Inadequate reporting of COVID-19 clinical studies: a renewed rationale for the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines

Gender sensitivity of the COVID-19 mental health research in Europe: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The integration of sex and gender aspects into the research process has been recognized as crucial to the generation of valid data. During the coronavirus pandemic, a great deal of research addressed the mental state of hospital staff, as they constituted a population at risk for infection and distress. However, it is still unknown how the gender dimension was included. We aimed to appraise and measure qualitatively the extent of gender sensitivity.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL PsycINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from database inception to November 11, 2021. All quantitative studies with primary data published in English, German, or Spanish and based in the European Union were selected. Included studies had to have assessed the mental health of hospital staff using validated psychometric scales for depression, anxiety, PTSD symptoms, distress, suicidal behavior, insomnia, substance abuse or aggressive behavior. Two independent reviewers applied eligibility criteria to each title/abstract reviewed, to the full text of the article, and performed the data extraction. A gender sensitivity assessment tool was developed and validated, consisting of 18 items followed by a final qualitative assessment. Two independent reviewers assessed the gender dimension of each included article.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred twelve studies were identified, of which 72 were included in the analysis. The most common design was cross-sectional (75.0%) and most of them were conducted in Italy (31.9%). Among the results, only one study assessed suicidal behaviors and none substance abuse disorders or aggressive behaviors. Sex and gender were used erroneously in 83.3% of the studies, and only one study described how the gender of the participants was determined. Most articles (71.8%) did not include sex/gender in the literature review and did not discuss sex/gender-related findings with a gender theoretical background (86.1%). In the analysis, 37.5% provided sex/gender disaggregated data, but only 3 studies performed advanced modeling statistics, such as interaction analysis. In the overall assessment, 3 papers were rated as good in terms of gender sensitivity, and the rest as fair (16.7%) and poor (79.2%). Three papers were identified in which gender stereotypes were present in explaining the results. None of the papers analyzed the results of non-binary individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies on the mental health of hospital staff during the pandemic did not adequately integrate the gender dimension, despite the institutional commitment of the European Union and the gendered effect of the pandemic. In the development of future mental health interventions for this population, the use and generalizability of current evidence should be done cautiously.

Review of the Influences of Sex Differences on Health and Disease: What Is the Role of Journals?

➢ Sex-based differences are understudied, which has potential consequences for the health of everyone.➢ Women's health is particularly affected given a lack of sex-specific data across many disease states.➢ Journals do not consistently require the inclusion of both sexes and the disaggregation of data by sex in cell, animal model, and human studies.➢ Instructions for investigators and journals regarding the inclusion of sex-specific data are found in guidelines such as those by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) group, but these guidelines are underutilized.➢ Consistency in the inclusion of both sexes in studies (except in studies on diseases affecting only 1 sex), as well as in the disaggregation and reporting of results by sex, has the potential to improve health for all people.

A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

The quality of gender and sex integration in scientific articles resulting from health research funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health 2004-2016

Aim

Integrating sex and gender into health research is critical to contributing to an ethical and more responsible science to address significant knowledge gaps, resulting in higher-quality evidence for all.

Subject and methods

Using the Essential Metrics for Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Health Research Proposals Involving Human Participants, we evaluate the quality of the integration of sex and gender in the 350 scientific articles produced by 144 health studies funded by the Department of Science and Technology of the Brazilian Ministry of Health between 2004 and 2016.

Results

The results show that clinical research articles are the type of studies that most frequently report on sex differences, while population and public health research articles most frequently report on gender differences. Analysis of the quality of sex and gender integration reveals low levels of qualification in the items of the literature review and research objectives (section 1) and participant recruitment and retention (section 2). However, the data collection tools, data analysis, and knowledge translation (section 3) items were rated as excellent and good.

Conclusion

Funding agencies and public institutions should recognize the importance of the integration of sex and gender at all stages of the research process, for instance, through awareness and training for researchers and reviewers, clear requirements, and the possibility to use metrics in the evaluations process.

