Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority groups in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of over 250 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology trials. METHODS: Gynecologic oncology studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2020 were identified. Trials with published results were analyzed based on reporting of race/ethnicity in relation to disease site and trial characteristics. Expected enrollment by race/ethnicity was calculated and compared to actual enrollment, adjusted for 2010 US Census population data. RESULTS: 2146 gynecologic oncology trials were identified. Of published trials (n = 252), 99 (39.3%) reported race/ethnicity data. Recent trials were more likely to report these data (36% from 2007 to 2009; 51% 2013-2015; and 53% from 2016 to 2018, p = 0.01). Of all trials, ovarian cancer trials were least likely to report race/ethnicity data (32.1% vs 39.3%, p = 0.011). Population-adjusted under-enrollment for Blacks was 7-fold in ovarian cancer, Latinx 10-fold for ovarian and 6-fold in uterine cancer trials, Asians 2.5-fold in uterine cancer trials, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals 6-fold in ovarian trials. Trials for most disease sites have enrolled more REMGs in recent years - REMGs made up 19.6% of trial participants in 2007-2009 compared to 38.1% in 2016-2018 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Less than half of trials that published results reported race/ethnicity data. Available data reveals that enrollment of REMGs is significantly below expected rates based on national census data. These disparities persisted even after additionally adjusting for population size. Despite improvement in recent years, additional recruitment of REMGs is needed to achieve more representative and equitable participation in gynecologic cancer clinical trials.

Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Female underrepresentation in oncology clinical trials can result in outcome disparities. We evaluated female participant representation in US oncology trials by intervention type, cancer site, and funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the publicly available Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. Initially, 270,172 studies were identified. Following the exclusion of trials using Medical Subject Heading terms, manual review, those with incomplete status, non-US location, sex-specific organ cancers, or lacking participant sex data, 1650 trials consisting of 240,776 participants remained. The primary outcome was participation to prevalence ratio (PPR): percent females among trial participants divided by percent females in the disease population per US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. PPRs of 0.8-1.2 reflect proportional female representation. RESULTS: Females represented 46.9% of participants (95% CI, 45.4-48.4); mean PPR for all trials was 0.912. Females were underrepresented in surgical (PPR 0.74) and other invasive (PPR 0.69) oncology trials. Among cancer sites, females were underrepresented in bladder (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = .02), head/neck (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.68, P < .01), stomach (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.70, P < .01), and esophageal (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P < .01) trials. Hematologic (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P < .01) and pancreatic (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, P < .01) trials had higher odds of proportional female representation. Industry-funded trials had greater odds of proportional female representation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P = .01) than US government and academic-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders should look to hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded cancer trials as exemplars of female participant representation and consider female representation when interpreting trial results.

Characterizing Clinical Trials in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov From 2007 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov is the world's largest clinical trial registry, and the state of clinical trials in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) within that database has not been comprehensively studied. To that end, we explored the distribution of therapeutic areas that are under investigation, impact of funding on study design and data reporting, and trends in research patterns of all PRS interventional clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we identified and extracted all clinical trials relevant to PRS that were submitted between 2007 and 2020. Studies were classified based on anatomic locations, therapeutic categories, and specialty topics. Cox proportional hazard was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for early discontinuation and results reporting. RESULTS: A total of 3224 trials that included 372,095 participants were identified. The PRS trials grew at an annual rate of 7.9%. The therapeutic classes most represented were wound healing (41.3%) and cosmetics (18.1%). Funding for PRS clinical trials is largely provided through academic institutions (72.7%), while industry and US government constituted a minority. Industry-funded studies were more likely to be discontinued early than those funded by academics (HR, 1.89) or government (HR, 1.92) and to be nonblinded and nonrandomized. Academic-funded studies were the least likely to report results data within 3 years of trial completion (odds ratio, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: A gulf exists in the representation of different PRS specialties among clinical trials. We highlight the role of funding source in trial design and data reporting to identify a potential source of financial waste and to stress the need for continued appropriate oversight.

