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.
[1]
M. Kibbe,et al.
Sex Bias Exists in Human Surgical Clinical Research
,
2016
.
[2]
L. Simoni,et al.
Sex and Gender Differences in Central Nervous System-Related Disorders
,
2016,
Neuroscience journal.
[3]
K. Hamberg,et al.
Doubly blind: a systematic review of gender in randomised controlled trials
,
2016,
Global health action.
[4]
K. Schenck-Gustafsson,et al.
Gender in cardiovascular diseases: impact on clinical manifestations, management, and outcomes.
,
2016,
European heart journal.
[5]
M. Kibbe,et al.
Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research.
,
2014,
Surgery.
[6]
R. Fillingim,et al.
Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings.
,
2013,
British journal of anaesthesia.
[7]
J. Nelson.
Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men?
,
2012
.
[8]
S. Geller,et al.
Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress?
,
2011,
Journal of women's health.
[9]
Lex Borghans,et al.
Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion
,
2009,
SSRN Electronic Journal.
[10]
M. Fleisch,et al.
Women in early‐phase clinical drug trials: Have things changed over the past 20 years?
,
2005,
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.