Gender Inequalities in Publications about COVID-19 in Spain: Authorship and Sex-Disaggregated Data

Gender inequalities in biomedical literature have been widely reported in authorship as well as the scarcity of results that are stratified by sex in the studies. We conducted a bibliometric review of articles on COVID-19 published in the main Spanish medical journals between April 2020 and May 2021. The purpose of this study was to analyse differences in authorship order and composition by sex and their evolution over time, as well as the frequency of sex-disaggregated empirical results and its relationship with the author sex in articles on COVID-19 in the main Spanish biomedical journals. We identified 914 articles and 4921 authors, 57.5% men and 42.5% women. Women accounted for 36.7% of first authors and for 33.7% of last authors. Monthly variation in authorship over the course of the pandemic indicates that women were always less likely to publish as first authors. Only 1.0% of the articles broke down empirical results by sex. Disaggregation of results by sex was significantly more frequent when women were first authors and when women were the majority in the authorship. It is important to make gender inequalities visible in scientific dissemination and to promote gender-sensitive research, which can help to reduce gender bias in clinical studies as well as to design public policies for post-pandemic recovery that are more gender-equitable.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review

Objective

The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).

Methods

We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.

Results

Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.

Conclusions

Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.

Resolving sex and gender bias in COVID-19 vaccines R&D and beyond

The influence of sex and gender in immune response and vaccine outcomes is established in many disease areas, including in COVID-19. Yet, there are notable gaps in the consideration of sex and gender in the analysis and reporting of COVID-19 vaccines clinical trial data. The push for stronger sex and gender integration in vaccines science should be championed by all researchers and stakeholders across the R&D and access ecosystem - not just gender experts. This requires joint action on the tactical framing of customized value propositions (based on stakeholder motivations), the stronger enforcement of existing regulation, tools, and commitments, and aligning the overall agenda to parallel calls on intersectionality, equity diversity and inclusion.

A systematic review of whether COVID-19 randomized controlled trials reported on demographic and clinical characteristics

PURPOSE

We aim to assess the reporting of key patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics among COVID-19 related randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We queried English-language articles from PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the CDC library of gray literature databases using keywords of "coronavirus," "covid," "clinical trial" and "randomized controlled trial" from January 2020 to June 2021. From the search, we conducted an initial review to rule-out duplicate entries, identify those that met inclusion criteria (i.e., had results), and exclude those that did not meet the definition of an RCT. Lastly, we abstracted the demographic and clinical characteristics reported on within each RCT.

RESULTS

From the initial 43 627 manuscripts, our final eligible manuscripts consisted of 149 RCTs described in 137 articles. Most of the RCTs (113/149) studied potential treatments, while fewer studied vaccines (29), prophylaxis strategies (5), and interventions to prevent transmission among those infected (2). Study populations ranged from 10 to 38 206 participants (median = 100, IQR: 60-300). All 149 RCTs reported on age, 147 on sex, 50 on race, and 110 on the prevalence of at least one comorbidity. No RCTs reported on income, urban versus rural residence, or other indicators of socioeconomic status (SES).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited reporting on race and other markers of SES make it difficult to draw conclusions about specific external target populations without making strong assumptions that treatment effects are homogenous. These findings highlight the need for more robust reporting on the clinical and demographic profiles of patients enrolled in COVID-19 related RCTs.

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.

COVID-19 burden, author affiliation and women's well-being: A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related publications including focus on low- and middle-income countries

Background

Published literature documents tremendous gender inequities in the social, economic and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, but less evidence has come from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and even less from LMIC-based authors. We examine whether a) COVID-19 burden and b) LMIC-based authorship were associated with academic publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being in LMICs.

Methods

We reviewed academic articles on COVID-19 and women's well-being in LMICs published between February 2020 and May 2021 (n=1076 articles), using six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, EconLit, RePeC, NBER). Multilevel, mixed effects linear regressions assessed the relationships between each of our independent variables - a) COVID-19 burden (cases/100 population, deaths/100 population, deaths/cases) and b) author's country of primary affiliation, with publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being, both overall and stratified by country income group.

Findings

Eight-eight percent of articles had lead and/or senior authors affiliated with in-country institutions. Linear mixed effect models indicate that COVID-19 cases and case fatality ratios in a country were significantly and positively associated with the number of publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being, though these relationships were significant only in upper-middle income group countries in stratified analyses. LMIC lead and senior authorship were also significantly and positively associated with our outcome, after adjusting for COVID-19 burden.

Interpretation

While the majority of COVID-19 research examining women's well-being in LMICs in the first year and a half of the pandemic included country-affiliated author leadership, there were important gaps in representation. Findings highlight the importance of LMIC-based scholars to build local and gendered research in crises.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-018007).

Gender perspective in COVID-19. SESPAS Report 2022

We failed to adequately launch a gender transformative response to COVID-19 pandemic, data by sex on a variety of indicators for most countries are hard to find. Some symptoms reported as common of COVID-19 infection, are more prominent in men, while others are more prominent in women, one cannot with certainty exclude that some of the differences observed could be due to gender bias in the management of cases in health services. The gender implications of the pandemic reach wide and far. Inequalities can be further aggravated as sex and gender intersect with other axes of inequality. The SAGER guidelines exemplify an effort to improve reporting of sex and gender dimensions and encouraging researchers to integrate these aspects in the research design. these observations and emerging evidence about the persistent gender-blind approach to COVID-19 is a wake-up call to change course. National Gender Equality Institutions can be central in ensuring gender matters are considered in government responses. COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to reverse the trend and take action to apply an intersectional feminist approach to global health that enables a just and equal world where everyone's health and wellbeing matter.

Attention for sex in COVID-19 trials: a review of regulatory dossiers

An under-representation of women and a lack of sex-specific analyses in COVID-19 trials has been suggested. However, the higher number of men than women who are severely affected by COVID-19 and the restricted information in scientific publications may have biased these suggestions. Therefore, we evaluated sex proportionality and sex-specific efficacy and safety data in trials of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines using both publicly available regulatory documents and confidential documents used by regulators in their review of medicinal products. Included were two treatments (ie, remdesivir and dexamethasone) and four vaccines (ie, BNT162b2 mRNA (BioNTech/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2-S (Janssen)) that received marketing authorisation by the European Commission at the time of the study conduct. An under-representation of women was shown in three of the nine data sets for one treatment (ie, remdesivir), but the proportion of women included was representative in each of the data sets for the other five products. This indicates that there is no structural under-representation of women in the COVID-19 trials. Currently, sex-specific efficacy data are available for five of the six assessed products and sex-specific safety data are available for half of the products only. It is important that this information will also be made available for the other products. There are only small differences in efficacy and safety between men and women which are likely to be of limited clinical relevance. Sex-specific efficacy information can generally be found in the publicly available regulatory documents other than the Summary of Product Characteristics, for which more awareness might be required.

Equidade de sexo e gênero na pesquisa e na publicação científica: as diretrizes SAGER e suas listas de verificação

Resumo Diferenças de sexo e gênero são elementos importantes para se considerar na pesquisa e na publicação científica. Diversos esforços têm sido empreendidos no meio científico para incorporar as dimensões sexo e gênero em todo o ciclo da pesquisa, especialmente na área da Saúde. As diretrizes sobre Equidade de Sexo e Gênero na Pesquisa (Sex and Gender Equity in Research - SAGER) dedicam-se a guiar autores na preparação dos manuscritos, mas também são úteis para editores e revisores de periódicos, bem como para avaliadores das agências de fomento, buscando promover a integração de sexo e gênero na pesquisa, em diversas disciplinas. Para facilitar a adesão às diretrizes SAGER e encorajar uma abordagem mais sistemática no relato dessas variáveis na pesquisa, foram desenvolvidas duas listas de checagem: uma para estudos com participantes humanos e outra para os demais estudos (ciência aplicada, biologia celular etc.). Esta nota apresenta as versões em português dessas listas e destaca sua relevância para o aprimoramento do relato das pesquisas comunicadas nos periódicos, como prática de integridade científica.

Renewed rationale for sex- and gender-disaggregated research: A COVID-19 commentary review

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a contemporaneous illustration of the need to consider sex and gender in research. Using surveillance, treatment and vaccine research examples, in this commentary review, we highlight opportunities for innovation in sex- and gender-sensitive and transformative health and medical research.

A Systematic Review of the Sex and Gender Reporting in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Sex and gender have implications for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and adverse effects from the vaccine. As vaccination is one of the key responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital that sex and gender differences be acknowledged, measured, and analysed in clinical research. Here, we systematically review published COVID-19 vaccine trials, both interventional and observational, to assess the quality of reporting of sex and gender. Of the 75 clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines included in this review, only 24% presented their main outcome data disaggregated by sex, and only 13% included any discussion of the implications of their study for women and men. Considering the sex differences in adverse events after vaccination, and the gendered aspects of vaccine hesitancy, these oversights in clinical research on vaccines have implications for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and for wider public health.

