Are women underrepresented in cerebrovascular disease clinical trials? A systematic review using the FDA database
Zhong, X.; Hao, Q.
Show abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEClinical trials provide essential evidence in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval process. Women were underrepresented in the enrollment of clinical trials for many medical conditions other than cerebrovascular disease (CVD). We investigated womens participation in FDA-registered CVD-related interventional clinical trials and assessed whether women CVD patients in the United States were underrepresented. We also evaluated the association between the underrepresentation and the features of design and operation among these trials. METHODSWe systematically reviewed the phase 2 and 3 CVD-related interventional trials started in 2002-2017 in the FDA database. The proportions of women enrolled in these trials and the proportion-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs), defined as the ratios of the proportions of women enrolled in these trials to the proportion of women prevalent among US CVD patients during the same period, were calculated and summarized by a meta-analysis approach. We used boosted regression tree, a machine learning model, to identify the determinants of womens underrepresentation in CVD-related trials. RESULTSAccording to our selection criteria, we analyzed the data of 145 CVD-related trials, among which 40.9% (95% CI: 38.3-43.5%) of the patients enrolled were women. Their PPR was estimated to be 0.843 (95% CI: 0.796-0.890). We found that four factors substantially influenced womens underrepresentation in these trials: the number of enrollment sites, the starting year, randomization, and academic institution sponsorship. CONCLUSIONSGenerally, women with CVD in the United States were underrepresented in FDA registered trials started in 2002-2017. In addition, trials with greater numbers of enrollment sites, randomization, and non-academically sponsored trials had a higher risk of underrepresenting women with CVD in the United States. Investigators should take these factors into consideration in clinical trial design in the future, by either increasing womens participation or stratifying the enrollment by gender.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Long-term Outcomes of Peripheral Artery Disease In Veterans: Analysis of the PEripheral ARtery Disease Long-term Survival Study (PEARLS) 93%
- Association of Cardiologist Clinic Visits with Cardiovascular Primary Prevention Outcomes Among People with HIV from Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Groups in the Southern United States 93%
- Age-stratified Prevalence and Relative Prognostic Significance of Traditional Atherosclerotic Risk Factors: A Report from the Nationwide Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Japan 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of coronary revascularization treatment timing on mortality in patients with stable ischemic heart disease in British Columbia 93%
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of an early invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach in elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome 93%
- Development and Validation of the Michigan Chronic Disease Simulation Model (MICROSIM) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 91%
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 91%
- The IGNITE Trial: Participant Recruitment Lessons Prior to SARS-CoV-2 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Outcome Disparities by Insurance Plan and Educational Attainment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation 93%
- Efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in overweight/obese patients with or without diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 93%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.