Racial and Ethnic Reporting and Representation in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials in the US
Lin, Z.; Sun, R.; Ross, J. S.; Lau, K.; Stumpf, S.; Chen, X.
Show abstract
BackgroundAlzheimers disease (AD) disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minoritized populations in the United States, yet these groups remain markedly underrepresented in clinical research. Phase III clinical trials are critical for informing regulatory decision and treatment guidelines, but the extent to which they report and include racial and ethnic diverse participants in the US context has not been systematically assessed. MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive retrospective review of all US-based Phase III AD clinical trials from 1997 to 2023 using the Trialtrove database, cross-referenced with PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other public sources. We analyzed long-term trends in the reporting and representation of racial and ethnic groups across the longest observation period to date. ResultsOf 88 identified trials, 71 (80.7%) had published data. Nearly half (49.3%) did not report any race or ethnicity information. Among those that did, most focused on White patients, with limited and inconsistent reporting for racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Median enrollment was 0.9% for Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.5% for Black (ethnicity unspecified), 7.2% for Black (non-Hispanic), 5.2% for Hispanic, and 0.4% for Native American participants, compared to nearly 90% for White participants. Only 4.2% of trials conducted subgroup analysis by race or ethnicity, and none reported detailed outcome differences. Terminology varied widely and no trials acknowledged underrepresentation or proposed corrective strategies. Notably, these patterns showed little to no improvement over time. Conclusions and ImplicationsRacial and ethnic minoritized populations remain consistently underreported and underrepresented in Phase III AD trials in the US, limiting the generalizability of findings and risking the exacerbation of health inequities. Improving equity in AD research will require standardized reporting, inclusive recruitment practices, and intentional efforts to engage underrepresented communities.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Qualitative Study of People with Alzheimer’s Disease in a Memory Clinic Considering Lecanemab Treatment 93%
- Harnessing Greater Statistical Power: Comprehensive Evaluation of Disease Modifying Treatment Effects Across All or Multiple Post-Baseline Visits Compared to the Last Visit for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials 92%
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions for persons living with young-onset dementia and their informal caregivers: a systematic review with meta-analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Disease-Modifying, Neuroprotective Effect of N-acetyl-L-leucine in Adult and Pediatric Patients with Niemann–Pick disease type C 89%
- Boston criteria v2.0 for cerebral amyloid angiopathy without hemorrhage: An MRI-neuropathological validation study 88%
- Frequency of neurological manifestations in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 350 studies 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of Lecanemab and Donanemab in the Canadian Healthcare System: Evidence, Challenges, and Areas for Future Research 94%
- Representation of Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations in Dementia Prevention Trials: A Systematic Review 93%
- Real-world datasets for the International Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias (InRAD) and other registries: an international consensus 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for a seamless phase 2A-phase 2B randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of benfotiamine in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (BenfoTeam) 93%
- Randomized Clinical Trial of ICECaP (Individualized Coordination and Empowerment for Care Partners of Persons with Dementia): Primary Mental Health and Burden Outcomes 92%
- The Healthy Brain Initiative (HBI): A prospective cohort study protocol 91%