Clinical Trial Outcomes in Urology: Assessing Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting and Publication in ClinicalTrials.Gov Registrations 2007-2019.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials require significant resources, but benefits are only realized after trial completion and dissemination of results. We comprehensively assessed early discontinuation, registry results reporting, and publication by trial sponsor and subspecialty in urology trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed trial registrations from 2007 to 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication data from PubMed®/MEDLINE®. Associations between sponsor or subspecialty with early discontinuation were assessed using Cox proportional hazards and results reporting or publication with logistic regression at 3 years after completion. RESULTS: Of 8,636 trials 3,541 (41.0%) were completed and 999 (11.6%) were discontinued. Of completed trials 26.9% reported results and 21.6% were published. Sponsors included academic institutions (53.1%), industry (37.1%) and the U.S. government (9.8%). Academic-sponsored (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, p=0.012) and government-sponsored trials (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78, p <0.001) were less likely than industry to discontinue early. Government-sponsored trials were more likely to report (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17-2.54, p=0.006) and publish (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.23-2.89, p=0.004). Academic-sponsored trials were less likely to report (adjusted OR 0.65, CI:0.48-0.88, p=0.006) but more likely to publish (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.25-2.37, p <0.001). These outcomes were similar across subspecialties. However, endourology was more likely to discontinue early (adjusted HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.53-2.95, p <0.001), general urology was more likely to report results (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13-2.11, p=0.006) and andrology was less likely to publish (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Sponsor type is significantly associated with trial completion and dissemination. Government-sponsored trials had the best performance, while industry and academic-sponsored trials lagged in completion and results reporting, respectively. Subspecialty played a lesser role. Lack of dissemination remains a problem for urology trials.

A multifaceted approach to global health.

World Health Day underscores the scientific community's commitment to achieving health equity for all. It is paramount to eliminate bias in research that has traditionally focused on men, neglecting the specific needs of diverse populations. Innovative clinical trial designs are being developed with more inclusive enrollment. Ensuring equitable access to essential antibiotics, coupled with robust infection prevention and control measures, is vital to safeguarding public health. The pursuit of health equity extends beyond the realm of medicine. Investments in local food production and robust social safety nets are critical for mitigating the effects of climate change on access to healthy diets. Additionally, in times of polycrisis, prioritizing the unique needs of children and empowering community-led healthcare initiatives in conflict zones are essential steps. By taking these actions, we can move closer to realizing everyone's fundamental right to health.

Obstetric Clinical Trial Diversity: Analysis of Trial Focus and Representation From 2007 to 2020.

Inclusive clinical trials are necessary to improve maternal health equity. We aimed to analyze the current state of race and ethnicity reporting and representation in obstetric trials and the association with trial focus for all U.S.-based obstetric trials between 2007 and 2020. In this cross-sectional, multivariable regression analysis, the exposure variable was clinical trial focus (eg, prematurity), and the outcomes were race and ethnicity reporting and representation of diverse cohorts. Obstetric anesthesia trials reported race and ethnicity the least frequently of all trial foci (adjusted odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). Hypertension and obstetric anesthesia trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Black participants, and prematurity trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Latinx and Asian participants. All researchers should strive to improve measurement and reporting of demographic data as well participation of diverse cohorts.

Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Representation in Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Trials and Publications From 2007-2020.

Importance: Clinical trials guide evidence-based obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) but often enroll nonrepresentative participants. Objective: To characterize race and ethnicity reporting and representation in US OB-GYN clinical trials and their subsequent publications and to analyze the association of subspecialty and funding with diverse representation. Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all OB-GYN studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2020) and publications from PubMed and Google Scholar (2007-2021). Analyses included logistic regression controlling for year, subspecialty, phase, funding, and site number. Data from 332 417 studies were downloaded. Studies with a noninterventional design, with a registration date before October 1, 2007, without relevance to OB-GYN, with no reported results, and with no US-based study site were excluded. Exposures: OB-GYN subspecialty and funder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reporting of race and ethnicity data and racial and ethnic representation (the proportion of enrollees of American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Latinx, or White identity and odds of representation above US Census estimates by race and ethnicity). Results: Among trials with ClinicalTrials.gov results (1287 trials with 591 196 participants) and publications (1147 trials with 821 111 participants), 662 (50.9%) and 856 (74.6%) reported race and ethnicity data, respectively. Among publications, gynecology studies were significantly less likely to report race and ethnicity than obstetrics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials had the lowest odds of reporting race and ethnicity (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; reference category, obstetrics). Obstetrics and family planning demonstrated the most diverse clinical trial cohorts. Compared with obstetric trials, gynecologic oncology had the lowest odds of Black representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09; publications: aOR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and Latinx representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.14; publications: aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.48), followed by urogynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Urogynecology (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39; publications: aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58) had the lowest odds of Asian representation. Conclusions and Relevance: Race and ethnicity reporting and representation in OB-GYN trials are suboptimal. Obstetrics and family planning trials demonstrate improved representation is achievable. Nonetheless, all subspecialties should strive for more equitably representative research.

Race/ethnicity reporting and representation in US clinical trials: a cohort study.

Background: Systemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors. Methods: We analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively. Findings: Among 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials. Interpretation: Over the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time. Funding: Stanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.

Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Pediatric Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Unique ethical, epidemiological, and economic factors are barriers to performing research in children. The landscape of pediatric clinical trials, including drivers of completion and timely dissemination of results, is not well understood. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication of pediatric clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials enrolling participants <18 years old registered at ClinicalTrials.gov from October 2007 to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the association between trial characteristics and primary outcomes. Publication data were obtained through PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Scopus. RESULTS: Overall, 11.1% trials were stopped early, with recruitment failure being the predominant reason for discontinuation. Only 23.5% of completed trials reported results, and 38.8% were published within 3 years of completion. Rates of discontinuation and publication significantly improved over the study period. Among funding sources, government-sponsored trials (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) and academic trials (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82) had lower odds of discontinuation compared with industry trials and were more likely to be published (government: aOR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.52-2.48] academic: aOR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.35-1.92). Academic trial investigators were the least likely to report results (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Early discontinuation and nonreporting/nonpublication of findings remain common in registered pediatric clinical trials and were associated with funding source and other trial features. Targeted efforts are needed to support trial completion and timely results dissemination toward strengthening evidence-based pediatric medicine.

Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Gynecology Clinical Trials From 2007 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize gynecology clinical trials over time, compare gynecology subspecialties, and analyze factors associated with early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all gynecology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2020 and their resulting publications. Trials were analyzed with descriptive, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analyses. Primary exposure variables were trial funding and subspecialty. The three primary outcomes included early discontinuation, results reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal indexed on PubMed. RESULTS: Of 223,690 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between October 2007 and March 2020, only 3.7% focused on gynecology (n=8,174, approximately 3,759,086 participants). Subspecialties included reproductive endocrinology and infertility (n=1,428, 17.5%), gynecologic oncology (n=2,063, 25.2%), urogynecology (n=1,118, 13.7%), family planning (n=648, 7.9%), and other benign gynecology (n=2,917, 35.7%). Only 42.0% of completed trials disseminated results through results reporting and publication. Of all funding types, industry-funded trials were the most likely to be discontinued early (P<.001). Academic-funded trials were the least likely to report results (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.30-0.50) but the most likely to publish (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.12). The number of reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials increased the most of any subspecialty between 2007 and 2020 (6.4% growth rate). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility and family planning trials were the most likely to be stopped early (reproductive endocrinology and infertility: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.08, 95% CI 1.59-2.71; family planning: aHR 1.55 95% CI 1.06-2.25). When completed, reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials were the least likely to report results (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88). No significant differences were seen between subspecialties with respect to publication. CONCLUSION: Gynecology trials comprise only 3.7% of all clinical trials. The paucity of gynecology clinical trials aligns with decades of female underrepresentation in research. When completed, gynecology trials have poor dissemination. Our findings raise concern about bias in the performance, reporting, and publication of gynecology clinical trials.

How many US obstetrical trials reach publication? A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed from 2007 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Obstetrical clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine during pregnancy. As more obstetrical trials are conducted, understanding the publication characteristics of these trials is of utmost importance to advance obstetrical health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the frequency of publication and trial characteristics associated with publication among obstetrical clinical trials in the United States. We additionally sought to examine time from trial completion to publication. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional analysis of completed obstetrical trials with an intervention design and at least 1 site in the United States registered to ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2019. Trial characteristics were cross-referenced with PubMed to determine publication status up to 2021 using the National Clinical Trial identification number. Bivariable analyses were conducted to determine trial characteristics associated with publication. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for prespecified covariates were generated to estimate the relationship between funding, primary purpose, and therapeutic foci with publication. Additional exploratory analyses of other trial characteristics were conducted. Time to publication was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of the 1879 obstetrical trials with registered completion, a total of 575 (30.6%) had at least 1 site in the United States, were completed before October 1, 2019, and were included in this analysis. Between October 2007 and October 2019, fewer than two-thirds (N=348, 60.5%) of trials reached publication. Annual rates of publication ranged from 46.4% in 2018 to 70.0% in 2007. No difference was observed in publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05). Trials with characteristics indicating high trial quality-including randomized allocation scheme, ≥50 participants enrolled, ≥2 sites, and presence of a data safety monitoring committee-had increased odds of publication compared with those without such characteristics (all P<.05). For example, studies with randomized allocation of intervention had 2-fold greater odds of publication than nonrandomized studies (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.37). Studies with ≥150 participants had nearly 8-fold odds of publication (adjusted odds ratio, 7.90; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-17.49) relative to studies with <50 participants. Temporal analysis demonstrated variability in time to publication among obstetrical trials, with a median time of 20.1 months after trial completion, and with most trials that reached publication having been published by 40 months. No difference was observed in time to publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05). CONCLUSION: Publication of obstetrical trials remains suboptimal, with significant differences observed between trials with indicators of high quality and those without. Most trials that reach publication are published within 2 years of registered completion on ClinicalTrials.gov.

T cell characteristics associated with toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma.

Severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occur in up to 60% of patients with melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, it is unknown whether a common baseline immunological state precedes irAE development. Here we applied mass cytometry by time of flight, single-cell RNA sequencing, single-cell V(D)J sequencing, bulk RNA sequencing and bulk T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing to study peripheral blood samples from patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 combination ICIs. By analyzing 93 pre- and early on-ICI blood samples and 3 patient cohorts (n = 27, 26 and 18), we found that 2 pretreatment factors in circulation-activated CD4 memory T cell abundance and TCR diversity-are associated with severe irAE development regardless of organ system involvement. We also explored on-treatment changes in TCR clonality among patients receiving combination therapy and linked our findings to the severity and timing of irAE onset. These results demonstrate circulating T cell characteristics associated with ICI-induced toxicity, with implications for improved diagnostics and clinical management.

Intracranial Autograft Fat Placement to Separate the Optic Chiasm from Tumor to Improve Stereotactic Radiotherapy Dosimetry.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy for intracranial lesions is constrained by dose to neurologic organs at risk. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report 2 cases, a newly diagnosed chondrosarcoma and a previously irradiated meningioma, with tumors that abutted the optic chiasm following subtotal resection. Definitive radiotherapy would have required either undercoverage of the tumor or treatment of the chiasm with doses posing an unacceptable risk of blindness. Therefore, the patients underwent open surgery with placement of an abdominal fat autograft to provide space between the tumor and the optic structures at risk. Patients received definitive fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. For each patient, we retrospectively compared the treated plan (with fat autograft) to a second plan generated using the pre-autograft imaging, maintaining similar tumor coverage. For the chondrosarcoma, the fat autograft reduced the optic chiasm maximum dose by 21% (70.4 Gy to 55.3 Gy). For the reirradiated peri-optic meningioma, the optic chiasm maximum dose was reduced by 10% (50.8 Gy to 45.9 Gy), the left optic nerve by 17% (48.9 Gy to 40.4 Gy), and the right optic nerve by 30% (32.3 Gy to 22.6 Gy). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the utility of abdominal fat autograft placement to maximize coverage of tumor while minimizing dose to intracranial organs at risk.

Recognizing the Role of Language in the Hidden Curriculum of Undergraduate Medical Education: Implications for Equity in Medical Training.

