Literature DB >> 30307789

Sex Bias in Interventional Clinical Trials.

Vivek S Prakash1, Neel A Mansukhani1, Irene B Helenowski1, Teresa K Woodruff2,3, Melina R Kibbe1,4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have shown that sex bias exists with subject enrollment in clinical trials, with more men being enrolled than women. The objective of this study was to identify if sex bias continues to exist in present day clinical trials entered into ClinicalTrials.gov . We hypothesize that males and females are not equally represented in recent clinical trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were abstracted from all interventional Phase I, II, and III clinical trials with adult subjects entered into ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 and completed by November 30, 2015. Number and sex of subjects, funding source, allocation, end point classification, interventional model, and purpose were recorded. Studies pertaining to diseases that were sex specific were excluded.
RESULTS: Of 1,668 studies included in the initial search, 167 were excluded due to sex-specific study topic. Of the remaining 1,501 studies, 177,656 (51.1%) male and 170,331 (49.0%) female subjects were included. There was a significant difference in the sex of the subjects included in Phase I (64.1% male/35.9% female), Phase II (48.4% male/51.6% female), and Phase III (51.0% male/49.1% female) clinical trials (p < 0.05). Similarly, there was a significant difference in the sex of the subjects included in industry (50.7% male/49.3% female), National Institutes of Health (NIH) (56.6% male/43.4% female), "Other US Federal" (62.5% male/37.5% female), and "Other" funded (53.4% male/46.6% female) clinical trials (p < 0.0001), as well as between randomized (50.5% male/49.6% female) and nonrandomized (54.8% male/45.2% female) clinical trials (p < 0.0001). Upon evaluating if the sex of the subjects included in the individual clinical trials was equally matched, we found that only 4.1% of clinical trials had 100% sex matching, 22.2% had 80% sex matching, and 56.5% had 50% sex matching. Using a liberal 50% sex-matching criteria, Phase III and II clinical trials matched the sex of the subjects more frequently compared to Phase I trials (60.8%, 57.8%, and 45.5%, respectively, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: These data reveal that sex bias is present in current day clinical trials. Despite legislation requiring NIH-funded clinical trials to include women, NIH-funded trials were not better than industry-funded trials at matching the inclusion of both sexes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical trials; clinicaltrials.gov; sex bias

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30307789     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6873

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  8 in total

1.  Filling the Regulatory Gap: Potential Role of Institutional Review Boards in Promoting Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable.

Authors:  Korrina A Duffy; Tracy A Ziolek; C Neill Epperson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Large-scale labeling and assessment of sex bias in publicly available expression data.

Authors:  Emily Flynn; Annie Chang; Russ B Altman
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Sex, Renin Angiotensin System Inhibitors, and COVID-19 Severity: Biologic Divergence or Healthcare Disparity?

Authors:  Daniel E Leisman; Emily E Moin
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 9.296

4.  Evaluation of Publicly Available Information on Sex-Related Differences in the Efficacy and Safety of Newly Approved Medications.

Authors:  Kyungwan Hong; Sarah Tanveer; Hazem E Hassan; Peter Doshi
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 6.473

Review 5.  Let's Talk About Sex-Biological Sex Is Underreported in Biomaterial Studies.

Authors:  Bryan D James; Paxton Guerin; Josephine B Allen
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2020-10-11       Impact factor: 9.933

6.  A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences.

Authors:  Nicole C Woitowich; Annaliese Beery; Teresa Woodruff
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 7.  "Bridging the Gap" Everything that Could Have Been Avoided If We Had Applied Gender Medicine, Pharmacogenetics and Personalized Medicine in the Gender-Omics and Sex-Omics Era.

Authors:  Donato Gemmati; Katia Varani; Barbara Bramanti; Roberta Piva; Gloria Bonaccorsi; Alessandro Trentini; Maria Cristina Manfrinato; Veronica Tisato; Alessandra Carè; Tiziana Bellini
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 5.923

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

Authors:  Jecca R Steinberg; Brandon E Turner; Brannon T Weeks; Christopher J Magnani; Bonnie O Wong; Fatima Rodriguez; Lynn M Yee; Mark R Cullen
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-06-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.