Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Oct 9:7:56.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-56.

Inclusion of women in clinical trials

Affiliations
Review

Inclusion of women in clinical trials

Jesse A Berlin et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

There is increasing concern among many in the medical arena about the extent to which the effects of treatment, either good or bad, apply to specific subgroups of individuals. Women comprise one of the most frequently considered 'subgroups' of patients. In the 1980s, much political attention was focused on concerns about equity in the research enterprise. In this paper, we briefly describe the statutory approaches to achieving equity in research, beginning with The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. We go on to describe clinical, methodological and political factors affecting these discussions. We conclude that the controversy over the inclusion of women in clinical trials probably stems, in part, from theoretical concerns about gender differences in treatment effects and, in part, by legitimate fears of exposing fetuses to investigational drugs. However, we believe that the broader issue centres on biological factors, possibly defined by genes or gene expression, that may directly or indirectly modify the effect of specific treatments on specific individuals.A growing concern of physicians, regulators, healthcare policy makers and patients is the extent to which the effects of treatment, both good and bad, apply to specific subgroups. Do results of clinical trials apply consistently and equally across all clinically meaningful subclasses of patients enrolled in the studies? Can the results of those studies be extrapolated to patients or types of patients who did not participate in the original research? Reliable data on these issues are rarely available at the time of drug approval and are more difficult to generate once the drug is on the market and readily available.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Group Statistical design considerations in the NHLI multiple risk factor intervention trial (MRFIT) J Chronic Dis. 1977;30:261–275. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(77)90013-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group Multiple risk factor intervention trial. Risk factor changes and mortality results. JAMA. 1982;248:1465–1477. doi: 10.1001/jama.248.12.1465. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hennekens CH, Eberlein K. A randomized trial of aspirin and beta-carotene among U.S. physicians. Prev Med. 1985;14:165–168. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(85)90031-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Methodological considerations in the design and conduct of randomized trials: the U.S. Physicians' Health Study. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:142S–150S. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90053-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Healy B, Healy B. The Yentl syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:274–276. - PubMed