Medical education involves a transition from "outsider" to "insider" status, which entails both rigorous formal training and an inculturation of values and norms via a hidden curriculum. Within this transition, the ability to "talk the talk" designates an individual as an insider, and learning to talk this talk is a key component of professional socialization. This Article uses the framework of "patterns of medical language" to explore the role of language in the hidden curriculum of medical education, exploring how students must learn to recognize and participate fluently within patterns of medical language to be acknowledged and evaluated as competent trainees. The authors illustrate this by reframing the Association of American Medical Colleges' Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency as a series of overlapping patterns of medical language that students are expected to master before residency. The authors propose that many of these patterns of medical language are learned through trial and error, taught via a hidden curriculum rather than through explicit instruction. Medical students come from increasingly diverse backgrounds and therefore begin medical training further from or closer to insider status. Thus, evaluative practices based on patterns of medical language, which are not explicitly taught, may exacerbate and perpetuate existing inequities in medical education. This Article aims to bring awareness to the importance of medical language within the hidden curriculum of medical education, to the role of medical language as a marker of insider status, and to the centrality of medical language in evaluative practices. The authors conclude by offering possible approaches to ameliorate the inequities that may exist due to current evaluative practices.

Trends in US pediatric mental health clinical trials: An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2018.

Whereas time trends in the epidemiologic burden of US pediatric mental health disorders are well described, little is known about trends in how these disorders are studied through clinical research. We identified how funding source, disorders studied, treatments studied, and trial design changed over the past decade in US pediatric mental health clinical trials. We identified all US pediatric interventional mental health trials submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007 and April 30, 2018 (n = 1,019) and manually characterized disorders and treatments studied. We assessed trial growth and design characteristics by funding source, treatments, and disorders. US pediatric mental health trials grew over the past decade (compound annual growth rate [CAGR] 4.1%). The number of studies funded by industry and US government remained unchanged, whereas studies funded by other sources (e.g., academic medical centers) grew (CAGR 11.3%). Neurodevelopmental disorders comprised the largest proportion of disorders studied, and Non-DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5) conditions was the only disorder category to grow (14.5% to 24.6%; first half to second half of decade). There was significant growth of trials studying non-psycho/pharmacotherapy treatments (33.8% to 49.0%) and a decline in trials studying pharmacotherapies (31.7% to 20.6%), though these trends differed by funding source. There were also notable differences in funding sources and treatments studied within each disorder category. Trials using double blinding declined (26.2% to 18.0%). Limitations include that ClinicalTrials.gov is not an exhaustive list of US clinical trials, and trends identified may in part reflect changes in trial registration rather than changes in clinical research. Nevertheless, ClinicalTrials.gov is among the largest databases available for evaluating trends and patterns in pediatric mental health research that might otherwise remain unassessable. Understanding these trends can guide researchers and funding bodies when considering the trajectory of the field.

Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020.

Importance: Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. Objective: To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. Exposures: The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Results: Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.

The obstetrical research landscape: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials from 2007-2020.

Background: Obstetrical complications affect more than a third of women globally, but are underrepresented in clinical research. Little is known about the comprehensive obstetrical clinical trial landscape, how it compares with other fields, or factors associated with the successful completion of obstetrical trials. Objective: This study aimed to characterize obstetrical clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the primary objective of identifying features associated with early discontinuation and results reporting. Study Design: This is a cross-sectional study with descriptive, logistic regression and Cox regression analyses of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary exposure variables were trial focus (obstetrical or nonobstetrical) and trial funding (industry, United States government, or academic). We conducted additional exploratory analyses of other trial features including design, enrollment, and therapeutic focus. We examined the associations of exposure variables and other trial features with 2 primary outcomes: early discontinuation and results reporting. Results: We downloaded data for all studies (N=332,417) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from October 1, 2007, to March 9, 2020, from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. We excluded studies with a noninterventional design (n=63,697) and those registered before October 1, 2007 (n=45,209). A total of 4276 obstetrical trials (1.9%) (ie, interventional studies) and 219,235 nonobstetric trials (98.1%) were compared. Among all trials, 2.8% of academic-funded trials, 1.9% of United States government-funded trials, and 0.4% of industry-funded trials focused on obstetrics. The quantity of obstetrical trials increased over time (10.8% annual growth rate). Compared with nonobstetrical trials, obstetrical trials had a greater risk of early discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.62; P<.0001) and similar odds of results reporting (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.10; P=.19). Among obstetrical trials funders after controlling for confounding variables, United States government-funded trials were at the lowest risk of early discontinuation (United States government, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.69; P=.009; industry reference; academic, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.74; P=.88). Academic-funded trials had the lowest odds of results reporting after controlling for confounding variables (academic institutions, adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.68; P=.0009; industry reference; United States government, adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.09; P=.87). Conclusion: Obstetrical trials represent only 1.9% of all clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and have comparatively poor completion. All stakeholders should commit to increasing the number of obstetrical trials and improving their completion and dissemination to ensure clinical research reflects the obstetrical burden of disease and advances maternal health.

