Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Urolithiasis Clinical Trials: Representative Enrollment by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess whether participant enrollment is appropriately representative of the overall urolithiasis population in published urolithiasis clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed was queried for urolithiasis US clinical trials published from 2000 to 2022. Trials were evaluated for reporting patient race/ethnicity and sex data. These were then compared to the stone prevalence reported by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2015 to 2018. We calculated a representation quotient (RQ) to describe enrollment of patients and then stratified by geographic location, study type, and funding source.

RESULTS

Of the 180 urolithiasis trials performed in the US, we identified 40 trials (22%) reporting race or ethnicity and 104 trials (58%) reporting sex. Male and female participants are well represented (RQ 0.97 and 1.02, respectively). Overall, the RQ of Black, Asian American and Pacific Islander, White, Hispanic, and mixed/other participants is 1.84, 1.06, 1.04, 0.46, and 0.34, respectively. Trials completed in the Western Section and multi-institutional trials have the most proportional enrollment, while trials in the South Central and Southeastern Sections have underrepresentation of mixed/other and Hispanic patients. Enrollment was similar among all trial subtypes. Government- and industry-funded trials had more diverse enrollment than academic-funded trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 1 in 4 published US urolithiasis trials report race or ethnicity enrollment. Mixed race and Hispanic participants are consistently underrepresented, while Black participants are overrepresented. Government- and industry-sponsored multi-institutional trials have the most proportional representation. Investigators should prioritize inclusive recruitment and improve reporting practices to accurately reflect the diversity of the urolithiasis population.