The Case Against Race-Based Quotas in Pharmaceutical Trials

This Article is the first to offer a comprehensive case against using racial quotas in pharmaceutical studies by providing a detailed examination of the arguments for and against the practice. It begins by discussing the current racial classification system, calls for racial quotas in pharmaceutical trials, and the troubling history of combining race and scientific investigation. It next examines the cautionary tale of BiDil, the first drug authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in only Black people. The third part of the Article sets forth the arguments against racial quotas. The fourth part provides legal analysis of these arguments, concluding that racial quotas in pharmaceutical trials likely would not satisfy the strict scrutiny standard for two independent reasons. The fifth part evaluates the alleged benefits of racial quotas and demonstrates that when properly understood they are insignificant in comparison to the disadvantages. The final part weighs the evidence to arrive at a conclusion and considers future implications.Ultimately, this Article provides a valuable framework for assessing the legal and pragmatic implications not just for pharmaceutical trial quotas but also for other racial-classification issues in health care. For example, while it presents a cumulative case against the proposed practice of racial quotas in pharmaceutical trials, many of the same arguments presented are also applicable to the currently mandated practice of acquiring and reporting racial data of pharmaceutical trial participants. It will serve as a valuable resource not only for opponents of racial quotas but also for advocates. For example, this Article provides numerous race-neutral alternatives for consideration. And the strong case against racial quotas helps facilitate a refocus of efforts away from merely ameliorating the end results of health care disparities and instead targeting the root causes. Evidence suggests that this redirected focus on root causes is more effective at producing positive change. In this way, rejecting these quotas is not in conflict with addressing health disparities; rather, it is beneficial to it. This Article will hopefully serve as a catalyst for future research regarding best practices on how pragmatic; legal; and diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations can synergistically exist.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on BiDil and the Use of Race in Drug Prescribing

OBJECTIVES

We explored cardiologists' attitudes and prescribing patterns specific to the use of generic isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride, and the fixed-dose patented drug, BiDil.

BACKGROUND

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved BiDil in 2005 with an indication for self-identified black patients, disagreement about the appropriateness of race-based drugs has intensified and led to calls for providers and researchers to abandon race-based delimitations. This paper reports empirical evidence of cardiologists' views on BiDil's race-based indication and their ongoing inertia with respect to the debate about BiDil.

METHODS

We conducted a 2010 cross-sectional online survey of members of the Association of Black Cardiologists.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine cardiologists responded to the survey. Most participants (62.7%) prescribed BiDil to their patients. More than 40% of respondents did not prescribe BiDil to any non-African Americans. When considering whether to prescribe BiDil, a patient's race determined by physician assessment was the third most important factor considered by participants. The majority of participants (72.7%) selected symptoms as the most important factor. Most participants (59.2%) perceived race as defining biologically distinct individuals. Respondents prescribed BiDil more often to African American patients than non-African American patients. However, they prescribed the generic components that makeup BiDil to African Americans and non-African American patients similarly.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey provides useful findings that, when viewed within the context of ongoing debates about race-based medicine, show little progress toward appropriately utilizing BiDil to maximize health outcomes, yet, might inform the development of practical and effective guidelines concerning the use of race in medicine.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on Race-Based Drug Labels and Prescribing Within the Context of Treating Heart Failure

Purpose: Cardiologists are known to consider patients' race when treating heart failure, but their views on the benefits and harms of this practice are largely undocumented. We set out to explore cardiologists' perspectives on the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and guidelines. Specifically, we focused on isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride (sold in a patented form as BiDil), a combination of drugs recommended for the treatment of black patients receiving optimal medical therapy for symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Methods: We conducted 81 semistructured interviews at an American College of Cardiology Annual meeting to assess cardiologists' and cardiology fellows' attitudes toward the use of race in drug prescribing. Investigators reviewed and coded the interviews using inductive qualitative analysis techniques.

Results: Many participants believed that race-based drug labels might help doctors prescribe effective medications to patients sooner. More than half of the participants expressed concerns, however, that considering race within the context of treating heart failure could potentially harm patients as well. Harms identified included the likelihood that patients who could benefit from a drug may not receive it because of their race; insufficient understanding about gene–drug–environment interactions; and simplistic applications of race in the clinic.

