Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Following up on a study from 2019, Tufts CSDD collected and analyzed data on demographic disparities and representation in pivotal trials supporting the marketing authorization of novel drugs and biologics approved in Europe between 2007 and 2019.

Methods

Data were collected from products’ EPAR, the EUDRACT database, and other publicly available sources, and compared to indication-specific demographic data or a census estimate. In total, data were collected on 446 drugs and 943 pivotal trials.

Results

Results indicated that gender demographic data were only reported for 80.7% of pivotal trials, and that racial and ethnicity demographic data were reported less often (64.1% and 29.9% of pivotal trials, respectively). Results also indicated that non-white racial identities were under-represented by more than 20% in nearly half or more of pivotal trials.

Conclusions

Guidelines encouraging the reporting of patient demographic data are insufficient and availability of the data is problematic. The available data suggest that under-representation in pivotal trials is widespread.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bierer BE, White SA, Meloney LG, Ahmed HR, Strauss DH, Clark LT. Achieving diversity, inclusion, and equity in Clinical Research Guidance Document Version 1.2. Cambridge: The Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mulinari S, Vilhelmsson A, Ozieranski P, Bredström A. Is there evidence for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation? Systematic comparison of new drugs approved over five years in the USA and the EU. Soc Sci Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Taylor A, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2049–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Farkas L. Data collection in the field of ethnicity. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers Publications Office; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  5. EMA. EMA ICH Topic E 5 (R1) ethnic factors in the acceptability of foreign clinical data. Amsterdam: EMA; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Maliepaard M, Taams AC, Sung C, et al. Ethnicity-specific drug safety data in European Medicines Agency registration dossiers, European public assessment reports, and European and Singapore drug labels: lost in translation? Pharm Med. 2019;33:407–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-019-00302-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pepperrell T, Rodgers P, Tandon P, et al. Making a COVID-19 vaccine that works for everyone: ensuring equity and inclusivity in clinical trials. Glob Health Action. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1892309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Atal I, Trinquart L, Porcher R, Ravaud P. Differential globalization of industry- and nonindustry-sponsored clinical trials. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12): e0145122. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. FDA. FDA collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Silver Spring: FDA; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Getz KA, Smith ZP, Peña Y. Quantifying patient subpopulation disparities in new drugs and biologics approved between 2007 and 2017. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(6):1541–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00181-9 (Epub 18 June 2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. European Network Against Racism. Theory of change 2018–2021. Brussels: ENAR; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper wish to thank Merck for the funding provided for this research. They would also like to thank Valerie Chen, Kenneth Schultz, and Xiecheng Chen for their extensive efforts and hard work collecting data for this analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts CSDD, Boston, MA, USA

    Zachary Smith, Emily Botto & Kenneth Getz

Authors
  1. Zachary Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Botto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth Getz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary Smith.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, Z., Botto, E. & Getz, K. Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe. Ther Innov Regul Sci 56, 795–804 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00421-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00421-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation