Fair Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review of Reported Reasons for Exclusion

Vaccine regulation should require and enforce the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in prelicensure clinical trials

Exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from the pivotal randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines that led to emergency regulatory approval created gaps in data needed for vaccine policy, healthcare provider recommendations, and women's decisions about vaccination. We argue that such knowledge gaps increase potential for vaccine hesitancy and misinformation relating to the health of women and infants, and that these gaps in evidence are avoidable. Over several decades, ethical and scientific guidance, scholarship, and advocacy in favor of pregnant and breastfeeding women's participation in clinical development of vaccines has accumulated. Guidance on how to include pregnant and breastfeeding women in vaccine trials ethically and safely predates the COVID-19 pandemic but has yet to be routinely incorporated in vaccine development. We highlight the important role regulatory authorities could play in requiring that pregnant and breastfeeding women be eligible as volunteer participants in prelicensure vaccine trials for products that are expected to be used in this population. Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding populations in clinical trials leading to market approval or emergency use authorization should be undertaken early or concurrently at the time of trials in the general population.

Deferring Risk: Limitations to the Evidence in Product Labels for Vaccine Use in Pregnancy

Background: The gaps in clinical trial evidence about vaccination in pregnancy have serious implications for health care worker and public misunderstandings. Contradictions between National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) recommendations and regulatory product labeling information contribute to misinformation about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Methods: A mixed methods approach that included a stakeholder consensus decision-making workshop and a national survey of Canadian health care providers (HCPs). Results: We identified knowledge gaps and serious limitations concerning the information in vaccine product labels. Stakeholders were troubled that some HCPs rely on regulatory product labels to inform their decisions without knowing their limitations in content. Our survey showed that HCPs were uncertain about the purpose of product labels and the evidence contained in them. Over a third of respondents incorrectly thought that product labels and NITAG recommendations are based on the same evidence and that the information they contain is regularly updated. Conclusions: Applying social risk theories, we show how such gaps in information defer responsibility for decisions about disease risk and vaccine safety from regulatory agencies and vaccine manufacturers onto HCPs and their clients. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19 and other emerging vaccines that are initially authorized for conditional or emergency use, and especially in understudied populations such as pregnant people. More frequent updating and alignment of robust, unbiased, and independently reviewed clinical trial and postmarket safety and effectiveness evidence with NITAG recommendations would allay HCP and public misunderstandings.

Physician Perspectives on Including Pregnant Women in Covid-19 Clinical Trials: Time for a Paradigm Change

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.

The Pathway Forward: Insights on Factors that Facilitate Research with Pregnant Women

The near-routine exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research has resulted in evidence gaps that endanger the health of pregnant women and their future offspring. Although existing literature documents numerous obstacles along the clinical trial pathway that can stymie research involving pregnant women, there is little guidance on how to facilitate such research. This qualitative study aims to fill that void by examining the experiences of individuals involved in conducting, approving, or overseeing research involving pregnant women at one academic institution. The study identifies factors throughout the clinical pathway-from protocol development, to IRB review, and ultimately trial execution-that likely contribute to the successful conduct of research with pregnant women. Attention to those factors, coupled with agreement among stakeholders that research with pregnant women should and can be done ethically and legally, is critical to shifting the narrative from "why we cannot" do such research to "how we can."

The moral imperative to approve pregnant women's participation in randomized clinical trials for pregnancy and newborn complications

BACKGROUND

There is longstanding consensus on the need to include pregnant women in research. The goal of clinical research is to find highly regulated, carefully controlled, morally responsible ways to generate evidence about how to effectively and safely prevent illness or treat sick people. This manuscripts present a conceptual analysis of the ethicality of clinical trials in 3 scenarios: where the pregnant is involved in clinical trials as a participant during pregnancy for data that addresses pregnancy complications, where the pregnant woman consents to clinical trial participation for an unborn baby that has complications, to generate data on complications at this stage of life, and where the mother may consent for participation of their newborn child in clinical trials.

METHODS

Conceptual analysis.

FINDINGS

Investigators often choose to exclude pregnant women and newborns from research, even where there is possibility for them to benefit from the study intervention. Objections include vulnerability of pregnant women, altered pharmacokinetics and risk of adverse effects, with a need to balance potential maternal and fetal risks and benefits of research participation. While the objections may be valid, not performing research magnifies what should be a carefully controlled risk during research, pushing this risk into the clinical setting, and subsequently posing a challenge to clinicians who are faced with making treatment decisions for pregnant patients with limited evidence of efficacy and safety. The potential benefits of fair inclusion in clinical trials outweigh the potential risks.

CONCLUSION

Research involving pregnant women is necessary to provide women with effective treatment during pregnancy, to promote fetal safety (such as by avoiding the clinical use of drugs that may be harmful to the developing fetus), and to reduce avoidable harm from suboptimal care (such as from underdosing) and to provide pregnant women, their fetuses and newborns (with access to potential benefits of research participation).

Facilitators and barriers to pregnant women's participation in research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although there is consensus among many that exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research should be justified, there is uncertainty as to whether and why pregnant women themselves would be willing to participate even if they were found to be eligible. The objective was to identify the reasons why pregnant women participate in clinical research and thereby to distinguish between facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles regarding pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We used the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and retrieved additional articles through manually searching the reference lists. We included all articles that reported on pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We accumulated all reasons that were mentioned in the total of articles and collated them to themes, classifying these themes as a facilitator or a barrier.

RESULTS

The search identified thirty articles that met the inclusion criteria. Themes classified as facilitators: aspirational benefits, collateral benefits, direct benefits, third party influence and lack of inconvenience. Themes classified as barriers: inconveniences, risks, randomisation, lack of trust in research enterprise, medical reasons and third party influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women report mostly altruistic and personal reasons for their willingness to participate in clinical research, while barriers primarily relate to inconveniences. It appears that pregnant women's described reasoning is similar to the described reasoning of non-pregnant research subjects. Enhancing the facilitators and overcoming the barriers is the next step to increase the evidence-base underlying maternal and foetal health.

Towards an appropriate framework to facilitate responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug development programs

Evidence-based treatment for pregnant women will ultimately require research conducted in the population of pregnant women. Currently, few scholars have addressed the issue of responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. Because of additional risks associated with including pregnant women in drug research and the altered ways in which drugs are processed by the pregnant body, pregnant women cannot be treated as an ordinary subgroup in the various phases of drug development. Instead, responsible inclusion of pregnant women requires careful design and planning of research for pregnant women specifically. Knowledge about these aspects is virtually nonexistent.

In this article, we present a practical framework for the responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug development. We suggest that the framework consists of using a question-based approach with five key questions in combination with three prerequisites which should be addressed when considering inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. The five questions are:A.

Can we consider the drug safe (enough) for first exposure in pregnant women and fetuses?

B.

In which dose range (potentially depending on gestational age) can the drug be considered to remain safe in pregnant women?

C.

At what dose (regimen, within the range considered safe) can we expect efficacy in pregnant women?

D.

Can efficacy be confirmed at the target dose, either similar to the initial population or different?

E.

Can clinical safety be confirmed at a sufficiently acceptable level at the target dose for pregnant women and fetuses, so as to conclude a positive benefit–risk ratio?

Combining questions and prerequisites leads to a scheme for appropriate timing of responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. Accordingly, we explore several research design options for including pregnant women in drug trials that are feasible within the framework. Ultimately, the framework may lead to (i) earlier inclusion of pregnant women in drug development, (ii) ensuring that key prerequisites, such as proper dosing, are addressed before more substantial numbers of pregnant women are included in trials, and (iii) optimal use of safety and efficacy data from the initial (nonpregnant) population throughout the drug development process.

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach

Background

Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling “scientific reasons” for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion.

Methods

Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion.

Results

Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women.

Conclusions

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women.

Ethics, regulation, and beyond: the landscape of research with pregnant women

Scarce research with pregnant women has led to a dearth of evidence to guide medical decisions about safe and effective treatment and preventive interventions for pregnant women and their potential offspring. In this paper, we highlight three aspects of the landscape in which pregnant women are included or, more frequently, excluded from research: international ethics guidance, regional and national regulatory frameworks, and prevailing practices. Our paper suggests that, in some cases, regulatory frameworks can be more restrictive than international ethics guidance, and that even when regulations permit research with pregnant women, practical challenges-as well as the prevailing practices of stakeholders, such as ethics review committees and investigators-may lead to the generalized exclusion of pregnant women from research.

A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals' individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women.