Investigation on Gender Differences in Leadership of Stroke-Related Clinical Trials

COVID-19 and stroke in women: impact on clinical, psychosocial and research aspects

Despite the growing interest in gender medicine, the influence of sex and gender on human diseases, including stroke, continues to be underestimated and understudied. The COVID-19 pandemic has overall impacted not only the occurrence and management of stroke but has also exacerbated sex and gender disparities among both patients and healthcare providers. This paper aims to provide an updated overview on the influence of sex and gender in stroke pathophysiology and care during COVID-19 pandemic, through biological, clinical, psychosocial and research perspectives. Gender equity and awareness of the importance of sexual differences are sorely needed, especially in times of health crisis but have not yet been achieved to date. To this purpose, the sudden yet worldwide diffusion of COVID-19 represents a unique learning experience that highlights critical unmet needs also in gender medicine. The failures of this recent past should be kept as food for thought to inspire proper strategies reducing inequalities and to address women's health and wellbeing issues, particularly in case of future pandemics.

Importance of sex and gender differences in enrollment and interpretation of stroke clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to reinforce the importance of improving sex balance in preclinical trials and sex and gender diversity and proportional balance in clinical trials enrollment and how this influences interpretation of stroke clinical trials. It also aims to identify strategies for improvement in data collection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted of publications in English, using MeSH terms sex, sex characteristics, gender identity, transgender, gender-nonconforming persons, clinical trials as topic, stroke. Of 249 search results, 217 were human or animal studies related to stroke, the majority of which were reviews, secondary analyses of stroke clinical trials, meta analyses, or retrospective studies, subject to the methods of sex and gender acquisition per the primary data source. Articles were reviewed, noting inclusion or absence of sex and gender definitions and trial design. Selected articles were supplemented with United States Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine publications.

RESULTS

The majority of preclinical studies continue to report sex as a binary variable, and the majority of stroke clinical trials report sex and gender as interchangeable and binary. Mindful trial design and statistical analysis can improve accuracy in the interpretation of sex and gender differences. Guidance exists to improve reporting on currently accepted sex and gender definitions, recommended data collection instruments, and appropriate statistical analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite acknowledgement of having failed to achieve diverse and proportionally balanced enrollment, sex and gender imbalance across the research continuum remains prevalent. Responsible incorporation of sex and gender in stroke clinical trials can be achieved through thoughtful study design, use of contemporary sex and gender definitions, inclusive prospective data collection, balanced enrollment with prespecified goals, and appropriate statistical analysis.

What Are the Trends in Women's Representation Among Lead Investigators of Orthopaedic Clinical Trials?

BACKGROUND

Serving as a principal investigator for a clinical trial can bring national visibility and recognition to physicians, and it can have a substantial impact on their promotion and tenure. In the field of orthopaedics, there is a well-known gender gap in terms of representation and leadership. Examining the representation of women in clinical trial leadership may help to inform and enable the design of targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the proportion of women principal investigators in orthopaedic clinical trials, and has this changed over time? (2) Are there trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) associated with women principal investigators? (3) What is the geographic distribution globally and regionally within the United States of clinical trials led by women principal investigators?

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials using the ClinialTrials.gov registry and results database provided by the NIH was performed on August 22, 2022. Trial characteristics included principal investigator names and gender, trial phase, type, funding source, intervention, and location (defined by continent and US Census region). Our primary outcome was the overall proportion of women orthopaedic principal investigators over time. We assessed this by comparing the proportion of women principal investigators from 2007 to 2022. Our secondary outcomes were trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) and geographic distribution (globally and within the United States) associated with women principal investigators. Baseline characteristics of the clinical trials were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Fisher exact tests were conducted to evaluate differences in gender proportions based on the included clinical trial characteristics. Univariate linear regression was applied to analyze trends in the annual proportion of women principal investigators over time.

