Adverse Drug Reactions in Women's Health Care

Analysis of Allergy and Hypersensitivity Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines According to the EudraVigilance Database

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented a new challenge in modern medicine: the development of vaccines was followed by massive population vaccinations. A few reports on post-vaccination allergic reactions have made patients and medical personnel uneasy as to COVID-19 vaccines' allergic potential. Most of the studies in this area to date have been small, and some that were based on global databases skipped most of the allergic diseases and concentrated only on anaphylaxis. We aimed to analyze the incidence of serious allergic reactions based on the EudraVigilance (EV) database, regardless of the reported symptoms and allergy mechanism.

METHODS

The total number of administrated vaccine doses was extracted on 5 October 2023 from Vaccine Tracker and included all administrations since vaccinations began in the European Economic Area (EEA). Data on serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were extracted from the EudraVigilance database with the same time point. The code names of 147 allergic symptoms or diseases were used.

RESULTS

The frequency of serious allergic reactions per 100,000 administered vaccine doses was 1.53 for Comirnaty, 2.16 for Spikevax, 88.6 for Vaxzevria, 2.11 for Janssen, 7.9 for Novavax, 13.3 for VidPrevtyn Beta, and 3.1 for Valneva. The most prevalent reported reactions were edema (0.46) and anaphylaxis (0.40). Only 6% of these reactions were delayed hypersensitivity-oriented.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall frequency of potential serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 is very rare. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines seem to be safe for human use. The lowest frequency of allergic reaction was observed for Comirnaty and the highest for Vaxzevria.

Changes in Psychotropic Drug Concentrations Across the Menstrual Cycle: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The escalating prescription of psychopharmacological medications to women of reproductive age underscores the growing significance of sex-specific variations in pharmacotherapy. Despite this, clinical trials have largely overlooked these differences. Preliminary data indicate sex-specific variations in the neurobiology of affective disorders and in the metabolism, pharmacodynamics, and kinetics of therapeutic drugs. This underscores the imperative for a more nuanced exploration of menstrual cycle-dependent fluctuations in psychotropic drugs. This pilot study aimed to investigate drug and hormone fluctuations in female patients with affective disorders, aiming to enhance comprehension of the interplay between cycle-related hormone fluctuations and pharmacokinetics. The ultimate goal is to facilitate more effective and safer pharmacological therapy in the future.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 27 patients and 27 age-matched control participants at 3 distinct time points (early follicular phase, ovulation, and late luteal phase) during each menstrual cycle. Depressive and manic symptoms were assessed, and hormone concentrations were measured in the entire sample, while drug concentrations were assessed solely in the affective disorder sample using mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Significant variations in drug concentration were observed throughout the menstrual cycle for bupropion, with a trend toward altered concentration for venlafaxine. Moreover, notable differences in hormone concentrations were identified between patients and controls, even after accounting for the impact of contraceptive use, diagnoses, and medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study reinforces previously reported data, underscoring the significance of sex-specific pharmacological therapy approaches. It provides further evidence supporting the interaction among sex hormones, drugs, and symptoms of affective disorders.

Exploring sex differences: insights into gene expression, neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognition, and pathology

Increased knowledge about sex differences is important for development of individualized treatments against many diseases as well as understanding behavioral and pathological differences. This review summarizes sex chromosome effects on gene expression, epigenetics, and hormones in relation to the brain. We explore neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognition, and brain pathology aiming to explain the current state of the art. While some domains exhibit strong differences, others reveal subtle differences whose overall significance warrants clarification. We hope that the current review increases awareness and serves as a basis for the planning of future studies that consider both sexes equally regarding similarities and differences.

