Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022 Jan;47(2):430-443. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01162-8. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
Although sex differences in psychiatric disorders abound, few neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) studies consider sex as a biological variable (SABV). We conducted a scoping review of this literature in humans by systematically searching PubMed to identify peer-reviewed journal articles published before March 2020 that (1) studied FDA-approved medications used to treat psychiatric disorders (or related symptoms) and (2) adequately evaluated sex differences using in vivo neuroimaging methodologies. Of the 251 NPP studies that included both sexes and considered SABV in analyses, 80% used methodologies that eliminated the effect of sex (e.g., by including sex as a covariate to control for its effect). Only 20% (50 studies) adequately evaluated sex differences either by testing for an interaction involving sex or by stratifying analyses by sex. Of these 50 studies, 72% found statistically significant sex differences in at least one outcome. Sex differences in neural and behavioral outcomes were studied more often in drugs indicated for conditions with known sex differences. Likewise, the majority of studies conducted in those drug classes noted sex differences: antidepressants (13 of 16), antipsychotics (10 of 12), sedative-hypnotics (6 of 10), and stimulants (6 of 10). In contrast, only two studies of mood stabilizers evaluated SABV, with one noting a sex difference. By mapping this literature, we bring into sharp relief how few studies adequately evaluate sex differences in NPP studies. Currently, all NIH-funded studies are required to consider SABV. We urge scientific journals, peer reviewers, and regulatory agencies to require researchers to consider SABV in their research. Continuing to ignore SABV in NPP research has ramifications both in terms of rigor and reproducibility of research, potentially leading to costly consequences and unrealized benefits.
尽管精神疾病存在明显的性别差异,但很少有神经精神药理学 (NPP) 研究将性别视为生物学变量 (SABV)。我们通过系统地搜索 PubMed 来进行这项文献的范围综述,以确定在 2020 年 3 月之前发表的同行评议期刊文章,这些文章 (1) 研究了用于治疗精神疾病 (或相关症状) 的 FDA 批准药物,并且 (2) 使用体内神经影像学方法充分评估了性别差异。在纳入了两性并在分析中考虑了 SABV 的 251 项 NPP 研究中,80% 使用了消除性别的方法学 (例如,将性别作为协变量纳入以控制其影响)。只有 20% (50 项研究) 通过测试涉及性别的相互作用或通过按性别分层分析来充分评估性别差异。在这 50 项研究中,有 72% 在至少一个结果中发现了统计学上显著的性别差异。在用于已知具有性别差异的疾病的药物中,更多地研究了神经和行为结果的性别差异。同样,在这些药物类别中进行的大多数研究都指出了性别差异:抗抑郁药 (16 项中的 13 项)、抗精神病药 (12 项中的 10 项)、镇静催眠药 (10 项中的 6 项)和兴奋剂 (10 项中的 6 项)。相比之下,只有两项心境稳定剂的研究评估了 SABV,其中一项指出存在性别差异。通过绘制这幅文献图谱,我们清楚地表明,在 NPP 研究中,很少有研究充分评估了性别差异。目前,所有由 NIH 资助的研究都必须考虑 SABV。我们敦促科学期刊、同行评审人员和监管机构要求研究人员在其研究中考虑 SABV。继续忽视 NPP 研究中的 SABV,不仅会对研究的严谨性和可重复性产生影响,还可能导致代价高昂的后果和无法实现的益处。