Conclusions: Few participants expressed approval of using race in drug prescribing without recognizing the potential harms, yet most participants stated that they continue to consider race when prescribing isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride. Within the context of treating heart failure, more open discussions about the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and prescribing are needed to address cardiologists' concerns.

Fixed-Dose Versus Off-Label Combination of Isosorbide Dinitrate Plus Hydralazine Hydrochloride: Retrospective Propensity-Matched Analysis in Black Medicare Patients with Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Based upon the findings of the African-American Heart Failure Trial, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and hydralazine hydrochloride (HYD) (FDC-ISDN/HYD) as a new drug for treatment of heart failure (HF) in self-identified African Americans. According to the FDA, FDC-ISDN/HYD has no therapeutic equivalent. However, off-label combinations of the separate generic drugs ISDN and HYD (OLC-ISDN+HYD) or isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) and HYD (OLC-ISMN+HYD) are routinely substituted without any supporting outcome data. We conducted an exploratory retrospective propensity-matched cohort study using Medicare data to determine whether a survival difference exists between these treatments in medication-adherent patients.

METHODS

Black Medicare beneficiaries with HF were matched with Medicare Part D data to identify patients with prescriptions to FDC-ISDN/HYD or the off-label combinations. Only patients with 1-year adherence levels ≥80% were included in the analysis. Propensity-matched scoring created two sets of matched cohort pairs on a 1:1 basis, each set comparing FDC-ISDN/HYD with one of the off-label combinations. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves with the log-rank test were then calculated for each pair for the year of medication adherence.

RESULTS

The analysis population was relatively older (77 years) and mainly female (66.7%), with a high burden of comorbid disease. The KM estimates of 1-year survival were 87.9% (95% CI 85.6-89.9%) and 83.0% (95% CI 80.3-85.3%) (log rank p = 0.0024), respectively, for the matched cohorts FDC-ISDN/HYD and OLC-ISDN+HYD (n = 886 in each group) and 88.2% (95% CI 85.9-90.2%) and 84.8% (95% CI 82.2-87.0%) (log rank p = 0.0320), respectively, for the matched cohorts FDC-ISDN/HYD and OLC-ISMN+HYD (n = 868 in each group).

CONCLUSION

The 1-year survival advantage for FDC-ISDN/HYD compared with off-label combinations in adherent black Medicare beneficiaries with HF suggests a genuine difference between these medications and warrants prospective investigation.

BiDil in the Clinic: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Physicians' Prescription Patterns of a Race-Based Therapy

BACKGROUND

The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) and the FDA approval of BiDil for race-specific prescription have stirred the debate about the scientific and medical status of race. Yet there is no assessment of the potential fallouts of this dispute on physicians' willingness to prescribe the drug. We present here an analysis of the factors influencing physicians' prescription of BiDil and investigate whether exposure to the controversy has an impact on their therapeutic judgments about the drug.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic survey with physicians in the department of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups, with one group receiving information about the controversy over BiDil. We used various statistical tests, including a linear mixed effects model, to analyze the results.

RESULTS

27% of the participants reported using patients' race as a major factor in making treatment decisions. 33% reported the inefficacy of standard therapies, 25% the severity of the disease, and 15% other unspecified factors as primary determining criteria in prescribing BiDil. With respect to the controversy, 68% of physicians reported that they were not aware of any controversy surrounding BiDil. Physicians' willingness to prescribe BiDil as a therapy was associated with their awareness of the controversy surrounding A-HeFT (p < 0.003). But their willingness to prescribe the therapy along racial lines did not vary significantly with exposure to the controversy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, physicians prescribe and are willing to prescribe BiDil more to black patients than to white patients. However, physicians' lack of awareness about the controversial scientific status of A-HeFT suggests the need for more efficient ways to convey scientific information about BiDil to clinicians. Furthermore, the uncertainties about the determination of clinical utility of BiDil for the individual patient raise questions about whether this specific race-based therapy is in patients' best interest.