A Gender Hypothesis of sex disparities in adverse drug events

Pharmacovigilance databases contain larger numbers of adverse drug events (ADEs) that occurred in women compared to men. The cause of this disparity is frequently attributed to sex-linked biological factors. We offer an alternative Gender Hypothesis, positing that gendered social factors are central to the production of aggregate sex disparities in ADE reports. We describe four pathways through which gender may influence observed sex disparities in pharmacovigilance databases: healthcare utilization; bias and discrimination in the clinic; experience of a drug event as adverse; and pre-existing social and structural determinants of health. We then use data from the U.S. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to explore how the Gender Hypothesis might generate novel predictions and explanations of sex disparities in ADEs in existing widely referenced datasets. Analyzing more than 3 million records of ADEs between 2014 and 2022, we find that patient-reported ADEs show a larger female skew than healthcare provider-reported ADEs and that the sex disparity is markedly smaller for outcomes involving death or hospitalization. We also find that the sex disparity varies greatly across types of ADEs, for example, cosmetically salient ADEs are skewed heavily female and sexual dysfunction ADEs are skewed male. Together, we interpret these findings as providing evidence of the promise of the Gender Hypothesis for identifying intervenable mechanisms and pathways contributing to sex disparities in ADEs. Rigorous application of the Gender Hypothesis to additional datasets and in future research studies could yield new insights into the causes of sex disparities in ADEs.

Gender representation in drug development studies for diabetes mellitus. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

During the last 20 years, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has increased drastically, and so has the number of associated medicine and drug development studies. Despite knowing that men and women respond differently to DM medicines, biological gender differences still tend not to be prioritized during medicine development.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined gender representation in medicine development studies for DM.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review, and in February 2022, we searched EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and PubMed using a block search strategy. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) including people diagnosed with DM (any type) aged 18-65 years were included. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial 2010 checklist was applied to assess the studies' reported quality. The results are presented in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. On average, women represented 31.4% of study participants, and similarly, for each trial phase, women were less represented than men.

CONCLUSION

This review showed an unequal gender representation in drug development studies for DM, with women and men representing 31.4% and 68.6% of the study participants, respectively, in the included studies. However, gender differences in medical drug studies might be due to specific exclusion criteria, participants' behaviour toward attending in medicine development or the law in the country of origin.

The Role of Gender Pharmacogenetics in the Personalization of Drug Treatment

The use of pharmacogenetic guidelines in personalizing treatments has shown the potential to reduce interindividual variability in drug response by enabling genotype-matched dosing and drug selection. However, other important factors, such as patient gender, may interact strongly with pharmacogenetics in determining the individual profile of toxicity and efficacy but are still rarely considered when planning pharmacological treatment. The literature indicates that males and females respond differently to drugs, with women being at higher risk for toxicity and having different plasma exposure to drugs at standard doses. Recent studies have shown that pharmacogenetic variants may have different predictive value in different sexes, as in the case of treatment with opioids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or proton pump inhibitors. Of particular interest is the case of treatment with fluoropyrimidines for cancer. A significant increase in toxicity has been described in female patients, with a more pronounced effect of specific DPYD and TYMS polymorphisms also noted. This manuscript reviews the major findings in the field of sex-specific pharmacogenomics. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Interindividual variability in drug response is an emerging issue in pharmacology. The genetic profile of patients, as well as their gender, may play a role in the identification of patients more exposed to the risk of adverse drug reactions or poor efficacy. This article reviews the current state of research on the interaction between gender and pharmacogenetics in addressing interindividual variability.

Adverse Drug Events by Sex After Adjusting for Baseline Rates of Drug Use

This cross-sectional study examines adverse drug events reported by sex in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database after adjusting for drug use by males and females.

Genotyping of Patients with Adverse Drug Reaction or Therapy Failure: Database Analysis of a Pharmacogenetics Case Series Study

Purpose

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) is an emerging aspect of personalized medicine with the potential to increase efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy. However, PGx testing is still not routinely integrated into clinical practice. We conducted an observational case series study where PGx information from a commercially available panel test covering 30 genes was integrated into medication reviews. The aim of the study was to identify the drugs that are most frequently object of drug-gene-interactions (DGI) in the study population.

Patients and Methods

In out-patient and in-patient settings, we recruited 142 patients experiencing adverse drug reaction (ADR) and/or therapy failure (TF). Collected anonymized data from the individual patient was harmonized and transferred to a structured database.

Results

The majority of the patients had a main diagnosis of a mental or behavioral disorder (ICD-10: F, 61%), of musculoskeletal system and connective tissue diseases (ICD-10: M, 21%), and of the circulatory system (ICD-10: I, 11%). The number of prescribed medicines reached a median of 7 per person, resulting in a majority of patients with polypharmacy (≥5 prescribed medicines, 65%). In total, 559 suspected DGI were identified in 142 patients. After genetic testing, an association with at least one genetic variation was confirmed for 324 suspected DGI (58%) caused by 64 different drugs and 21 different genes in 141 patients. After 6 months, PGx-based medication adjustments were recorded for 62% of the study population, whereby differences were identified in subgroups.

