Kristine E Shields1, Anne Drapkin Lyerly. 1. Office of Ethics, Merck, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey; and the Department of Social Medicine and the Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The lack of human data available to inform evidence-based treatment for illness during pregnancy has led to calls for greater inclusion of pregnant women in research, but the extent of their current representation is poorly characterized. Our objective was to measure the current exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials as a baseline for future comparison. METHODS: We compiled data from studies enrolling women of childbearing potential posted on www.ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 October 2011 and 31 January 2012. The review was limited to open United States-based phase IV interventional studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry evaluating treatment of conditions that may be experienced by but are not limited to pregnant women and did not involve a medication classified as potentially teratogenic. If there was no mention of pregnancy in the inclusion or exclusion criteria, we contacted a study representative to confirm that pregnant women could be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 558 qualifying industry-sponsored studies, five (1%) were designed specifically for pregnant women. Of 367 phase IV clinical trials with verified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 348 (95%) excluded pregnant women and 19 (5%) did not. CONCLUSION: We found the exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials to be common practice. Moving beyond reflexive exclusion and developing thoughtful criteria for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research would likely advance the evidence base to inform treatment decisions during pregnancy and lead to better health outcomes for women and children.
OBJECTIVE: The lack of human data available to inform evidence-based treatment for illness during pregnancy has led to calls for greater inclusion of pregnant women in research, but the extent of their current representation is poorly characterized. Our objective was to measure the current exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials as a baseline for future comparison. METHODS: We compiled data from studies enrolling women of childbearing potential posted on www.ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 October 2011 and 31 January 2012. The review was limited to open United States-based phase IV interventional studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry evaluating treatment of conditions that may be experienced by but are not limited to pregnant women and did not involve a medication classified as potentially teratogenic. If there was no mention of pregnancy in the inclusion or exclusion criteria, we contacted a study representative to confirm that pregnant women could be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 558 qualifying industry-sponsored studies, five (1%) were designed specifically for pregnant women. Of 367 phase IV clinical trials with verified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 348 (95%) excluded pregnant women and 19 (5%) did not. CONCLUSION: We found the exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials to be common practice. Moving beyond reflexive exclusion and developing thoughtful criteria for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research would likely advance the evidence base to inform treatment decisions during pregnancy and lead to better health outcomes for women and children.
Authors: Sonja A Rasmussen; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Omar A Abdul-Rahman; Leyla Sahin; Carey R Petrie; Kim M Keppler-Noreuil; Sharon E Frey; Robin M Mason; Mirjana Nesin; John C Carey Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ian R Mulrenin; Julian E Garcia; Muluneh M Fashe; Matthew Shane Loop; Melissa A Daubert; Rachel Peragallo Urrutia; Craig R Lee Journal: Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: John V Ilekis; Ekaterini Tsilou; Susan Fisher; Vikki M Abrahams; Michael J Soares; James C Cross; Stacy Zamudio; Nicholas P Illsley; Leslie Myatt; Christine Colvis; Maged M Costantine; David M Haas; Yoel Sadovsky; Carl Weiner; Erik Rytting; Gene Bidwell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Alannah L Phelan; Allen R Kunselman; Cynthia H Chuang; Nazia T Raja-Khan; Richard S Legro Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Paolo Denti; Neil Martinson; Silvia Cohn; Fildah Mashabela; Jennifer Hoffmann; Reginah Msandiwa; Sandra Castel; Lubbe Wiesner; Richard E Chaisson; Helen McIlleron; Kelly E Dooley Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 5.191