Sex and Gender in COVID-19 Vaccine Research: Substantial Evidence Gaps Remain

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a global call for sex/gender-disaggregated data to be made available, which has uncovered important findings about COVID-19 testing, incidence, severity, hospitalisations, and deaths. This mini review scopes the evidence base for efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines from both experimental and observational research, and asks whether (1) women and men were equally recruited and represented in vaccine research, (2) the outcomes of studies were presented or analysed by sex and/or gender, and (3) there is evidence of sex and/or gender differences in outcomes. Following a PubMed search, 41 articles were eligible for inclusion, including seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 11 cohort studies, eight cross-sectional surveys, eight routine surveillance studies, and seven case series. Overall, the RCTs contained equal representation of women and men; however, the observational studies contained a higher percentage of women. Of 10 studies with efficacy data, only three (30%) presented sex/gender-disaggregated results. Safety data was included in 35 studies and only 12 (34%) of these presented data by sex/gender. For those that did present disaggregated data, overall, the majority of participants reporting adverse events were women. There is a paucity of reporting and analysis of COVID-19 vaccine data by sex/gender. Research should be designed in a gender-sensitive way to present and, where possible analyse, data by sex/gender to ensure that there is a robust and specific evidence base of efficacy and safety data to assist in building public confidence and promote high vaccine coverage.

The Individual Water Insecurity Experiences (IWISE) Scale: reliability, equivalence and validity of an individual-level measure of water security

Objective

The lack of a validated and cross-culturally equivalent scale for measuring individual-level water insecurity has prevented identification of those most vulnerable to it. Therefore, we developed the 12-item Individual Water InSecurity Experiences (IWISE) Scale to comparably measure individual experiences with access, use, and stability (reliability) of water. Here, we examine the reliability, cross-country equivalence, and cross-country and within-country validity of the scale in a cross-sectional sample.

Methods

IWISE items were implemented by the Gallup World Poll among nationally representative samples of 43 970 adults (>15 y) in 31 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Equivalence was tested using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), the alignment method, and item response theory. Cross-country validity was assessed by regressing mean national IWISE scores on measures of economic, social, and water infrastructure development. Within-country validity was tested with logistic regression models of dissatisfaction with local water quality by IWISE score and regressing individual IWISE scores on per capita household income and difficulty getting by on current income.

Findings

Internal consistency was high; Cronbach’s alpha was ≥0.89 in all countries. Goodness-of-fit statistics from MGCFA, the proportion of equivalent item thresholds and loadings in the alignment models, and Rasch output indicated equivalence across countries. Validity across countries was also established; country mean IWISE scores were negatively associated with gross domestic product and percentage of the population with access to basic water services, but positively associated with fertility rate. Validity within countries was also demonstrated; individuals’ IWISE scores were positively associated with greater odds of dissatisfaction with water quality and negatively associated with lower financial standing.

Conclusions

The IWISE Scale provides an equivalent measure of individual experiences with water access and use across LMICs. It will be useful for establishing and tracking changes in the prevalence of water insecurity and identifying groups who have been ‘left behind’.

Just a Reflection: Does Drug Repurposing Perpetuate Sex-Gender Bias in the Safety Profile?

Vaccines constitute a strategy to reduce the burden of COVID-19, but the treatment of COVID-19 is still a challenge. The lack of approved drugs for severe COVID-19 makes repurposing or repositioning of approved drugs a relevant approach because it occurs at lower costs and in a shorter time. Most preclinical and clinical tests, including safety and pharmacokinetic profiles, were already performed. However, infective and inflammatory diseases such as COVID-19 are linked with hypoalbuminemia and downregulation of both phase I and phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters, which can occur in modifications of pharmacokinetics and consequentially of safety profiles. This appears to occur in a sex- and gender-specific way because of the sex and gender differences present in the immune system and inflammation, which, in turn, reflect on pharmacokinetic parameters. Therefore, to make better decisions about drug dosage regimens and to increases the safety profile in patients suffering from infective and inflammatory diseases such as COVID-19, it is urgently needed to study repurposing or repositioning drugs in men and in women paying attention to pharmacokinetics, especially for those drugs that are previously scarcely evaluated in women.