Epilogue: Future of Sex and Gender-Based Studies in Infectious Diseases

Chapter

Abstract

The topic of male–female differences in disease outcomes continues to receive attention in both the scientific literature and lay press. There is little debate about whether the sexes are behaviorally and biologically different, but how this impacts disease processes and the pipeline for developing drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and policy decisions is highly debated. The current book as well as a previous book (Klein and Roberts 2010) that we published in 2010 illustrates that the sexes differ in their exposure, immune responses, and outcome of diverse infectious diseases and inflammatory conditions. While the intensity and prevalence of infections are often higher for males, the outcome of diseases, including those caused by HIV, influenza, hemorrhagic fever viruses, Toxoplasma gondii, and Borrelia burgdorferi to name a few, can be worse for females. As detailed in Chapter 1 of this book, females tend to mount higher innate and adaptive immune responses, which can result in faster clearance of pathogens, but also may contribute to increased development of immunopathology and inflammatory conditions. Responses to prophylaxis and therapeutic treatments for infectious diseases also differ between the sexes, with females typically experiencing greater adverse reactions than males (Chapter  4). These sex differences can vary by age and reproductive status (Chapters  3 and  10), illustrating that these differences are not fixed, but are variable across the life course. Despite sex being the most evolutionarily well conserved and easily disaggregated variable by which to compare the outcome of diseases and their treatments, it is often ignored in the biomedical sciences. The challenges of including women in clinical trials are in some cases obvious and include the potential of hormonal variations during menstrual cycles and their cessation at menopause. These factors are further complicated due to pregnancy (when hormone levels change and the fetus could be at risk during a trial) or artificial administration of hormones as contraceptives or for hormone replacement therapy. However, the scientific, medical, and ethical cases for including males and females in preclinical and clinical trials are too profound to ignore.

Keywords

Herpes Simplex Virus Genital Herpes Borrelia Burgdorferi Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Vaginal Microbiome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beery AK, Zucker I (2011) Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(3):565–572PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolnick DI, Snowberg LK, Hirsch PE, Lauber CL, Org E, Parks B, Lusis AJ, Knight R, Caporaso JG, Svanbäck R (2014) Individual diet has sex-dependent effects on vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat Commun 5:4500. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5500 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaban B, Links MG, Jayaprakash TP, Wagner EC, Bourque DK, Lohn Z, Albert AY, van Schalkwyk J, Reid G, Hemmingsen SM, Hill JE, Money DM (2014) Characterization of the vaginal microbiota of healthy Canadian women through the menstrual cycle. Microbiome 2:23. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-2-23 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clayton JA, Collins FS (2014) Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature 509(7500):282–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FDA (2013) Zolpidem containing products: drug safety communication-FDA requires lower recommended doses. FDAGoogle Scholar
  6. Flórez-Vargas O, Bramhall M, Noyes H, Cruickshank S, Stevens R, Brass A (2014) The quality of methods reporting in parasitology experiments. PLoS ONE 9(7):e101131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101131 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guidelines FG (1977) General considerations for the clinical evaluation of drugsGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein SL, Roberts CW (eds) (2010) Sex hormones and immunity to infection. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Parekh A, Fadiran EO, Uhl K, Throckmorton DC (2011) Adverse effects in women: implications for drug development and regulatory policies. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 4(4):453–466. doi: 10.1586/ecp.11.29 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pinn VW (1994) The role of the NIH's office of research on women's health. Acad Med 69(9):698–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Simon V (2005) Wanted: women in clinical trials. Science 308(5728):1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stanberry LR, Spruance SL, Cunningham AL, Bernstein DI, Mindel A, Sacks S, Tyring S, Aoki FY, Slaoui M, Denis M, Vandepapeliere P, Dubin G (2002) Glycoprotein-D-adjuvant vaccine to prevent genital herpes. N Engl J Med 347(21):1652–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yoon DY, Mansukhani NA, Stubbs VC, Helenowski IB, Woodruff TK, Kibbe MR (2014) Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery 156(3):508–516. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.07.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular Microbiology & ImmunologyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Parasitology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy & Biomedical SciencesUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations