Women in clinical research: what we need for progress.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death in American women and accounts for a full one-third of all deaths.1 Although the common perception may be that CVD affects mainly men, there is equal prevalence of this disease between the genders by the age of 40, and by the age of 60 more women than men are affected. More women than men have died from CVD causes on a yearly basis since the mid 1980s, and whereas the CVD mortality has steadily declined in men over the past 30 years, it has remained steady in women until very recently when CVD mortality was noted to decrease for both genders.2 See accompanying article on page 277 The impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) on the health status of American women is gaining more recognition and has become the focus of public education efforts such as the “Go Red for Women” campaign sponsored by the American Heart Association and the “Red Dress” project sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). These programs are, in part, a response to the increasing awareness of cardiovascular disease as a major source of morbidity and mortality in U.S. women. The importance of CVD as a major source of mortality in women was recognized early on by federally funded institutes including the Public Health Service Task Force, which brought attention to concerns about the health information available to women and the historical lack of research focus on women’s health in its 1985 Report of the Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health Issues .3 In response to this report, the National Institutes of Health adopted a policy for the inclusion of women in clinical research …

Historically, women have been underrepresented in clinical research, requiring physicians to extrapolate medical recommendations for women from clinical research done in cohorts consisting predominantly of male participants. While government-funded clinical research has achieved gender parity in phase-3 clinical trials across many biomedical disciplines, improvements are still needed in several facets of women's health research, such as the inclusion of women in early-phase clinical trials, the inclusion of pregnant women and women with physical and intellectual disabilities, the consideration of sex as a biological variable in preclinical research, and the analysis and reporting of sex and gender differences across the full biomedical research continuum. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health and the Office of Women's Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cosponsored a preconference symposium at the 25th Annual Women's Health Congress, held in Arlington, VA in April, 2017, to highlight gains made and remaining needs regarding the representation of women in clinical research, to introduce innovative procedures and technologies, and to outline revised policy for future studies. Six speakers presented information on a range of subjects related to the representation of women in clinical research and federal initiatives to advance precision medicine. Topics included the following: the return on investment from the NIH-funded Women's Health Initiative; progress in including women in clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs and products; the importance of clinical trials in pregnant women; FDA initiatives to report drug safety during pregnancy; the NIH-funded All of Us Research Program; and efforts to enhance FDA transparency and communications, including the introduction of Drug Trials Snapshots. This article summarizes the major points of the presentations and the discussions that followed.

To explore the role played by human research ethics committees (HRECs) with regard to the fair inclusion of men and women in Australian clinical research. Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with 25 chairs (or their nominees) of Australian HRECs between 9 June 2006 and 24 January 2007. Chairs' views about the role of HRECs in identifying sex discrimination, monitoring the inclusion of men and women in clinical research, and interpreting and applying National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines relating to fair inclusion in research. In general, HRECs do not take an active role in monitoring the sex of research participants. They do not ask for or often receive information about the sex of participants. Most HREC chairs did not believe that sex discrimination in research is currently a significant or widespread problem, and were confident that their committees would be able to identify arbitrary exclusion of either men or women from research. However, many chairs expressed a lack of familiarity with debates about sex equity in research. Most chairs were unaware that anti-sex-discrimination legislation could apply to research. "Fair inclusion" was interpreted in a number of ways by chairs, but most frequently that the sex balance among research participants should reflect the sex distribution in the community of the condition under investigation. Chairs said their committees would be reluctant to reject a research protocol on the grounds that the sex balance among participants was perceived to be unfair. Views about, and expertise on, sex equity in research vary among chairs of HRECs. Many HRECs require further guidance about the appropriate standards for fair inclusion of men and women in Australian clinical research.

Canadian physician perspectives on the inclusion of pregnant women in trials of intervention for COVID-19

Women and research on cardiovascular diseases in Europe: a report from the European Heart Health Strategy (EuroHeart) project

Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem. We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people. This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

This empirical chapter provides a systematic review of literature relevant to the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials. In particular, it addresses barriers to fair inclusion identified within the literature. The 31 articles reviewed discuss the exclusion of pregnant women from clinical trials. Reasons given for such exclusion were grouped under several themes, including: foetal safety, collective memory or social controversies, liability, regulations, research ethics committee interpretations, research design, willingness to participate and consent. The discussion reviews arguments in the literature for how many of these barriers to fair inclusion can be surmounted. The authors find that barriers to fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research interact. While there are practical solutions for surmounting some barriers, others require further discussion.

* Abbreviations: FDA — : Food and Drug Administration NAAEDR — : North American Antiepileptic Drug Registry Information on the safety of medications that pregnant women may need is key to protecting the health of the woman and her fetus. When new drugs are first marketed, this information is scarce, because pregnant women are generally excluded from randomized clinical trials. Broader inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research is being discussed by regulatory authorities and funders.1 But even with greater inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials, safety data from those trials would be limited by the combination of study size, low frequency of many key outcomes, and strict conditions for enrollment. Postapproval observational studies still would be needed to assess drug safety in routine health care. These assessments can be conducted as pregnancy exposure registries or by using existing health databases. Currently, because of our overreliance on pregnancy exposure registries and underuse of database studies, we are missing an opportunity to provide information that would help women and their physicians make better informed decisions about treatment in pregnancy. Pregnancy exposure registries, usually sponsored by a single pharmaceutical company, are a primary method requested by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for postapproval safety studies in pregnant women.2 However, these registries often fail to enroll a sufficient number of exposed pregnancies, and when they do, it is often difficult to interpret results because they generally do not include an internal comparison cohort and rely on comparisons to external data sources, such as the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program.2 The pregnancy registries that have been most successful in enrolling … Address correspondence to Andrea V. Margulis, MD, ScD, RTI Health Solutions, Diagonal 605, 9-1, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: amargulis{at}rti.org

Does sex matter?: an update on the implementation of sex as a biological variable in research.

Despite the efforts of investigators, public health andprivate caregivers, voluntary health organizations,and policymakers, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in women, both in the United States and throughout most of the world.1,2 A number of issues contribute to these disappointing statistics. Many women lack the basic awareness that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women. The American Heart Association’s (AHA) 2004 survey of women’s attitudes and knowledge showed that, when asked what they thought was the leading cause of death among women, 50 % of women answered this question incorrect-ly.3 Even more important, only 13 % of women personalized this information and answered that their own personal great-est health threat was heart disease. Although this level has increased from 7 % since the initial survey 6 years ago, it is still far too low. Furthermore, because coronary disease

There is paucity of evidence to support clinical decision making and counselling related to medication use in pregnancy. Despite multiple efforts from legislative bodies and advocacy groups, the inclusion of pregnant women in clinical drug trials assessing efficacy and safety remains scarce. Pregnancy can be complicated by multiple comorbidities that require pharmacological intervention; these interventions primarily target the pregnant woman but also sometimes have secondary effects for the foetus. The US Food and Drug Administration has issued multiple guidance documents on incorporating pregnant women in clinical trials to aid pharmaceutical companies in designing a protocol to ensure safety and adherence to ethical standards. Advances in paediatric pharmacology studies provide lessons for researchers on the best practice of designing clinical trials with inclusion of patients from special populations. In this review, we present the status of pregnant women in clinical trials, highlighting the ethical stigma and possible future directives.

The representation of women in clinical trials has been a controversial and frequently debated issue in recent years. In response to evidence suggesting that sexually-biased practices exist in drug research, several policy changes aimed at redressing existing inequities have been initiated. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently revising its guideline regarding the enrollment of women in early phases of drug testing. It appears that the revised policy will permit women of child-bearing potential to be enrolled in clinical trials prior to the completion of animal reproductive toxicology studies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has revised its “Guide for Grants and Contracts” to call for a greater involvement of women in clinical trials. The NIH has also instituted a comprehensive study termed the Women's Health Initiative to examine major causes of morbidity and mortality among women. These initiatives and policy changes will affect the clinical research practices of the ...

BackgroundFDA has made great efforts to promote inclusion of women in clinical trials. The aim is to protect specific biological gender and sex issues and encourage drug developers to consider specific clinical outcomes and drug‐safety profiles in terms of gender and sex. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) affects predominantly women, who double men in the number of patients diagnosed with dementia. Therefore, we explored gender and sex bias in the inclusion criteria for clinical trials in AD. Here our aim was to compare main inclusion criteria for clinical trials in MCI and dementia patients in terms of sex.MethodPatients evaluated at FACE from 1996 to 2019 with CDR 0,5 to 2 evaluated from 1996 to 2019 were analyzed. Then, we used the main inclusion criteria for AD clinical trials to compare the sample in terms of sex and syndromic diagnosis. The chosen variables were age, sex, education, comorbidities, treatment and MMSE score. Logistic regression analysis was used accounting for these variables.ResultFrom a total sample of 20,203 MCI and dementia patients, we selected potential candidates for clinical trials with complete information regarding age, years of education, MMSE, comorbidities and treatment. After adjusting for age, years of education, comorbidities and treatment, in the dementia sample only age and years of education showed statistically significant differences. Whereas in the MCI sample: age, years of education, treatment and comorbidities showed statistically significant differences (Table 1 and 2).ConclusionWomen with MCI and dementia are less likely to participate in a clinical trial due to older age and less years of education than men. Another factor that prevent women for participating in clinical trials is their comorbidities when compared to men, whereas men are excluded due to treatment criteria more often than women. These results show that there is a pre‐selection bias against women in AD clinical trials because of demographic characteristics. Therefore, participation of women in clinical trials does not reflect the prevalence of AD among women and is not representative of reality. Efforts should be made to provide equal opportunities to potential clinical trials candidates regardless of gender.

Promoting equity through sex-specific medical research

The under-representation of women in clinical studies remains a major issue, recognized by researchers, patients, and legislators alike. In this review, we examine the key legislative documents that have shaped policies governing the exclusion and inclusion of women in clinical research over the past several decades, and their impact on seminal cardiovascular studies. We focus on early federal human-subject regulations codified as the Common Rule, which initially contributed to the near-complete exclusion of women, and trace the gradual recognition of the need for women’s inclusion and the progress achieved to date. Key trials discussed include the Framingham Heart Study, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS), as well as a meta-analysis of over 1, 000 cardiovascular trials conducted between 2017 and 2023. We also discuss the critiques of the legislation including the current reliance on informed consent from a bioethics perspective.