RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This article analyses the presence of gender bias in clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies used to treat multiple sclerosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of 4 monoclonal antibodies used to treat multiple sclerosis (natalizumab, rituximab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab). We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published in English before March 2020. The study was conducted in accordance with the relevant international recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 89 articles, 55 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all patients included in these trials, 64.6% were women. The lead authors of 10 of the studies were women. Fifteen of the 55 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. Only 8 articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical trials of these 4 monoclonal antibodies present a significant gender bias. In most cases, the primary and secondary endpoints are not analyzed according to patient sex, despite the fact that international recommendations include this as a minimum requirement for ensuring scientific validity and obtaining appropriate results for extrapolation to the wider population.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais , Esclerose Múltipla , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Esclerose Múltipla/tratamento farmacológico , Sexismo , Alemtuzumab , Rituximab/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This article analyses the presence of gender bias in clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies used to treat multiple sclerosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of 4 monoclonal antibodies used to treat multiple sclerosis (natalizumab, rituximab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab). We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published in English before March 2020. The study was conducted in accordance with the relevant international recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 89 articles, 55 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all patients included in these trials, 64.6% were women. The lead authors of 10 of the studies were women. Fifteen of the 55 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. Only 8 articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical trials of these 4 monoclonal antibodies present a significant gender bias. In most cases, the primary and secondary endpoints are not analyzed according to patient sex, despite the fact that international recommendations include this as a minimum requirement for ensuring scientific validity and obtaining appropriate results for extrapolation to the wider population.