Sex Proportionality in Pre-clinical and Clinical Trials: An Evaluation of 22 Marketing Authorization Application Dossiers Submitted to the European Medicines Agency

Dispensed prescription medications and short-term risk of pulmonary embolism in Norway and Sweden

Scandinavian electronic health-care registers provide a unique setting to investigate potential unidentified side effects of drugs. We analysed the association between prescription drugs dispensed in Norway and Sweden and the short-term risk of developing pulmonary embolism. A total of 12,104 pulmonary embolism cases were identified from patient- and cause-of-death registries in Norway (2004-2014) and 36,088 in Sweden (2005-2014). A case-crossover design was used to compare individual drugs dispensed 1-30 days before the date of pulmonary embolism diagnosis with dispensation in a 61-90 day time-window, while controlling for the receipt of other drugs. A BOLASSO approach was used to select drugs that were associated with short-term risk of pulmonary embolism. Thirty-eight drugs were associated with pulmonary embolism in the combined analysis of the Norwegian and Swedish data. Drugs associated with increased risk of pulmonary embolism included certain proton-pump inhibitors, antibiotics, antithrombotics, vasodilators, furosemide, anti-varicose medications, corticosteroids, immunostimulants (pegfilgrastim), opioids, analgesics, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antiprotozoals, and drugs for cough and colds. Mineral supplements, hydrochlorothiazide and potassium-sparing agents, beta-blockers, angiotensin 2 receptor blockers, statins, and methotrexate were associated with lower risk. Most associations persisted, and several additional drugs were associated, with pulmonary embolism when using a longer time window of 90 days instead of 30 days. These results provide exploratory, pharmacopeia-wide evidence of medications that may increase or decrease the risk of pulmonary embolism. Some of these findings were expected based on the drugs' indications, while others are novel and require further study as potentially modifiable precipitants of pulmonary embolism.

Tolerability of perampanel: A retrospective study at the department of psychiatry

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors that contribute to the discontinuation of perampanel.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with epilepsy at the Department of Psychiatry, Hokkaido University Hospital. We evaluated the factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation as primary outcomes using Cox proportional hazards regression. Then, we explored the components contributing to the primary outcomes using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included, 44.9% of whom discontinued participation, 22.0% had intellectual disability, and 23.7% had a psychiatric disorder other than intellectual disability. Adverse effects occurred in 65% of the patients, 23.7% had psychiatric adverse effects (PAE), and 49.2% had common adverse effects (CAE). The effect of PER to suppress seizures was confirmed in 65.3% of them. Discontinuation was influenced by non-response (Hazard Ratio (HR) 6.70, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.42-13.1), the occurrence of PAE (HR 3.68, 95% CI 1.89-7.16), CAE (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.06-3.41), and comorbid psychiatric disorders (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.21-4.59). Moreover, comorbid intellectual disability correlated with a low risk of PAE (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. Consideration of factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation may assist in determining the indication for perampanel treatment.

Sex as a Biological Variable in Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials: Enhancing the Path to Personalised Medicine

Sex is an essential biological variable that influences the development, progression and response to treatment in cancer. Despite this, early-phase cancer clinical trials frequently neglect to consider sex as a variable, creating a barrier to the development of personalised medicine. This article argues that failure to identify and infer sex differences in early-phase clinical trials may result in suboptimal dosing, underestimation of toxicity, and the failure to identify potential sex-specific responses to new systemic anticancer therapies. There should be a greater focus on sex as a biological variable in drug development so that thoughtful and deliberate study design can bring precision to the development of new systemic cancer therapies.

Women's representation in clinical trials of patients with chronic kidney disease

Background

Sex and gender differences in chronic kidney disease (CKD), including epidemiology and response to treatment, remain poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate how women are represented in CKD clinical trials and whether sex- and gender-disaggregated outcomes were reported.

Methods

Clinical trials on CKD were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised, phase 3/4 trials with ≥100 participants were selected to quantify women's representation among participants by computing the participation:prevalence ratio (PPR) and investigating whether sex-disaggregated analyses had been performed.

Results

In total, 192 CKD trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Overall, women accounted for 66 875 (45%) of the 147 136 participants. Women's participation in clinical trials was lower than their representation in the underlying CKD population globally (55%). The PPR was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.78), with no significant variation irrespective of mean age, CKD stage, dialysis, location, type of intervention or funding agency. A total of 39 (20%) trials reported sex-disaggregated efficacy outcomes and none reported sex-disaggregated safety outcomes.

Conclusion

Women's participation in CKD clinical trials was lower than their representation in the underlying CKD population. Sex-disaggregated efficacy and safety outcomes were rarely reported. Improving women's enrolment into clinical trials is crucial to enable sex- and gender-disaggregated analysis and thus identify potential differences in treatment response between women and men.

Sex-differences in prostaglandin signaling: a semi-systematic review and characterization of PTGDS expression in human sensory neurons

There is increasing evidence of sex differences in underlying mechanisms causing pain in preclinical models, and in clinical populations. There are also important disconnects between clinical pain populations and the way preclinical pain studies are conducted. For instance, osteoarthritis pain more frequently affects women, but most preclinical studies have been conducted using males in animal models. The most widely used painkillers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), act on the prostaglandin pathway by inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes. The purpose of this study was to analyze the preclinical and clinical literature on the role of prostaglandins and COX in inflammation and pain. We aimed to specifically identify studies that used both sexes and investigate whether any sex-differences in the action of prostaglandins and COX inhibition had been reported, either in clinical or preclinical studies. We conducted a PubMed search and identified 369 preclinical studies and 100 clinical studies that matched our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our analysis shows that only 17% of preclinical studies on prostaglandins used both sexes and, out of those, only 19% analyzed or reported data separated by sex. In contrast, 79% of the clinical studies analyzed used both sexes. However, only 6% of those reported data separated by sex. Interestingly, 14 out of 15 preclinical studies and 5 out of 6 clinical studies that analyzed data separated by sex have identified sex-differences. This builds on the increasing evidence of sex-differences in prostaglandin signaling and the importance of sex as a biological variable in data analysis. The preclinical literature identifies a sex difference in prostaglandin D2 synthase (PTGDS) expression where it is higher in female than in male rodents in the nervous system. We experimentally validated that PTGDS expression is higher in female human dorsal root ganglia (DRG) neurons recovered from organ donors. Our semi-systematic literature review reveals a need for continued inclusivity of both male and female animals in prostaglandins studies and data analysis separated by sex in preclinical and clinical studies. Our finding of sex-differences in neuronal PTGDS expression in humans exemplifies the need for a more comprehensive understanding of how the prostaglandin system functions in the DRG in rodents and humans.

The Impact of Sex and Gender in Medicine and Pharmacology

Sex and gender play a pivotal role in health and disease. Differences can be identified in symptoms, biomarkers, lifetime experiences of diseases, incidence, prevalence, therapeutic options, health-related behavior, and resiliency. However, awareness of sex and gender differences in medicine is still limited. Systematic implementation of sex and gender-sensitive research is not yet the norm, resulting in gaps in evidence especially in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases in women. For decades research has predominantly included male persons and animals, leading to a lack of information about symptoms in female individuals or the classification of their symptoms as "atypical". Currently, the inclusion of female participants in clinical marketing access trials is mandatory. However, this does not automatically translate into sex-disaggregated analyses potentially limiting the discovery of sex-specific targeted therapeutic schemes. Consistent consideration of sex and gender in planning, conducting, analyzing, and dissemination of pharmacological research projects is an important prerequisite for closing the gender data gap. Targeted implementation strategies might help to include sex and gender aspects in different parts of the health system and thereby support the improvement of health care for all patients. Health economic aspects could be a further drive for the implementation of sex- and gender-sensitive medicine.The current chapter focuses on the role of sex and gender in biomedical research and, consequently, their potential role in pharmacology. We will explore the commonly used terminology in the field, the historical development of sex and gender-sensitive medicine (SGSM), the relevance of sex and gender to research and clinical practice and conclude with an outlook on future developments in the field.

Dementia clinical trials over the past decade: are women fairly represented?

Background

Lack of progress in finding disease-modifying treatments for dementia may be due to heterogeneity in treatment effects among subgroups, such as by sex. Therefore, we investigated the characteristics of dementia trials completed in the last decade, with a focus on women's representation and sex-disaggregated outcomes.

Methods

Clinical trials on dementia completed since 2010 were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised, phase III/IV trials with ≥100 participants were selected to quantify women's representation among participants, by computing the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) and investigate whether sex-disaggregated analyses had been performed.

Results

A total of 1351 trials were identified between January 2010 and August 2021 (429 520 participants), of which 118 were eligible for analysis of women's representation and sex-stratified analysis. Only 113 reported the sex of participants and were included in the analysis of women's representation. Of the 110 469 participants in these 113 trials, 58% were women, lower than their estimated representation in the global dementia population of 64%. The mean PPR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Women's participation tended to be higher when the first or last authors of the trial report were women. Eight out of the 118 trials reported sex-disaggregated outcomes, and three of those found significant sex differences in efficacy outcomes. None of the trials reported screening failures or adverse events stratified by sex.

Conclusions

Overall, women and men were equally represented in dementia trials carried out over the past decade, but women's representation was lower than in the underlying dementia population. Sex-disaggregated efficacy and safety outcomes were rarely reported.

Evaluation of Companion Diagnostics in Scientific Advice and Drug Marketing Authorization Applications by the European Medicines Agency

With the implementation of the new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostics (IVDR) in May 2022, notified bodies will be required to assess Companion Diagnostics (CDx). The EMA and national medicines agencies will be consulted on the performance and safety of CDx. In this paper, we report on our systematic review on how the EMA has dealt with CDx in dossiers for marketing authorization procedures, in 2017–2019, and in scientific advice procedures in 2016–2020, prior to the implementation of the new IVDR. Out of 167 medicines approved or refused by the EMA, CDx played a role for 20 medicines during assessment. Both European public assessment reports (EPARs) and the internal day 80 and day 120 assessment reports (ARs) of the EMA centralized marketing authorization procedures for these 20 medicines were analyzed in detail to determine how CDx were assessed. Likewise, in 46 of 159 cases in which scientific advice was provided, CDx were mentioned in the question-and-answer section of the scientific advice, and these were analyzed in an analogous manner. Our analysis indicates that clinical performance and analytical performance of the CDx were the most-discussed topics, being discussed 11 and seven times in the 20 EPARs and 59 and 29 times in the ARs, respectively. For scientific advice, clinical and analytical performance was discussed 65 and 22 times in the 46 retrieved mentions of scientific advice. Other aspects in relation to CDx were discussed as well, although at a lower frequency, in assessment reports and scientific advice. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that, despite the absence of an obligation from a legal point of view, EMA has gained experience on the assessment of CDx, most notably regarding its analytical and clinical performance. This experience may be useful in situations in which the EMA and national agencies of EU member states will formally be consulted by notified bodies regarding the performance and safety of CDx. In addition, the issues raised in the EPARs, ARs and scientific advice reports provide insight for applicants on aspects of CDx that need careful consideration.

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.