Gender Bias in Studies for Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval of Cardiovascular Devices

Author:

Dhruva Sanket S.1,Bero Lisa A.1,Redberg Rita F.1

Affiliation:

1. From the Departments of Medicine (S.S.D.) and Clinical Pharmacy (L.A.B.), School of Pharmacy, Institute for Health Policy Studies; and the School of Medicine (R.F.R.), Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, CA.

Abstract

Background— Cardiovascular devices can have different safety and effectiveness profiles in men and women. The type and quality of sex-specific data reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before approval of these devices are unknown. Methods and Results— We performed a systematic review of the demographics, comments on gender bias, and analysis of results by sex for 78 high-risk cardiovascular devices that received premarket approval by the FDA between 2000 and 2007. FDA summaries of evidence did not report sex of enrollees in 34 (28%) of 123 studies. For studies reporting sex distribution, the study populations were, on average, 67% men. There was no increase in the enrollment of women over time. Explanations for the relatively low percentage of women often stated that the trials reflected either underlying disease distribution or referral rates for similar procedures or that the sex distribution reflected similar or previous trials. Forty-one percent of studies included a gender bias comment or analysis, and 12 (26%) of 47 of these analyses identified some difference in device safety or effectiveness by sex. Conclusions— There is a lack of sex-specific safety and effectiveness data for high-risk cardiovascular devices before FDA approval. The justifications for this lack of evidence may perpetuate the status quo. More rigorous FDA requirements for sex-specific data before device approval could present an opportunity to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Reference37 articles.

1. Women's health. Report of the Public Health Service Task Force on Women's Health Issues;Public Health Rep,1985

2. Office of Research on Women's Health. Inclusion of women in research. http://orwh.od.nih.gov/inclusion.html. Accessed June 25 2010.

3. American Medical Association; Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. CEJA Report B–I-90. Gender disparities in clinical decision-making. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_bi90.pdf. Accessed June 25 2010.

4. United States General Accounting Office. National Institutes of Health: problems in implementing policy on women in study populations. http://archive.gao.gov/d48t13/141859.pdf. Accessed June 25 2010.

Cited by 75 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3