartile range [IQR], 11%-34%). The EVAR trials had the lowest female enrollment (11%; IQR, 8.7%-13%) compared with 41% (IQR, 27%-45%) in the TEVAR trials, 21% in the FEVAR trial, and 34% in the dissection stent trial (P < .01 for the difference). Only 52% of the trials had reported the three most common racial groups (White, Black, Asian), and only 48% had reported Hispanic ethnicity. The TEVAR trials were the most likely to report all three racial groups and Hispanic ethnicity (92% and 75%, respectively), while the EVAR trials had the lowest reporting rates (13% and 20%, respectively). Where reported, the median enrollment of racial and ethnic groups across the trials was as follows: Black patients, 9.8% (FEVAR, 0%; EVAR, 1.9%; TEVAR, 12%; dissection stent, 25%; P = .01); Asian patients, 2.4% (EVAR, 0.6%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 2.5%; dissection stent, 11%; P = .24); and Hispanic patients, 3.8% (EVAR, 1.3%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 3.9%; dissection stent, 4.1%; P = .75).ConclusionsRacial and ethnic minority groups were underrepresented and underreported in pivotal aortic device trials that led to FDA approval. Female patients were also underrepresented in these aortic trials, especially for EVAR. These data suggest the need for standardization of reporting practices and minimum thresholds for minority and female participation in pivotal trials to promote equitable representation.

Project description:ImportanceRepresentativeness of populations within neonatal clinical trials is crucial to moving the field forward. Although racial and ethnic disparities in research inclusion are well documented in other fields, they are poorly described within neonatology.ObjectiveTo describe the race and ethnicity of infants included in a sample of recent US neonatal clinical trials and the variability in this reporting.Evidence reviewA systematic search of US neonatal clinical trials entered into Cochrane CENTRAL 2017 to 2021 was conducted. Two individuals performed inclusion determination, data extraction, and quality assessment independently with discrepancies adjudicated by consensus.FindingsOf 120 studies with 14 479 participants that met the inclusion criteria, 75 (62.5%) included any participant race or ethnicity data. In the studies that reported race and ethnicity, the median (IQR) percentage of participants of each background were 0% (0%-1%) Asian, 26% (9%-42%) Black, 3% (0%-12%) Hispanic, 0% (0%-0%) Indigenous (eg, Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian), 0% (0%-0%) multiple races, 57% (30%-68%) White, and 7% (1%-21%) other race or ethnicity. Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous participants were underrepresented, while White participants were overrepresented compared with a reference sample of the US clinical neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) population from the Vermont Oxford Network. Many participants were labeled as other race or ethnicity without adequate description. There was substantial variability in terms and methods of reporting race and ethnicity data. Geographic representation was heavily skewed toward the Northeast, with nearly one-quarter of states unrepresented.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that neonatal research may perpetuate inequities by underrepresenting Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous neonates in clinical trials. Studies varied in documentation of race and ethnicity, and there was regional variation in the sites included. Based on these findings, funders and clinical trialists are advised to consider a 3-point targeted approach to address these issues: prioritize identifying ways to increase diversity in neonatal clinical trial participation, agree on a standardized method to report race and ethnicity among neonatal clinical trial participants, and prioritize the inclusion of participants from all regions of the US in neonatal clinical trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although racial/ethnic and sex disparities have been examined in health care generally and pain management more specifically, the combined influence of these sociodemographic factors together has not been well documented. The aim of this study was to examine the association between administration of opioid analgesics in the emergency department (ED) and interaction of race/ethnicity and sex. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2010-2014 Center for Disease Control-National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data for patients 12-55 years of age presenting to EDs with a primary diagnosis of appendicitis or gallbladder disease as defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. The primary outcome was the receipt of opioid analgesic medications. Secondary outcomes included: receipt of nonopioids, receipt of antiemetic medications, wait time to see a provider, and length of visit in the ED. The association between sex and analgesic receipt within Caucasian non-Hispanic and non-Caucasian groups was evaluated adjusting for pain score on presentation, patient age, emergent status, number of comorbidities, time of visit (month, day of the week, standard versus nonstandard working hours, year), and US region. RESULTS:After exclusions, a weighted sample of 553 ED visits was identified, representing 2,622,926 unique visits. The sample population was comprised of 1,858,035 (70.8%) females and 1,535,794 (58.6%) Caucasian non-Hispanics. No interaction was found in adjusted sampling-weighted model between sex and race/ethnicity on the odds of receiving opioids (P = .74). There was no difference in opioid administration to males as compared to females (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, 95% CI, 0.87-1.06; P = .42) or to non-Caucasians as compared to Caucasians (OR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.89-1.10; P = .84). In adjusted weighted models, non-Caucasian males, 123,121/239,457 (51.4%) did not differ from Caucasian non-Hispanic males, 317,427/525,434 (60.4%), on odds of receiving opioids, aOR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.39-1.99; P = .75. Non-Caucasian females, 547,709/847,675 (64.6%) also did not differ from Caucasian females, 621,638/1,010,360 (61.5%), on odds of receiving opioids, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.53-1.90; P = .98. Across both sexes, non-Caucasians did not differ from Caucasians on receipt of nonopioid analgesics or antiemetics. Neither wait time to see a provider nor the length of the hospital visit was significantly different between sexes or race/ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS:Based on National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010 to 2014, there is no statistically significant interaction between race/ethnicity and sex for administration of opioid analgesia to people presenting to the ED with appendicitis or gallbladder disease. These results suggest that the joint effect of patient race/ethnicity and sex may not manifest in disparities in opioid management.