Cargando…

Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?

AIMS: Several studies have reported the under‐representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Labots, Geert, Jones, Aubrey, de Visser, Saco J., Rissmann, Robert, Burggraaf, Jacobus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29293280
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13497
_version_ 1783308924140650496
author Labots, Geert
Jones, Aubrey
de Visser, Saco J.
Rissmann, Robert
Burggraaf, Jacobus
author_facet Labots, Geert
Jones, Aubrey
de Visser, Saco J.
Rissmann, Robert
Burggraaf, Jacobus
author_sort Labots, Geert
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Several studies have reported the under‐representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration and to analyse the fraction of women participating in phases I, II and III. METHODS: We conducted cross‐sectional, structured research into publicly available registration dossiers of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved drugs that are prescribed frequently. Furthermore, we analysed compounds with high hepatic clearance and a known gender‐related difference in drug response. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared figures with US disease prevalence data. RESULTS: For 38 of the initial 137 drugs (28%), sufficient data were reported and publicly available. For these drugs, 185 479 trial participants were included, of whom 47% were female and 44% were male; gender was not reported for 9% of participants. However, the number of female participants varied with the phase of the trial, with 22% females in phase I trials vs. 48% and 49%, respectively, in phase II and III trials. When compared with US disease prevalence data, 10 drugs (26%) had a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected with the disease compared with representation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: From these publicly available data, there was no evidence of any systematic under‐representation of women in clinical trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5867082
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58670822018-03-29 Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem? Labots, Geert Jones, Aubrey de Visser, Saco J. Rissmann, Robert Burggraaf, Jacobus Br J Clin Pharmacol Clinical Trials AIMS: Several studies have reported the under‐representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration and to analyse the fraction of women participating in phases I, II and III. METHODS: We conducted cross‐sectional, structured research into publicly available registration dossiers of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved drugs that are prescribed frequently. Furthermore, we analysed compounds with high hepatic clearance and a known gender‐related difference in drug response. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared figures with US disease prevalence data. RESULTS: For 38 of the initial 137 drugs (28%), sufficient data were reported and publicly available. For these drugs, 185 479 trial participants were included, of whom 47% were female and 44% were male; gender was not reported for 9% of participants. However, the number of female participants varied with the phase of the trial, with 22% females in phase I trials vs. 48% and 49%, respectively, in phase II and III trials. When compared with US disease prevalence data, 10 drugs (26%) had a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected with the disease compared with representation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: From these publicly available data, there was no evidence of any systematic under‐representation of women in clinical trials. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-02-12 2018-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5867082/ /pubmed/29293280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13497 Text en © 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Clinical Trials
Labots, Geert
Jones, Aubrey
de Visser, Saco J.
Rissmann, Robert
Burggraaf, Jacobus
Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title_full Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title_fullStr Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title_full_unstemmed Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title_short Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
title_sort gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
topic Clinical Trials
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867082/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29293280
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13497
work_keys_str_mv AT labotsgeert genderdifferencesinclinicalregistrationtrialsistherearealproblem
AT jonesaubrey genderdifferencesinclinicalregistrationtrialsistherearealproblem
AT devissersacoj genderdifferencesinclinicalregistrationtrialsistherearealproblem
AT rissmannrobert genderdifferencesinclinicalregistrationtrialsistherearealproblem
AT burggraafjacobus genderdifferencesinclinicalregistrationtrialsistherearealproblem