Literature DB >> 19287020

Women's health and gender-based clinical trials on etoricoxib: methodological gender bias.

E Chilet-Rosell1, M T Ruiz-Cantero, J F Horga.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine compliance with published good practice guidelines for gender and clinical trials using etoricoxib. The rationale for choosing etoricoxib was that it is widely used by women and there is evidence of potential interaction with contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy as highlighted in the product characteristics.
METHODS: The study reviewed 58 etoricoxib published trials (54 papers) to determine if they met the gender recommendations of the Guidelines of Food and Drug Administration (1993) and the Sex, Gender and Pain Special Interest Group Consensus Working Group Report (2007).
RESULTS: Women formed 70% of a total of 49 835 subjects included in the etoricoxib trials, but only 31% of the subjects were in Phase I. About 85.7% of trials did not show sex-stratified data. About 90.6 and 93.3% did not provide efficacy and adverse effects data by sex, respectively. There is scarce information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Discussion Women are under-represented in the published etoricoxib trials, specifically, in Phase I. Sex-stratified data on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in etoricoxib trials. Together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, this suggests that etoricoxib may pose the same potential problems for women as other cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19287020     DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdp024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)        ISSN: 1741-3842            Impact factor:   2.341


  9 in total

1.  Editor's spotlight/take 5: sex-specific analysis of data in high-impact orthopaedic journals: how are we doing?

Authors:  Jo A Hannafin; Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Fairness to all: gender and sex in scientific reporting.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold; Lee Beadling; Matthew B Dobbs; Mark C Gebhardt; Paul A Lotke; Paul A Manner; Clare M Rimnac; Montri D Wongworawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Sex as a variable in medicines assessment reports for licensing in the European Union. Can gender bias be excluded?

Authors:  N Laguna-Goya; F de Andres-Trelles
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 4.  Sex differences in innate immunity and its impact on opioid pharmacology.

Authors:  Hillary H Doyle; Anne Z Murphy
Journal:  J Neurosci Res       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 4.164

Review 5.  Gender analysis of moxifloxacin clinical trials.

Authors:  Elisa Chilet-Rosell; Ma Teresa Ruiz-Cantero; Ma Angeles Pardo
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Is Our Science Representative? A Systematic Review of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials from 2000 to 2020.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: How Long Will It Take to Reach Gender Parity in Orthopaedic Surgery in the United States? An Analysis of the National Provider Identifier Registry.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.755

8.  Antinociception produced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in female vs male rats.

Authors:  Rebecca M Craft; Kelly A Hewitt; Stevie C Britch
Journal:  Behav Pharmacol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.277

Review 9.  Gender bias in clinical research, pharmaceutical marketing, and the prescription of drugs.

Authors:  Elisa Chilet-Rosell
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.