与 COVID-19 临床试验中种族、民族和性别代表性相关的时间趋势和特征:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Contemporary clinical trials Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107578
Matthew Kaczynski , Athanasios Vassilopoulos , Stephanos Vassilopoulos , Anthony Sisti , Gregorio Benitez , Quynh-Lam Tran , Evangelia K. Mylona , Fadi Shehadeh , Ralph Rogers , Eleftherios Mylonakis
{"title":"与 COVID-19 临床试验中种族、民族和性别代表性相关的时间趋势和特征:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Matthew Kaczynski ,&nbsp;Athanasios Vassilopoulos ,&nbsp;Stephanos Vassilopoulos ,&nbsp;Anthony Sisti ,&nbsp;Gregorio Benitez ,&nbsp;Quynh-Lam Tran ,&nbsp;Evangelia K. Mylona ,&nbsp;Fadi Shehadeh ,&nbsp;Ralph Rogers ,&nbsp;Eleftherios Mylonakis","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Early in the pandemic, extensive attention was cast on limited inclusion of historically underrepresented patient populations in COVID-19 clinical trials. How diverse representation improved following these initial reports remains unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched (through April 2024) for US-based COVID-19 trials. Utilizing random-effects, we compared expected proportions of trial participants from racial and ethnic groups and of female sex between trials enrolling primarily in 2020 versus primarily 2021–2022. Meta-regression was performed to assess associations between trial characteristics and group representation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We retrieved 157 studies comprising 198,012 participants. White (2020: 63.1% [95% CI, 60.8%–67.3%]; 2021–2022: 73.8% [95% CI, 71.5%–76.0%]) and female representation (2020: 46.1% [95% CI, 44.7%–47.4%)]; 2021–2022: 51.1% [95% CI, 49.3%–52.8%) increased across enrollment periods. Industry-sponsored trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03–0.18]) and Hispanic or Latinx representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08–0.25]) and lower Asian (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.06– –0.003]) and female representation (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.07– –0.002]). Outpatient trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13–0.26]) and female representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13–0.18]), and lower Black representation (coefficient, −0.10 [95% CI, −0.10– –0.08]).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite improved female representation in COVID-19 trials over time, there was no clear increase in non-White representation. Trial characteristics such as primary sponsor, clinical setting, and intervention type correlate with representation of specific demographic groups and should be considered in future efforts to improve participant diversity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Temporal trends and characteristics associated with racial, ethnic, and sex representation in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Kaczynski ,&nbsp;Athanasios Vassilopoulos ,&nbsp;Stephanos Vassilopoulos ,&nbsp;Anthony Sisti ,&nbsp;Gregorio Benitez ,&nbsp;Quynh-Lam Tran ,&nbsp;Evangelia K. Mylona ,&nbsp;Fadi Shehadeh ,&nbsp;Ralph Rogers ,&nbsp;Eleftherios Mylonakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Early in the pandemic, extensive attention was cast on limited inclusion of historically underrepresented patient populations in COVID-19 clinical trials. How diverse representation improved following these initial reports remains unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched (through April 2024) for US-based COVID-19 trials. Utilizing random-effects, we compared expected proportions of trial participants from racial and ethnic groups and of female sex between trials enrolling primarily in 2020 versus primarily 2021–2022. Meta-regression was performed to assess associations between trial characteristics and group representation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We retrieved 157 studies comprising 198,012 participants. White (2020: 63.1% [95% CI, 60.8%–67.3%]; 2021–2022: 73.8% [95% CI, 71.5%–76.0%]) and female representation (2020: 46.1% [95% CI, 44.7%–47.4%)]; 2021–2022: 51.1% [95% CI, 49.3%–52.8%) increased across enrollment periods. Industry-sponsored trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03–0.18]) and Hispanic or Latinx representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08–0.25]) and lower Asian (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.06– –0.003]) and female representation (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.07– –0.002]). Outpatient trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13–0.26]) and female representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13–0.18]), and lower Black representation (coefficient, −0.10 [95% CI, −0.10– –0.08]).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite improved female representation in COVID-19 trials over time, there was no clear increase in non-White representation. Trial characteristics such as primary sponsor, clinical setting, and intervention type correlate with representation of specific demographic groups and should be considered in future efforts to improve participant diversity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714424001617\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714424001617","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在大流行早期,COVID-19 临床试验对历来代表性不足的患者群体的有限纳入引起了广泛关注。在这些最初的报道之后,不同的代表性如何得到改善仍不清楚:方法:我们检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆(截至 2024 年 4 月)中基于美国的 COVID-19 试验。利用随机效应,我们比较了主要在 2020 年与主要在 2021-2022 年入选的试验之间,来自种族和民族群体的试验参与者以及女性参与者的预期比例。我们进行了元回归,以评估试验特征与群体代表性之间的关联:我们检索了 157 项研究,共有 198 012 名参与者。白人(2020 年:63.1% [95% CI,60.8%-67.3%];2021-2022 年:73.8% [95% CI,71.5%-76.0%])和女性(2020 年:46.1% [95% CI,44.7%-47.4%];2021-2022 年:51.1% [95% CI,49.3%-52.8%])的代表性在各注册期均有所增加。行业赞助的试验与较高的白人比例(系数,0.10 [95% CI,0.03-0.18])和西班牙裔或拉丁裔比例(系数,0.16 [95% CI,0.08-0.25])相关,而与较低的亚裔比例(系数,-0.03 [95% CI,-0.06--0.003])和女性比例(系数,-0.03 [95% CI,-0.07--0.002])相关。门诊试验与较高的白人比例(系数,0.20 [95% CI,0.13-0.26])和女性比例(系数,0.16 [95% CI,0.13-0.18])相关,而与较低的黑人比例(系数,-0.10 [95% CI,-0.10--0.08])相关:结论:尽管随着时间的推移,女性在COVID-19试验中的代表性有所提高,但非白人的代表性并没有明显增加。主要发起人、临床环境和干预类型等试验特征与特定人口群体的代表性相关,在未来提高参与者多样性的工作中应加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Temporal trends and characteristics associated with racial, ethnic, and sex representation in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Early in the pandemic, extensive attention was cast on limited inclusion of historically underrepresented patient populations in COVID-19 clinical trials. How diverse representation improved following these initial reports remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched (through April 2024) for US-based COVID-19 trials. Utilizing random-effects, we compared expected proportions of trial participants from racial and ethnic groups and of female sex between trials enrolling primarily in 2020 versus primarily 2021–2022. Meta-regression was performed to assess associations between trial characteristics and group representation.

Results

We retrieved 157 studies comprising 198,012 participants. White (2020: 63.1% [95% CI, 60.8%–67.3%]; 2021–2022: 73.8% [95% CI, 71.5%–76.0%]) and female representation (2020: 46.1% [95% CI, 44.7%–47.4%)]; 2021–2022: 51.1% [95% CI, 49.3%–52.8%) increased across enrollment periods. Industry-sponsored trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03–0.18]) and Hispanic or Latinx representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08–0.25]) and lower Asian (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.06– –0.003]) and female representation (coefficient, −0.03 [95% CI, −0.07– –0.002]). Outpatient trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13–0.26]) and female representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13–0.18]), and lower Black representation (coefficient, −0.10 [95% CI, −0.10– –0.08]).

Conclusions

Despite improved female representation in COVID-19 trials over time, there was no clear increase in non-White representation. Trial characteristics such as primary sponsor, clinical setting, and intervention type correlate with representation of specific demographic groups and should be considered in future efforts to improve participant diversity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
281
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Design and implementation of a Type-2 hybrid, prospective randomized trial of opioid agonist therapies integration into primary care clinics in Ukraine Addressing emotional distress to improve outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: Protocol for ACT1VATE randomized controlled trial The clinical and cost effectiveness of internet-delivered self-help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for family carers of people with dementia (iACT4CARERS): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with ethnically diverse family carers Comparison of intravascular ultrasound-guided with optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for left main distal bifurcation lesions: Rationale and design of the ISOLEDS trial Recruitment feasibility and dietary and behavioral patterns in toddlers with ASD: Preliminary results from the Autism Eats program
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1