From the Journals

Women’s representation in CV drug trials still lagging

View on the News

Progress to date is not sufficient

Any optimism for results of this study by FDA authors are dampened significantly by the continued under-representation of women in heart failure and ischemic heart disease.

Even though progress has been made toward a higher participation of women in pivotal clinical trials, it still is not time to rest on our laurels.

One key contributor to the persistently low representation of women is the eligibility criteria of clinical trials. Those criteria often describe a male pattern of disease, particularly in drug trials for ischemic heart disease and heart failure.

As an example, heart failure trials have included eligibility criteria that consistently exclude women, such as a glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and an ejection fraction of 40% or less.

The inclusion criteria in randomized, controlled trials impose homogeneous clinical characteristics for men and women and may be responsible for the lack of sex differences in efficacy outcomes.

Thus, the current analysis exposes not only successes but also failings of clinical trial design for FDA approval. We are still far from providing equitable cardiovascular health care for women.

Louise Pilote, MD, MPH, PhD, and Valeria Raparelli, MD, PhD, are both affiliated with McGill University Health Centre, Montreal. These comments are derived from their editorial in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology . Both reported that they had no relationships relevant to the contents of their editorial.


 

FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY


The PPR was within the desirable range for hypertension, at 0.9, and atrial fibrillation trials, at 0.8-1.1, while participation for pulmonary arterial hypertension trials was above the desirable range, at 1.4, according to the report.

However, a PPR of less than 0.8 was found for coronary artery disease trials, at 0.6; acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction trials, also at 0.6; and heart failure trials, at 0.5 to 0.6.

Few clinically meaningful gender differences were found in efficacy or safety, they added, noting that such differences were discussed in the prescribing information for four different drugs.


To ensure that representative patient populations are enrolled in drug trials, clinical researchers, patient advocacy groups, federal agencies, and the industry as a whole should work together, Dr. Scott and her colleagues said.

“These steps will move us closer toward the goal of providing the best information possible about the use of drugs for every patient,” they wrote.

Dr. Scott and coauthors reported that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Scott PE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 18;71:1960-9.

Pages

Recommended Reading

A refined strategy for confirming diagnosis in suspected NSTEMI
MDedge Cardiology
Lower heart disease mortality brings increased disparity
MDedge Cardiology
EAGLES: Smoking cessation therapy did not up cardiovascular risk
MDedge Cardiology
Life and health are not even across the U.S.
MDedge Cardiology
Herpes zoster boosts short-term stroke, TIA risk
MDedge Cardiology
MDedge Daily News: Can a nasal spray reverse suicidality?
MDedge Cardiology
Meta-analysis: Thin struts equal better outcomes for drug-eluting stents
MDedge Cardiology
FDA advisory committee votes to recommend update to celecoxib safety labeling
MDedge Cardiology
MDedge Daily News: Lupus is quietly killing young women
MDedge Cardiology
MI before age 50? Think familial hypercholesterolemia, substance abuse
MDedge Cardiology