Back

Quantifying Clinical Trial Diversity of FDA Novel Drug Approvals

Fitzsimmons, W. E.; Idris, M. Y.; Pemu, P. E.

2023-05-16 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2023.05.11.23289884
Show abstract

BackgroundHealth care inequity includes the lack of adequate representation of various populations in clinical trials. Government, academic and industry organizations have highlighted these issues and committed to actions to improve. In order to assess the current status and future success of these initiatives a quantitative objective measure to assess the state of clinical trial diversity is needed. MethodsFDA review documents for all novel drug approvals from January 2022 through February 16, 2023 were assessed using a scorecard that considers diversity across different demographic subgroups including age (>65 yo), sex (female), race (Black and Asian) and ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino). The scorecard assigns each drug a letter grade, between A and F, for each subgroup (and overall) based on 1) the percent of each sub-population included in the trials and grades relative to the percent of the US population, 2) the number of participants from each subpopulation that received the novel new drug in the trials, 3) the incidence or prevalence of the disease/condition in each of the sub-populations. ResultsThe FDA approved 43 novel new drugs for 44 indications (one drug was simultaneously approved for two indications). The three drugs with A Grades reflecting the best diversity in their registration trials were tapinarof (Vtama from Dermavant), daprodustat (Jesduvroq from GlaxoSmithKline) and eflapegrastim (Rolvedon from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.) There was good representation of elderly and females with only two drugs receiving a D grade in either of these sub-populations. In contrast, Black and Hispanic representation was often inadequate with 4 drugs receiving F grades. There were 9 drugs (20%) where there were no Black participants receiving the novel new drug and an additional 14 approvals where there were <10 Black participants receiving the novel drug. The median number of Black participants receiving the investigational drug was 9. In the Hispanic/Latino population there were 2 approvals with no Hispanic participants receiving the novel drug and 14 approvals where there were < 10 Hispanic participants receiving the drug. The median number of Hispanic participants receiving the novel drug was 12.5. ConclusionsThis newly developed scorecard provides an objective quantitative approach to assess the current state of diversity in clinical trials supporting new drug approvals. Substantial improvement in racial and ethnic representation is needed. Meaningful change will require actions and cooperation amongst all stakeholders to address this multifaceted issue and will take commitment, perseverance, and appropriate incentives.

Matching journals

1
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.1%
147× avg
2
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 0.1%
75× avg
3
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Wiley · based on 21 published papers
Top 0.2%
91× avg
4
Clinical and Translational Science
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
#1
117× avg
5
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 52%
9.0%
6
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.1%
74× avg
7
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 27 published papers
Top 0.7%
25× avg
8
BMJ
BMJ · based on 49 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
9
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.2%
44× avg
10
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 36%
2.4%
11
JMIRx Med
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 29 published papers
Top 2%
7.8× avg
12
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 76%
1.4%
13
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.9%
23× avg
14
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 12%
2.3× avg
15
JAMA Network Open
American Medical Association (AMA) · based on 125 published papers
Top 15%
1.7× avg
16
BJGP Open
Royal College of General Practitioners · based on 12 published papers
Top 1%
16× avg
17
Cureus
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 64 published papers
Top 14%
1.8× avg
18
New England Journal of Medicine
Massachusetts Medical Society · based on 49 published papers
Top 3%
4.3× avg
19
F1000Research
F1000 Research Ltd · based on 28 published papers
Top 4%
4.5× avg
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 219 published papers
Top 19%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers Media SA · based on 99 published papers
Top 18%
0.8%
22
Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 81 published papers
Top 16%
0.7%
23
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
American Society for Microbiology · based on 17 published papers
Top 2%
10× avg