Citations

Abstract Contemporary anticancer therapies frequently have different efficacy and side effects in men and women. Yet, whether women are well‐represented in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. Leveraging the Drugs@FDA database, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and publicly available FDA‐drug‐reviews, we identified all pivotal (phase II and III) non‐sex specific trials supporting FDA‐approval of anticancer drugs (1998–2018). Observed‐enrollment‐rates were compared to expected‐population‐rates derived from concurrent US‐National‐Cancer‐Institute's Surveillance‐Epidemiology‐and‐End‐Results (SEER) reported rates and US‐Census databases. Primary outcome was the proportional representation of women across trials, evaluated by a participation‐to‐prevalence ratio (PPR), according to cancer type. Secondary outcome was the report of any sex‐specific analysis of efficacy and/or safety, irrespective of treatment‐arm. Overall, there were 148 trials, enrolling 60,216 participants (60.5 ± 4.0 years, 40.7% female, 79.1% biologic, targeted, or immune‐based therapies) evaluating 99 drugs. Sex was reported in 146 (98.6%) trials, wherein 40.7% (24,538) were women, compared to 59.3% (35,678) men ( p < .01). Altogether, women were under‐represented in 66.9% trials compared to the proportional incidence of cancers by respective disease type; weight‐average PPR of 0.91 (relative difference: ‐9.1%, p < .01). Women were most under‐represented in gastric (PPR = 0.63), liver (PPR = 0.71), and lung (PPR = .81) cancer trials. Sex‐based safety data was reported in 4.0% trials. There was no association between adequate female enrollment and drug efficacy (HR: 0.616 vs. 0.613, p = .96). Over time, there was no difference in the percentage of women recruited into clinical trials. Among pivotal clinical trials supporting contemporary FDA‐approved cancer drugs, women were frequently under‐represented and sex‐specific‐efficacy and safety‐outcomes were commonly not reported.

Background Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with cardiovascular health (CVH). Potential differences by sex in this association remain incompletely understood in Black Americans, where SES disparities are posited to be partially responsible for cardiovascular inequities. The association of SES measures (income, education, occupation, and insurance) with CVH scores was examined in the Jackson Heart Study. Methods and Results American Heart Association CVH components (non–high‐density‐lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, diet, tobacco use, physical activity, sleep, glycemia, and body mass index) were scored cross‐sectionally at baseline (scale: 0–100). Differences in CVH and 95% CIs (Estimate, 95% CI) were calculated using linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and discrimination. Heterogeneity by sex was assessed. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years (SD 12.6 years), and 65% were women. Lower income, education, occupation (non‐management/professional versus management/professional occupations), and insurance status (uninsured, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, or Medicare versus private insurance) were associated with lower CVH scores (all P <0.01). There was heterogeneity by sex, with greater magnitude of associations of SES measures with CVH in women versus men. The lowest education level (<high school) versus highest (>high school) was associated with 8.8‐point lower (95% CI: −10.2 to −7.3) and 5.4‐point lower (95% CI: −7.2 to −3.6) CVH scores in women and men, respectively (interaction P =0.003). The lowest (<25 000) versus highest level of income (≥$75 000) was associated with a greater reduction in CVH scores in women than men (interaction P =0.1142). Conclusions Among Black Americans, measures of SES were associated with CVH, with a greater magnitude in women compared with men for education and income. Interventions aimed to address CVH through SES should consider the role of sex.