Conclusion

The data analysis from this study provides valuable insights for the main focus of further research in the context of PGx. The results indicate that most of the selected patients in our sample represent suitable target groups for PGx panel testing in clinical practice, notably those taking drugs for mental or behavioral disorder, circulatory diseases, immunological diseases, pain-related diseases, and patients experiencing polypharmacy.

A systematic review on sex differences in adverse drug reactions related to psychotropic, cardiovascular, and analgesic medications

Background and objective: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are the main safety concerns of clinically used medications. Accumulating evidence has shown that ADRs can affect men and women differently, which suggests sex as a biological predictor in the risk of ADRs. This review aims to summarize the current state of knowledge on sex differences in ADRs with the focus on the commonly used psychotropic, cardiovascular, and analgesic medications, and to aid clinical decision making and future mechanistic investigations on this topic. Methods: PubMed search was performed with combinations of the following terms: over 1,800 drugs of interests, sex difference (and its related terms), and side effects (and its related terms), which yielded over 400 unique articles. Articles related to psychotropic, cardiovascular, and analgesic medications were included in the subsequent full-text review. Characteristics and the main findings (male-biased, female-biased, or not sex biased ADRs) of each included article were collected, and the results were summarized by drug class and/or individual drug. Results: Twenty-six articles studying sex differences in ADRs of six psychotropic medications, ten cardiovascular medications, and one analgesic medication were included in this review. The main findings of these articles suggested that more than half of the ADRs being evaluated showed sex difference pattern in occurrence rate. For instance, lithium was found to cause more thyroid dysfunction in women, and amisulpride induced prolactin increase was more pronounced in women than in men. Some serious ADRs were also found to exert sex difference pattern, such as clozapine induced neutropenia was more prevalent in women whereas simvastatin/atorvastatin-related abnormal liver functions were more pronounced in men.

Sex Differences in Pharmacokinetics

Because women have been excluded from most clinical trials, assessment of sex differences in pharmacokinetics is available for a minority of currently prescribed drugs. In a 2020 analysis, substantial pharmacokinetic (PK) sex differences were established for 86 drugs: women given the same drug dose as men routinely generated higher blood concentrations and longer drug elimination times than men. 96% of drugs with higher PK values in women were associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in women than men; in the small number of instances when PKs of men exceeded those of women, this sex difference positively predicted male-biased ADRs in only 29% of cases. The absence of sex-stratified PK information for many medications raises the concern that sex differences in pharmacokinetics may be widespread and of clinical significance, contributing to sex-specific patterns of ADRs. Administering equal drug doses to women and men neglects sex differences in pharmacokinetics and body weight, risks overmedication of women, and contributes to female-biased ADRs. Evidence-based dosing adjustments are recommended to counteract this sex bias.

Differences between men and women in response to antiseizure medication use and the likelihood of developing treatment resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of epilepsy is slightly higher in women than in men and sensitivity to seizure stimuli differs between sexes. Some evidence suggests sex differences in response to antiseizure medications exist mainly due to inconsistent pharmacokinetic differences; however, there is a lack of real-world evidence examining differences in response to antiseizure medications between men and women.

METHODS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in five large US healthcare databases. The population included adult patients with epilepsy, newly exposed to levetiracetam, and naive to antiseizure medication. The first exposure to levetiracetam was the index date. The requirement that all patients received the same medication was done to avoid potential confounding due to differences in index treatment. The outcome was the development of treatment resistant epilepsy (TRE), defined as having at least three distinct antiseizure medications in 1 year. The proportion of patients who developed TRE within 1 year following the index date was calculated. To compare the risk of developing TRE between sexes, relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and estimates were pooled using meta-analytic techniques stratified by gender and age.

RESULTS

A total of 147 334 subjects were included in the databases, 50.8% were women, and 4.27% developed TRE. The comorbid profile differed greatly between men and women; however, the types of epilepsy syndromes observed during baseline were similar between the two groups. Across all databases, women were more likely to develop TRE than men (pooled RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17-1.38). Results remained similar when stratified by age.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study assessed sex differences in response to antiseizure medications using the development of TRE as a proxy for effectiveness. Women newly exposed to levetiracetam were 27% more likely to develop TRE than men, independent of age.

