Dekker Marieke J H J, de Vries Sieta T, Versantvoort Carolien H M, Drost-van Velze Ellen G E, Bhatt Mansi, van Meer Peter J K, Havinga Ineke K, Gispen-de Wied Christine C, Mol Peter G M
Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 11;8:643028. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.643028. eCollection 2021.
This study assessed to what extent women were included in all phases of drug development; whether the clinical studies in the marketing authorization application dossiers include information per sex; and explored whether there are differences between women and men in the drugs' efficacy and safety. Data were extracted from dossiers submitted to the European Medicines Agency. Twenty-two dossiers of drugs approved between 2011 and 2015 for the treatment of various diseases were included. Female animals were included in only 9% of the pharmacodynamics studies, but female and male animals were included in all toxicology studies. Although fewer women than men were included in the clinical studies used to evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK) (29 to 40% women), all dossiers contained sex-specific PK parameter estimations. In the phase III trials, inclusion of women was proportional to disease prevalence for depression, epilepsy, thrombosis, and diabetes [participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) range: 0.91-1.04], but women were considered underrepresented for schizophrenia, hepatitis C, hypercholesterolemia, HIV, and heart failure (PPR range: 0.49-0.74). All dossiers contained sex-specific subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety. There seemed to be higher efficacy for women in one dossier and a trend toward lower efficacy in another dossier. More women had adverse events in both treatment (73.0 vs. 70.6%, < 0.001) and placebo groups (69.5 vs. 65.5%, < 0.001). In conclusion, women were included throughout all phases of clinical drug research, and sex-specific information was available in the evaluated dossiers. The included number of women was, however, not always proportional to disease prevalence rates.
本研究评估了药物研发各阶段纳入女性的程度;上市许可申请文件中的临床研究是否包含按性别分类的信息;并探讨了药物疗效和安全性在女性和男性之间是否存在差异。数据从提交给欧洲药品管理局的文件中提取。纳入了2011年至2015年期间批准用于治疗各种疾病的22种药物的文件。仅9%的药效学研究纳入了雌性动物,但所有毒理学研究均纳入了雌性和雄性动物。虽然用于评估药代动力学(PK)的临床研究中纳入的女性少于男性(女性占29%至40%),但所有文件都包含按性别分类的PK参数估计值。在III期试验中,抑郁症、癫痫、血栓形成和糖尿病的女性纳入比例与疾病患病率成正比[参与率与患病率之比(PPR)范围:0.91 - 1.04],但精神分裂症、丙型肝炎、高胆固醇血症、HIV和心力衰竭的女性被认为代表性不足(PPR范围:0.49 - 0.74)。所有文件都包含按性别分类的疗效和安全性亚组分析。在一份文件中女性似乎疗效更高,而在另一份文件中有疗效更低的趋势。治疗组(73.0%对70.6%,<0.001)和安慰剂组(69.5%对65.5%,<0.001)中女性发生不良事件的更多。总之,临床药物研究的所有阶段都纳入了女性,且在评估的文件中可获得按性别分类的信息。然而,纳入的女性数量并不总是与疾病患病率成正比。