Underreporting of race/ethnicity in COVID-19 research.

OBJECTIVES: Although racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare have long been recognized, recent discourse around structural racism will hopefully lead to improved transparency surrounding these issues. Despite the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial/ethnic minorities, the extent and reliability of race reporting in COVID research is unclear. METHODS: COVID-19 research published in three top medical journals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was reviewed and assessed for race reporting and proportional representation. RESULTS: Of the 95 manuscripts that were identified, 56 reporting on 252,262 patients met eligibility. Thirty-five (62.5%) did not report race distribution and 15 (26.7%) did not report ethnicity. There was no difference based on journal (P = 0.87), study sponsor (P = 0.41), whether the study was retrospective or prospective (P = 0.33), or observational vs interventional (P = 0.11). Studies with ≥250 patients were more likely to report on race (OR 4.01, 95% CI: 1.12-14.37, P = 0.027), and North American (USA and Canada) studies were more likely than European studies (OR 7.88, 95% CI: 1.73-37.68, P = 0.006) to report on race. COVID-19 research mirrored USA COVID-19 racial incidence; however, both showed higher distribution of COVID-19 infection among Blacks and a smaller proportion of Whites compared to the USA population. This suggests that research is broadly representing infection rates and that social determinants of health are impacting racial distribution of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing awareness of racial disparities and inequity, COVID-19 research during the first wave of the pandemic lacked appropriate racial/ethnicity reporting. However, research mirrored COVID-19 incidence in the USA, with an increased burden of infection among Black individuals.

Sex Representation in Clinical Trials Associated with FDA Cancer Drug Approvals Differs Between Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Proportionate female representation in health research is necessary for scientific rigor and health equity. We aimed to assess the representation of women in clinical trials leading to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Trials supporting FDA cancer drug approvals between July 2008 and June 2018 were sourced from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. The ratio of female to male trial enrollment was compared with cancer incidence and mortality in the U.S. using International Agency for Research on Cancer data. Reproductive tract and breast cancers were excluded. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing trial enrollment with population incidence and mortality were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 186 trials leading to 170 FDA cancer drug approvals showed slight female underrepresentation compared with overall cancer incidence in the U.S. (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98, p < .0001). Female enrollment for drugs approved between 2008-2013 and 2014-2018 was unchanged (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.05, p = .25). There was slight female underrepresentation in hematological trials (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.998; p = .040 for leukemia; OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.997; p = .040 for lymphoma) and significant female underrepresentation in colorectal (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76; p < .0001), pancreas (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = .0004), lung (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80; p < .0001), kidney (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.67; p < .0001), and thyroid cancer trials (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.28; p < .0001) compared with U.S. incidence. CONCLUSION: Female underrepresentation has persisted within solid organ tumor trials but is less notable in hematologic trials. Additional work is required to identify drivers of such disparity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Adequate gender representation in clinical trials is a matter of health equity. This study demonstrates that women remain underrepresented in trials across hematological and solid organ trials compared with cancer incidence and mortality in women, with the disparity worse in a number of solid organ tumor types. There are thus still significant improvements to be made regarding adequate representation of women in trials. Studies exploring the reasons for ongoing disparity in gender representation are warranted to help clinicians to rectify this.

Representativeness of Black Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Compared With Pharmaceutical Companies.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials supporting new drug applications underrepresent minority patients. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trial's Network (NCTN) have greater outreach to community sites, potentially allowing better representation. We compared the representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company-sponsored cancer clinical trials with NCTN trials and with the US cancer population. METHODS: We established a large cohort of study publications representing the results of trials that supported new US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals from 2008 to 2018. NCTN trial data were from the SWOG Cancer Research Network. US cancer population rates were estimated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results survey data. We compared the proportion of Black patients by enrollment year for each cancer type and overall. Tests of proportions were used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total 358 trials (pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials, 85; SWOG trials, 273) comprised of 93 825 patients (pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials, 46 313; SWOG trials, 47 512) for 15 cancer types were analyzed. Overall, the proportion of Black patients was 2.9% for pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials, 9.0% for SWOG trials, and 12.1% for the US cancer population (P < .001 for each pairwise comparison). These findings were generally consistent across individual cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: The poor representation of Black patients in pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials supporting new drug applications could result in the use of new drugs with little data about efficacy or side effects in this key population. Moreover, because pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials test the newest available therapies, limited access to these trials represents a disparity in access to potential breakthrough therapies.

The Impact of Rehabilitation-oriented Virtual Reality Device in Patients With Ischemic Stroke in the Early Subacute Recovery Phase: Study Protocol for a Phase III, Single-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Stroke is considered the most common cause of adult disability. Intensive rehabilitation protocols outperform nonintensive counterparts. The subacute stroke phase represents a potential window to recovery. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to provide a more stimulating environment, allowing for increased patient compliance. However, the quality of current literature comparing VR with standard therapies is limited. Our aim is to measure the impact of VR versus standard therapy on the recovery of the upper limb motor function in patients with stroke in the early subacute recovery phase. METHOD: This is a randomized, controlled trial that will assign 262 patients to tailor-made standard rehabilitation (TMSR) or TMSR plus immersive VR device. The trial will be conducted in an urban rehabilitation clinic in the United States with expertise in the management of poststroke patients. Patients will be 18 to 70 years of age and in the early subacute period (30-90 days post ischemic stroke). The primary outcome will be the change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score, measured at baseline and 13 weeks after randomization. The secondary outcome will be the change in the UK Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM-FAM) score at the same time points. DISCUSSION: If the use of VR in the rehabilitation of patients with stroke proves to have a significant impact on their motor recovery, it will constitute an extremely important step into decreasing the functional impairment associated with stroke and the related health care expense burden.

Disparity of Race Reporting and Representation in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Drug Approvals From 2008 to 2018.

IMPORTANCE: Representative racial/ethnic participation in research, especially in clinical trials that establish standards of care, is necessary to minimize disparities in outcomes and to uphold societal equity in health care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of race reporting and proportional race representation in trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Database study of all reported trials supporting FDA oncology drug approvals granted between July 2008 and June 2018. Primary reports of trials were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Food and Drug Administration approvals were identified using the FDA archives. The US population-based cancer estimates by race were calculated using National Cancer Institute-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and US Census databases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the proportion of trials reporting race and the proportion of patients by race participating in trials. Secondary outcomes included race subgroup analyses reporting and gaps between race proportion in trials and the US population. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and χ2 tests were used to analyze the data. Proportions and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were reported. RESULTS: Among 230 trials with a total of 112 293 participants, 145 (63.0%) reported on at least 1 race, 18 (7.8%) documented the 4 major races in the United States (white, Asian, black, and Hispanic), and 58 (25.2%) reported race subgroup analyses. Reporting on white, Asian, black, and Hispanic races was included in 144 (62.6%), 110 (47.8%), 88 (38.2%), and 23 (10.0%) trials, respectively. Between July 2008 and June 2013 vs July 2013 and June 2018, the number of trials reporting race (45 [56.6%] vs 100 [67.1%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93-2.87; P = .09) and race subgroup analysis (13 [16.1%] vs 45 [30.2%]; OR, 2.26, 95% CI, 1.16-4.67; P = .03) changed minimally and varied across races. Whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics represented 76.3%, 18.3%, 3.1% and 6.1% of trial participants, respectively, and the proportion for each race enrolled over time changed nominally (blacks, 3.6% vs 2.9% and Hispanics, 5.3% vs 6.7%) from July 2008 to June 2013 vs July 2013 to June 2018. Compared with their proportion of US cancer incidence, blacks (22% of expected) and Hispanics (44% of expected) were underrepresented compared with whites (98% of expected) and Asians (438% of expected). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Race and race subgroup analysis reporting occurs infrequently, and black and Hispanic races are consistently underrepresented compared with their burden of cancer incidence in landmark trials that led to FDA oncology drug approvals. Enhanced minority engagement is needed in trials to ensure the validity of results and reliable benefits to all.