Racial and ethnic trends in antiseizure medications trial enrolment: A systematic review using ClinicalTrials.gov

Recruitment, retention and reporting of variables related to ethnic diversity in randomised controlled trials: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the methods used to recruit and retain ethnically diverse participants and report and analyse variables related to ethnic diversity in randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane and Campbell Libraries for review papers published between 1 January 2010 and 13 May 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

English language systematic reviews focusing on inclusion and reporting of ethnicity variables. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

RESULTS

Sixty-two systematic reviews were included. Findings point to limited representation and reporting of ethnic diversity in trials. Recruitment strategies commonly reported by the reviews were community engagement, advertisement, face-to-face recruitment, cultural targeting, clinical referral, community presentation, use of technology, incentives and research partnership with communities. Retention strategies highlighted by the reviews included frequent follow-ups on participants to check how they are doing in the study, provision of incentives, use of tailored approaches and culturally appropriate interventions. The findings point to a limited focus on the analysis of variables relevant to ethnic diversity in trials even when they are reported in trials.

CONCLUSION

Significant improvements are required in enhancing the recruitment and retention of ethnically diverse participants in trials as well as analysis and reporting of variables relating to diversity in clinical trials.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022325241.

Underrepresented and Underserved Populations in Neurological Research

Underserved and underrepresented populations have historically been excluded from neurological research. This lack of representation has implications for translation of research findings into clinical practice given the impact of social determinants of health on neurological disease risk, progression, and outcomes. Lack of inclusion in research is driven by individual-, investigator-, and study-level barriers as well as larger systemic injustices (e.g., structural racism, discriminatory practices). Although strategies to increase inclusion of underserved and underrepresented populations have been put forth, numerous questions remain about the most effective methodology. In this article, we highlight inclusivity patterns and gaps among the most common neurological conditions and propose best practices informed by our own experiences in engagement of local community organizations and collaboration efforts to increase underserved and underrepresented population participation in neurological research.

Toward more diverse, inclusive, and equitable neuromodulation

Racial and ethnic disparities exist for many nervous system disorders that are intervention targets for neuromodulation investigators. Yet, to date, there has been both a lack of racial and ethnic diversity and a lack of emphasis on diversity in neuromodulation research. In this paper, we suggest three potential reasons for the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in neuromodulation research: 1) the lack of diversity in the neuromodulation workforce, 2) incompatibility between the technologies employed and phenotypic traits (e.g., hair texture) commonly present in minoritized populations, and 3) minoritized populations' reluctance to participate in clinical trials. We argue that increasing diversity in the neuromodulation workforce, in conjunction with mutual collaboration between current neuromodulation researchers and underrepresented communities in neuromodulation, can aid in removing barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuromodulation research. This is important, because greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuromodulation research brings with it the development of novel, yet safe and effective, treatment approaches for brain disorders and enhances the rigor and generalizability of discoveries in the field.

Racial bias in recruitment to clinical trials on paediatric asthma

Asthma is now the commonest chronic disease of childhood, but not all children with asthma receive equivalent standards of medical care which influences their clinical outcomes. In this paper we sought to determine the proportion of participants in registered clinical trials relating to paediatric or adolescent asthma over the last decade that were from white and non-white backgrounds. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for all completed interventional studies between the dates 1st January 2011 and 1st January 2021 that were on the topic of 'asthma', and included participants below 18 years of age. Of the 500 studies returned, 208 had results available on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. In total, of the 112,327 patients studied, almost 69 % (77,333) of the patients were described as White or Caucasian, and fewer than 13 % (14,189) were described as Black, African, or African-American. Overall, approximately 30 % of study participants - some 34,207 children - were from non-white backgrounds. To redress this imbalance, researchers designing clinical trials must ensure that their study populations are as representative of the target population for the intervention as possible.

Black Patients Matter in Neurology: Race, Racism, and Race-Based Neurodisparities

Black people living in the United States suffer disproportionate morbidity and mortality across a wide range of neurologic conditions. Despite common conceptions to the contrary, "race" is a socially defined construct with little genetic validity. Therefore, racial health inequities in neurology ("neurodisparities") are not a consequence of biologic differences between races. Instead, racism and associated social determinants of health are the root of neurodisparities. To date, many neurologists have neglected racism as a root cause of neurologic disease, further perpetuating the problem. Structural racism, largely ignored in current neurologic practice and policy, drives neurodisparities through mediators such as excessive poverty, inferior health insurance, and poorer access to neurologic and preventative care. Interpersonal racism (implicit or explicit) and associated discriminatory practices in neurologic research, workforce advancement, and medical education also exacerbate neurodisparities. Neurologists cannot fulfill their professional and ethical responsibility to care for Black patients without understanding how racism, not biologic race, drives neurodisparities. In our review of race, racism, and race-based disparities in neurology, we highlight the current literature on neurodisparities across a wide range of neurologic conditions and focus on racism as the root cause. We discuss why all neurologists are ethically and professionally obligated to actively promote measures to counteract racism. We conclude with a call for actions that should be implemented by individual neurologists and professional neurologic organizations to mitigate racism and work towards health equity in neurology.

Inequities in therapy for infantile spasms: a call to action

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether selection of treatment for children with infantile spasms (IS) varies by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

The prospective US National Infantile Spasms Consortium database includes children with IS treated from 2012-2018. We examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and receipt of standard IS therapy (prednisolone, adrenocorticotropic hormone, vigabatrin), adjusting for demographic and clinical variables using logistic regression. Our primary outcome was treatment course, which considered therapy prescribed for the first and, when needed, the second IS treatment together.

RESULTS

Of 555 children, 324 (58%) were Non-Hispanic white, 55 (10%) Non-Hispanic Black, 24 (4%) Non-Hispanic Asian, 80 (14%) Hispanic, and 72 (13%) Other/Unknown. Most (398, 72%) received a standard treatment course. Insurance type, geographic location, history of prematurity, prior seizures, developmental delay or regression, abnormal head circumference, hypsarrhythmia, and IS etiologies were associated with standard therapy. In adjusted models, Non-Hispanic Black children had lower odds of receiving a standard treatment course compared with Non-Hispanic white children (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Adjusted models also showed that children with public (vs. private) insurance had lower odds of receiving standard therapy for treatment 1 (OR 0.42, CI 0.21-0.84, p = 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

Non-Hispanic Black children were more often treated with non-standard IS therapies than Non-Hispanic white children. Likewise, children with public (vs. private) insurance were less likely to receive standard therapies. Investigating drivers of inequities, and understanding the impact of racism on treatment decisions, are critical next steps to improve care for patients with IS. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Socioeconomic disparities in epilepsy care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epilepsy is a common, chronic neurologic disease with continued disparities in care. The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social movements have drawn greater attention to social determinants of health and our progress (or lack thereof) toward delivering more equitable care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies continue to document racial and economic disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and overall care of epilepsy and associated conditions. Notably, an increasing number of studies are attempting to design healthcare pathways and other interventions to improve access and equity in epilepsy care.

SUMMARY

The present literature highlights the importance of identifying and addressing the particular needs of vulnerable persons with epilepsy. Practitioners and researchers should continue to develop interventions aimed at improving care for all patients and, crucially, measure the impact of their changes to ensure that any interventions are truly advancing health equity.