RESULTS

The overall proportion of women principal investigators was 18% (592 of 3246), and this proportion increased over the study period. Specifically, the proportion of women leading clinical trials was 13% (16 of 121) in 2007 and 22% (53 of 242) in 2022 (r 2 = 0.68; p < 0.001). This trend was also observed when evaluating only US women principal investigators (r 2 = 0.47; p = 0.003) and non-US women principal investigators over the study period (r 2 = 0.298; p = 0.03). There was no difference in the distribution of trial phases between men and women principal investigators. Most men and women were involved in "not applicable" or Phase IV trials. Similarly, there was no difference in trial status or funding source. However, women principal investigators had a higher proportion of studies involving behavioral interventions (11% [67 of 592]) compared with men principal investigators (3% [74 of 2654]; p = 0.03). The proportion of women principal investigators over the study period by world region revealed a higher proportion of women principal investigators in Asia (23% [88 of 391]), followed by South America (24% [12 of 49]), North America (18% [306 of 1746]), and Europe (16% [136 of 833]). Among all US trials over the study period, the proportion of women principal investigators across the US Census region was Northeast (19% [62 of 329]), South (18% [90 of 488]), West (20% [97 of 492]), and Midwest (13% [22 of 168]).

CONCLUSION

Although there has been a notable increase in the proportion of women principal investigators over time, the overall representation remains relatively low. The disparities observed in trial characteristics and geographic distribution of women principal investigators further emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results underscore the importance of adopting practices and strategies that foster gender equity in the leadership of orthopaedic clinical trials. By establishing mentorship and sponsorship programs, early-career women surgeons can be connected with experienced leaders, cultivating a supportive network and offering valuable career guidance. Additionally, addressing geographic disparities in the representation of women principal investigators can involve the implementation of mentorship and sponsorship programs in regions with lower representation.

Gender Bias in Clinical Trial Enrollment: Female Authorship Matters

BACKGROUND

Despite initiatives to promote equal enrollment of human subjects in clinical trials, females continue to be underrepresented. The goal of this work is to determine if female enrollment in human clinical trials published in 3 high-impact journals from 2015 to 2019 is correlated with gender of first and/or senior authors.

METHODS

Clinical trials published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, were reviewed. Trials were excluded for ongoing enrollment, sex-specific disease research, or author name without gender assignment. One-sample χ2 pairwise comparisons and two-tailed proportion tests on the proportion of females between gender author pairings were done overall and for each subset analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 1,427 articles enrolled a total of 2,104,509 females and 2,616,981 males (44.6% vs. 55.4%, P ≤ 0.0001) in clinical trials. Overall, more females were enrolled if both first and senior authors were female (51.7% vs. 48.3%, P ≤ 0.0001). Proportion of females enrolled decreased with the following first and senior author pairings: female-male (48.9%), male-female (48.6%), and male-male (40.5%, P ≤ 0.0001 compared to female-female authorship). Greater female enrollment in clinical trials with female-female compared to male-male authorship persisted in subset analyses by funding source, phase, randomization for study participants, drug and/or device trial, and geographic location. Female enrollment was higher in 3 surgical specialties: neurosurgery (all authors: 52%, P ≤ 0.01), ophthalmology (all authors: 53.6%, P ≤ 0.0001), and surgery (all authors: 54.4%, P ≤ 0.0001). The majority of surgical specialties did not publish trials with female-female authorship but when stratifying by author gender pairing, surgical oncology had the highest female enrollment with female-female authorship (98.4%, P ≤ 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female authorship of clinical trial publications, specifically having both first and senior authors as female, was correlated with higher female enrollment in clinical trials when compared to male authorship and endured with multiple subset analyses.

Sex Differences in the Evaluation and Treatment of Stroke

There are differences in the prevalence and strength of risk factors in women, along with sex-specific risk factors such as pregnancy. Women have a higher lifetime risk of stroke compared to men, with worse outcomes including higher rates of death and disability. We have made strides in the identification of sex-specific risk factors but with the paucity of sex-specific end points in clinical trials, stroke treatment and research are hindered.