Characterizing the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding people in infectious diseases randomized controlled trials: a targeted literature review

Model-informed drug development in pediatric, pregnancy and geriatric drug development: States of the art and future

The challenges of drug development in pediatric, pregnant and geriatric populations are a worldwide concern shared by regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare professionals. Model-informed drug development (MIDD) can integrate and quantify real-world data of physiology, pharmacology, and disease processes by using modeling and simulation techniques to facilitate decision-making in drug development. In this article, we reviewed current MIDD policy updates, reflected on the integrity of physiological data used for MIDD and the effects of physiological changes on the drug PK, as well as summarized current MIDD strategies and applications, so as to present the state of the art of MIDD in pediatric, pregnant and geriatric populations. Some considerations are put forth for the future improvements of MIDD including refining regulatory considerations, improving the integrity of physiological data, applying the emerging technologies, and exploring the application of MIDD in new therapies like gene therapies for special populations.

Sex as a Biological Variable in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Although sex differences have been noted in cellular function and behavior, therapy efficacy, and disease incidence and outcomes, the adoption of sex as a biological variable in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine remains limited. Furthering the development of personalized, precision medicine requires considering biological sex at the bench and in the clinic. This review provides the basis for considering biological sex when designing tissue-engineered constructs and regenerative therapies by contextualizing sex as a biological variable within the tissue engineering triad of cells, matrices, and signals. To achieve equity in biological sex within medicine requires a cultural shift in science and engineering research, with active engagement by researchers, clinicians, companies, policymakers, and funding agencies.

Eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in psychiatry randomized controlled trials

To describe the eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in psychiatry randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We screened citations published 2017-2019 in the three highest impact psychiatry and five highest impact general medicine journals. We excluded male, pediatric, geriatric, and postmenopausal-focused RCTs and publications reporting subgroup, pooled, or secondary analyses of RCTs. We reviewed appendices, protocols, and registries for additional data. In total 108 RCTs were included. Three (2.8%) permitted enrollment of pregnant women; 59/108 (55%) and 46/108 (43%) explicitly excluded pregnant women or did not report pregnancy inclusion criteria, respectively. All RCTs including pregnant women evaluated non-pharmacological interventions for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. Among RCTs excluding pregnant women, 5/59 (8.5%) provided a rationale for exclusion. Contraception and/or negative pregnancy testing were required for women with reproductive capacity in 31/59 (53%). Three (2.8%) RCTs permitted enrollment of breastfeeding women and 3/41 (7.3%) RCTs excluding breastfeeding women provided a rationale for exclusion. This study demonstrates a major gap in psychiatry research involving pregnant and breastfeeding women. A shift from exclusion by default to inclusion and integration of this population into the clinical research agenda is needed to ensure they receive evidence-based care for mental illness.

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.