Neurology trial registrations on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2018: A cross-sectional analysis of characteristics, early discontinuation, and results reporting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing neurological disease burden and advancing treatment options require clinical trials to expand the evidence base of clinical care. We aimed to characterize neurology clinical trials registered between October 2007 and April 2018 and identify features associated with early discontinuation and results reporting. METHODS: We compared 16,994 neurology (9.4%) and 163,714 non-neurology comparison trials registered to ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials therapeutic focus within neurology was assigned via combination programmatic and manual review. We performed descriptive analyses of trial characteristics, cox regression of early discontinuation, and multivariable logistic regression for results reporting within 3 years of completion. RESULTS: Most neurology trials were academic-funded (58.5%) followed by industry (31.9%) and US-government (9.6%). Neurology trials focused more on treatment than prevention compared to non-neurology studies. Of neurology trials, 11.3% discontinued early, and 32.2% of completed trials reported results by April 30, 2018. In multivariable analysis accounting for time-to-event, neurology trials were at lower risk of discontinuation than non-neurology trials (adjusted hazard 0.83, p < 0.0001). Both academic and government-funded trials had greater risk of discontinuation than industry (adjusted hazard 0.57 and 0.46, respectively). Among completed trials, government-funded studies (adjusted odds ratio 2.12, p < 0.0001) had highest odds of results reporting while academic trials reported less (adjusted odds ratio 0.51, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Funding source is associated with trial characteristics and outcomes in neurology. Improvements in trial completion and timely dissemination of results remain urgent goals for the field.

Leptomeningeal disease and neurologic death after surgical resection and radiosurgery for brain metastases: A multi-institutional analysis.

PURPOSE: Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is associated with up to 30% risk of subsequent leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Radiographic patterns of LMD (classical sugarcoating [cLMD] vs. nodular [nLMD]) in this setting has been shown to be prognostic. However, the association of these findings with neurologic death (ND) is not well described. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The records for patients with brain metastases who underwent surgical resection and adjunctive SRS to 1 lesion (SRS to other intact lesions was allowed) and subsequently developed LMD were combined from 7 tertiary care centers. Salvage radiation therapy (RT) for LMD was categorized according to use of whole-brain versus focal cranial RT. RESULTS: The study cohort included 125 patients with known cause of death. The ND rate in these patients was 79%, and the rate in patients who underwent LMD salvage treatment (n = 107) was 76%. Univariate logistic regression demonstrated radiographic pattern of LMD (cLMD vs. nLMD, odds ratio: 2.9; P = .04) and second LMD failure after salvage treatment (odds ratio: 3.9; P = .02) as significantly associated with ND. The ND rate was 86% for cLMD versus 68% for nLMD. Whole-brain RT was used in 95% of patients with cLMD and 52% with nLMD. In the nLMD cohort (n = 58), there was no difference in ND rate based on type of salvage RT (whole-brain RT: 67% vs. focal cranial RT: 68%, P = .92). CONCLUSIONS: LMD after surgery and SRS for brain metastases is a clinically significant event with high rates of ND. Classical LMD pattern (vs. nodular) and second LMD failure after salvage treatment were significantly associated with a higher risk of ND. Patients with nLMD treated with salvage focal cranial RT did not have higher ND rates compared with WBRT. Methods to decrease LMD and the subsequent high risk of ND in this setting warrant further investigation.