Sex/gender differences in children with autism spectrum disorder: A brief overview on epidemiology, symptom profile, and neuroanatomy

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a heterogeneous group of neurodevelopmental conditions whose shared core features are impairments in social interaction and communication as well as restricted patterns of behavior, interests, and activities. The significant and consistent male preponderance in ASD prevalence has historically affected the scientific knowledge of autism in females as regards, inter alia, the clinical presentation, the genetic architecture, and the structural brain underpinnings. Indeed, females with ASD are under-investigated as samples recruited for clinical research typically reflect the strong male bias of the disorder. In the last years, the study of the various aspects of sex/gender (s/g) differences in ASD is gaining increased clinical and research interest resulting in a growing number of investigations on this topic. Here, I review and discuss evidence emerged from epidemiological, clinical, and neuroimaging studies in the last decade focusing on s/g differences in children with ASD. These studies are the prerequisites for the development of assessment and treatment practices which take into consideration s/g differences in ASD. Ultimately, a better understanding of s/g differences aims at improving healthcare for both ASD males and females.

Evaluating the evidence for sex differences: a scoping review of human neuroimaging in psychopharmacology research

Although sex differences in psychiatric disorders abound, few neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) studies consider sex as a biological variable (SABV). We conducted a scoping review of this literature in humans by systematically searching PubMed to identify peer-reviewed journal articles published before March 2020 that (1) studied FDA-approved medications used to treat psychiatric disorders (or related symptoms) and (2) adequately evaluated sex differences using in vivo neuroimaging methodologies. Of the 251 NPP studies that included both sexes and considered SABV in analyses, 80% used methodologies that eliminated the effect of sex (e.g., by including sex as a covariate to control for its effect). Only 20% (50 studies) adequately evaluated sex differences either by testing for an interaction involving sex or by stratifying analyses by sex. Of these 50 studies, 72% found statistically significant sex differences in at least one outcome. Sex differences in neural and behavioral outcomes were studied more often in drugs indicated for conditions with known sex differences. Likewise, the majority of studies conducted in those drug classes noted sex differences: antidepressants (13 of 16), antipsychotics (10 of 12), sedative-hypnotics (6 of 10), and stimulants (6 of 10). In contrast, only two studies of mood stabilizers evaluated SABV, with one noting a sex difference. By mapping this literature, we bring into sharp relief how few studies adequately evaluate sex differences in NPP studies. Currently, all NIH-funded studies are required to consider SABV. We urge scientific journals, peer reviewers, and regulatory agencies to require researchers to consider SABV in their research. Continuing to ignore SABV in NPP research has ramifications both in terms of rigor and reproducibility of research, potentially leading to costly consequences and unrealized benefits.

Adverse drug reactions among major depressive disorders: patterns by age and gender

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

The effects of sex on pharmacogenetically guided drug treatment

Tweetable abstract Sex-related pharmacogenetics is emerging area of research to better explain sex discrepancies in drug response. Sex pharmacogenetics should be considered an essential step for personalized medicine.

Publication bias is the consequence of a lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion

Publication bias has been shown to exist in research across medical and surgical specialties. Bias can occur at any stage of the publication process and can be related to race, ethnicity, age, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Although some improvements have been made toward addressing this issue, bias still spans the publication process from authors and peer reviewers, to editorial board members and editors, with poor inclusion of women and underrepresented minorities throughout. The result of bias remaining unchecked is the publication of research that leaves out certain groups, is not applicable to all people, and can result in harm to some populations. We have highlighted the current landscape of publication bias and strived to demonstrate the importance of addressing it. We have also provided solutions for reducing bias at multiple stages throughout the publication process. Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout all aspects of the publication process, requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in reports, and providing specific education and guidelines will ensure the identification and eradication of publication bias. By following these measures, we hope that publication bias will be eliminated, which will reduce further harm to certain populations and promote better, more effective research pertinent to all people.

Evaluation of population-level pharmacogenetic actionability in Alabama

The evolution of evidence and availability of Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines have enabled assessment of pharmacogenetic (PGx) actionability and clinical implementation. However, population‐level actionability is not well‐characterized. We leveraged the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) to evaluate population‐level PGx actionability. Participants (>18 years), representing all 67 Alabama counties, were genotyped using the Illumina Global Screening array. Using CPIC guidelines, actionability was evaluated using (1) genotype data and genetic ancestry, (2) prescribing data, and (3) combined genotype and medication data. Of 6,331 participants, 4230 had genotype data and 3386 had genotype and prescription data (76% women; 76% White/18% Black [self‐reported]). Genetic ancestry was concordant with self‐reported race. For CPIC level A genes, 98.6% had an actionable genotype (99.4% Blacks/African; 98.5% White/European). With the exception of DPYD and CYP2C19, the prevalence of actionable genotypes by gene differed significantly by race. Based on prescribing, actionability was highest for CYP2D6 (70.9%), G6PD (54.1%), CYP2C19 (53.5%), and CYP2C9 (47.5%). Among participants prescribed atenolol, carvedilol, or metoprolol, ~ 50% had an actionable ADRB1 genotype, associated with decreased therapeutic response, with higher actionability among Blacks compared to Whites (62.5% vs. 47.4%; p < 0.0001). Based on both genotype and prescribing frequencies, no significant differences in actionability were observed between men and women. This statewide effort highlights PGx population‐level impact to help optimize pharmacotherapy. Almost all Alabamians harbor an actionable genotype, and a significant proportion are prescribed affected medications. Statewide efforts, such as AGHI, lay the foundation for translational research and evaluate “real‐world” outcomes of PGx.

Adverse effects of polychemotherapy for leprosy in 13 years of follow-up at a university hospital

Leprosy is one of the neglected diseases in the world and Brazil is the second country with more cases. A retrospective study was conducted based on the medical records of 196 leprosy patients diagnosed during the course of 13 years at a university hospital. The aim was to describe the adverse effects of polychemotherapy, as well the most prevalent and most vulnerable populations. In the study, dapsone was the most implicated drug, especially in women, and the risk increased with age. The authors conclude that with this patient profile, greater vigilance should be taken regarding possible adverse effects, especially anemia.

Sex-specific and gender-specific aspects in patient-reported outcomes

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important tools in patient-centred medicine and allow for individual assessment of symptom burden and aspects of patients’ quality of life. While sex and gender differences have emerged in preclinical and clinical medicine, these differences are not adequately represented in the development and use of patient-reported outcome measures. However, even in personalised approaches, undesirable biases may occur when samples are unbalanced for certain characteristics, such as sex or gender. This review summarises the current status of the literature and trends in PROs with a focus on sex and gender aspects.

Influence of Physician Sex and Gender on Prescribing Practices Among Older Adults

Although prescribing is the most common intervention provided by physicians, limited research has examined the role of physician sex and gender on prescribing practices. In this article, we briefly summarize research relating to differences in prescribing behaviors based on physician sex and gender. To identify articles, PubMed was searched for studies from the last 20 years reporting on prescribing differences by physician sex or gender for the general population and specifically for older adults. We describe major themes emerging from the studies, illustrate findings from key studies, and note the major gaps in the literature, notably the lack of evidence on prescribing for older adults. Given the paucity of research in this area, we also explore evidence on the impact of physician sex and gender on other aspects of healthcare delivery, such as communication within the patient-physician relationship, and consider how these findings may also apply to prescribing behaviors. In general, we note that female physicians have been observed to engage in more careful and conservative healthcare provision including prescribing. A careful and conservative approach to prescribing may reduce the incidence of adverse drug events in older adults and be linked to a more patient-centered approach to care. To what extent these differences in prescribing are important for patient health outcomes is unknown, and further research is required to identify optimal prescribing practices that minimize harms.

Using Machine Learning to Identify Adverse Drug Effects Posing Increased Risk to Women

Adverse drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death in the US. Although women take longer to metabolize medications and experience twice the risk of developing adverse reactions compared with men, these sex differences are not comprehensively understood. Real-world clinical data provide an opportunity to estimate safety effects in otherwise understudied populations, i.e., women. These data, however, are subject to confounding biases and correlated covariates. We present AwareDX, a pharmacovigilance algorithm that leverages advances in machine learning to predict sex risks. Our algorithm mitigates these biases and quantifies the differential risk of a drug causing an adverse event in either men or women. AwareDX demonstrates high precision during validation against clinical literature and pharmacogenetic mechanisms. We present a resource of 20,817 adverse drug effects posing sex-specific risks. AwareDX, and this resource, present an opportunity to minimize adverse events by tailoring drug prescription and dosage to sex.

Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women

BACKGROUND

Women experience adverse drug reactions, ADRs, nearly twice as often as men, yet the role of sex as a biological factor in the generation of ADRs is poorly understood. Most drugs currently in use were approved based on clinical trials conducted on men, so women may be overmedicated. We determined whether sex differences in drug pharmacokinetics, PKs, predict sex differences in ADRs.

METHODS

Searches of the ISI Web of Science and PubMed databases were conducted with combinations of the terms: drugs, sex or gender, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug safety, drug dose, and adverse drug reaction, which yielded over 5000 articles with considerable overlap. We obtained information from each relevant article on significant sex differences in PK measures, predominantly area under the curve, peak/maximum concentrations, and clearance/elimination rates. ADRs were identified from every relevant article and recorded categorically as female-biased, male-biased, or not sex-biased.

RESULTS

For most of the FDA-approved drugs examined, elevated blood concentrations and longer elimination times were manifested by women, and these PKs were strongly linked to sex differences in ADRs. Of the 86 drugs evaluated, 76 had higher PK values in women; for 59 drugs with clinically identifiable ADRs, sex-biased PKs predicted the direction of sex-biased ADRs in 88% of cases. Ninety-six percent of drugs with female-biased PK values were associated with a higher incidence of ADRs in women than men, but only 29% of male-biased PKs predicted male-biased ADRs. Accessible PK information is available for only a small fraction of all drugs CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in pharmacokinetics strongly predict sex-specific ADRs for women but not men. This sex difference was not explained by sex differences in body weight. The absence of sex-stratified PK information in public records for hundreds of drugs raises the concern that sex differences in PK values are widespread and of clinical significance. The common practice of prescribing equal drug doses to women and men neglects sex differences in pharmacokinetics and dimorphisms in body weight, risks overmedication of women, and contributes to female-biased adverse drug reactions. We recommend evidence-based dose reductions for women to counteract this sex bias.

Filling the Regulatory Gap: Potential Role of Institutional Review Boards in Promoting Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable

Consideration of sex differences in biomedical research is crucial to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices for both sexes and to improve the rigor and reproducibility of scientific discoveries. Historically, women were underrepresented in clinical research and sex differences typically were not considered. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have played a role in improving the representation of women in clinical trials and in encouraging the consideration of sex differences. As it is not appropriate for all studies to be reviewed by the FDA nor do all studies have NIH funding, this results in a regulatory gap. We propose that local institutional review boards (IRBs) and institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) provide greater oversight by encouraging researchers to consider sex as a biological variable (SABV) during protocol review. In this perspective article, we review how FDA and NIH policies have fostered change and highlight how IRBs and IACUCs could encourage investigators to consider SABV.

Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare

Precision Medicine implies a deep understanding of inter-individual differences in health and disease that are due to genetic and environmental factors. To acquire such understanding there is a need for the implementation of different types of technologies based on artificial intelligence (AI) that enable the identification of biomedically relevant patterns, facilitating progress towards individually tailored preventative and therapeutic interventions. Despite the significant scientific advances achieved so far, most of the currently used biomedical AI technologies do not account for bias detection. Furthermore, the design of the majority of algorithms ignore the sex and gender dimension and its contribution to health and disease differences among individuals. Failure in accounting for these differences will generate sub-optimal results and produce mistakes as well as discriminatory outcomes. In this review we examine the current sex and gender gaps in a subset of biomedical technologies used in relation to Precision Medicine. In addition, we provide recommendations to optimize their utilization to improve the global health and disease landscape and decrease inequalities.

The role of sex in the genomics of human complex traits

Nearly all human complex traits and disease phenotypes exhibit some degree of sex differences, including differences in prevalence, age of onset, severity or disease progression. Until recently, the underlying genetic mechanisms of such sex differences have been largely unexplored. Advances in genomic technologies and analytical approaches are now enabling a deeper investigation into the effect of sex on human health traits. In this Review, we discuss recent insights into the genetic models and mechanisms that lead to sex differences in complex traits. This knowledge is critical for developing deeper insight into the fundamental biology of sex differences and disease processes, thus facilitating precision medicine.

Ocular toxoplasmosis: adverse reactions to treatment in a Brazilian cohort

Background

The purpose of this study was to estimate the frequency and describe the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the classic treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis (OT), namely sulfadiazine, pyrimethamine, corticosteroids and folinic acid.

Methods

We performed a descriptive study of a prospective cohort of patients with OT treated with the classic therapy. Data were collected during medical consultations and treatment.

Results

Of the 147 patients studied, 85% developed one or more ADR. Women presented more ADRs than men (95% vs 77%). Of the total reactions (n=394), 82% were mild, but we found one life-threatening event (Stevens-Johnson syndrome). The most frequent types (71%) of ADRs were gastrointestinal, skin and neurological or psychiatric. The majority of ADRs (90.3%) occurred before the second week of treatment. A third of the patients were treated for the ADR and 10% dropped out of OT treatment. Most (70%) of the ADRs were characterized as being probably caused by the drugs and may be associated with prednisone, sulfadiazine and sulfadiazine/prednisone. Six percent of ADRs were not previously described, such as taste alteration, constipation/bloating, dyspnoea, sweating and somnolence.

Conclusions

Our results suggest a high rate of ADRs to OT classic treatment, which requires careful follow-up in order to identify and treat ADRs early.

Potential Sex Bias Exists in Orthopaedic Basic Science and Translational Research

BACKGROUND

Potential sex bias has been shown in general surgery basic science and translational research, with unequal representation of male and female specimens. Because basic science research forms the foundation for clinical studies on which patient care is based, it is important that this research equally consider both sexes. The purpose of this study was to determine if potential sex bias exists in the basic science and translational orthopaedic literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of all articles published in 2014 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (JOR). All original research articles utilizing animals, cells, or cadavers were included. The data abstracted included study type, sex of specimen studied, and presence of sex-based reporting of data. A second review was performed of all basic science articles published in JOR in 1994, 2004, and 2014 to compare sex bias trends across 3 decades. Distributions of variables were compared using the Fisher exact test, with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 1,693 articles reviewed, 250 (15%) were included: 122 animal-based studies (49%), 71 cell-based studies (28%), and 57 human cadaver-based studies (23%). Overall, authors in 88 studies (35%) did not report the sex of animals, cells, or cadavers used. Of 162 studies in which the authors did report sex, 69 (43%) utilized male only, 40 (25%) utilized female only, and 53 (33%) utilized both sexes. Of those studies that used both sexes, authors in only 7 studies (13%) reported sex-based results. A subanalysis of JOR articles across 3 decades revealed a significant increase in studies specifying sex (p = 0.01) from 2004 to 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential sex bias exists in orthopaedic surgery basic science and translational research, with an overrepresentation of male specimens.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Inequality in sex representation must be addressed as basic science and translational research creates the foundation for subsequent clinical research, which ultimately informs clinical care.

Determining If Sex Bias Exists in Human Surgical Clinical Research

Importance

Sex is a variable that is poorly controlled for in clinical research.

Objectives

To determine if sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research, to determine if data are reported and analyzed using sex as an independent variable, and to identify specialties in which the greatest and least sex biases exist.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1303 original peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in 5 surgery journals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Study type, location, number and sex of participants, degree of sex matching of included participants, and inclusion of sex-based reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of data.

Results

Of 2347 articles reviewed, 1668 (71.1%) included human participants. After excluding 365 articles, 1303 remained: 17 (1.3%) included males only, 41 (3.1%) included females only, 1020 (78.3%) included males and females, and 225 (17.3%) did not document the sex of the participants. Although female participants represent more than 50% (n = 57 688 606) of the total number (115 377 213) included, considerable variability existed with the number of male (46 111 818), female (58 805 665), and unspecified (10 459 730) participants included among the journals, between US domestic and international studies, and between single vs multicenter studies. For articles included in the study, 38.1% (497 of 1303) reported these data by sex, 33.2% (432 of 1303) analyzed these data by sex, and 22.9% (299 of 1303) included a discussion of sex-based results. Sex matching of the included participants in the research overall was poor, with 45.2% (589 of 1303) of the studies matching the inclusion of both sexes by 50%. During analysis of the different surgical specialties, a wide variation in sex-based inclusion, matching, and data reporting existed, with colorectal surgery having the best matching of male and female participants and cardiac surgery having the worst.

Conclusions and Relevance

Sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research. Few studies included men and women equally, less than one-third performed data analysis by sex, and there was wide variation in inclusion and matching of the sexes among the specialties and the journals reviewed. Because clinical research is the foundation for evidence-based medicine, it is imperative that this disparity be addressed so that therapies benefit both sexes.

A Model-Based Meta-Analysis Evaluating Gender Differences on Blood Flow Responses to Brachial Artery Infusions of Acetylcholine, Albuterol, ATP, Bradykinin, Estradiol, Glyceryl Trinitrate, L-NMMA, Nevibolol, Norepinephrine, Sodium Nitroprusside, Substance P, and Verapamil

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have emerged over the course of several decades describing the properties of drugs eliciting vasodilatory or vasoconstrictor responses in the human vasculature. During drug development, decisions to move forward with testing with a new chemical entity are very costly. To fund or not to fund development, go or no-go, decisions are often limited by efficacy comparisons with the current products on the market. The primary aim of this paper is to use dose-response modeling and simulations to quantify differences in blood flow to Acetylcholine, Albuterol, ATP, Bradykinin, 17β-Estradiol, Glyceryl Trinitrate, L-NMMA, Nevibolol, Norepinephrine, Sodium Nitroprusside, Substance P, and Verapamil.

METHODS

Five studies were identified in the literature that included a total of 12 compounds. Infusion doses were normalized to nmol/min and forearm blood flow values were normalized and scaled to the percent increase or decrease in forearm blood flow from baseline resting values. The original published studies were mathematically modeled using the Emax model or Sigmoid Emax model equation parameters. Lastly, dose-response simulations of higher doses using a virtual population were produced to account for population variability.

RESULTS

The gender difference between the Emax estimates, interpreted as the %Change from Baseline resting forearm blood flow, were found to be: Albuterol 253%, Acetylcholine 231%, Substance P 159%, Verapamil 145%, Bradykinin 42%, Sodium Nitroprusside 41%, and Glyceryl Trinitrate 26%. Contrastingly, Norepinephrine and L-NMMA Emax gender difference resulted in a 6% and 7% difference, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results provide insight into the differences in men and women seen in anti-hypertensive patient management. Further, the modeling estimates provide pharmacometricians evaluating new compounds with mathematical parameters for comparative efficacy studies through the various phases of drug development.

Systematic Analysis of Adverse Event Reports for Sex Differences in Adverse Drug Events

Increasing evidence has shown that sex differences exist in Adverse Drug Events (ADEs). Identifying those sex differences in ADEs could reduce the experience of ADEs for patients and could be conducive to the development of personalized medicine. In this study, we analyzed a normalized US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Chi-squared test was conducted to discover which treatment regimens or drugs had sex differences in adverse events. Moreover, reporting odds ratio (ROR) and P value were calculated to quantify the signals of sex differences for specific drug-event combinations. Logistic regression was applied to remove the confounding effect from the baseline sex difference of the events. We detected among 668 drugs of the most frequent 20 treatment regimens in the United States, 307 drugs have sex differences in ADEs. In addition, we identified 736 unique drug-event combinations with significant sex differences. After removing the confounding effect from the baseline sex difference of the events, there are 266 combinations remained. Drug labels or previous studies verified some of them while others warrant further investigation.

Attitudes and opinion about adverse drug events of women living in a city of south Italy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Perception of risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) is different between health and nonhealth professionals, but these differences have not been investigated sufficiently in the general population. Women are more affected by ADEs. With the aim to investigate ADE risk perception in a sample of nonhealth professional women of South Italy, we carried out a phone survey.

METHODS

Phone survey based on a structured questionnaire on educational level, type of work, lifestyle, comorbidity, and medication used of 1,050 inhabitants of the city of Messina (Italy).

RESULTS

744 responders, divided into an ADE group (n = 162) and a non-ADE group, were analyzed. Most used drugs were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.0%) and antibiotics (29.6%). Reported disorders related to drug intake were general malaise (25.9%), gastrointestinal complaints (24.1%), and skin reactions (20.4%). Younger age and higher educational level, along with allergic diseases and food intolerances were more frequently reported in the ADE group. Women from the ADE group were better informed about drug risks (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher risk perception for ADEs in women is associated with higher educational level, food intolerance/allergic diseases, and choice of alternative or complementary medicines. Difference in perception of risk exists within the female population, which can cause overreporting or underreporting of ADEs.