Search

Importance: Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist., Objective: To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires., Exposures: Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics., Main Outcomes and Measures: History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models., Results: The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%])., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Importance: Participants in clinical trials may experience benefits associated with new therapeutic strategies as well as tight adherence to best supportive care practices., Objectives: To investigate whether participation in a clinical trial is associated with improved survival among children with neuroblastoma and investigate potential recruitment bias of patients in clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included pediatric patients with intermediate- or high-risk neuroblastoma in North American studies who were included in the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Data Commons and who received a diagnosis between January 1, 1991, and March 1, 2020., Exposure: Enrollment in a clinical trial., Main Outcomes and Measures: Event-free survival and overall survival (OS) of patients with intermediate- or high-risk neuroblastoma enrolled in an up-front Children's Oncology Group (COG) clinical trial vs a biology study alone were analyzed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression models. The racial/ethnic composition and the demographic characteristics of the patients in both groups were compared., Results: The cohort included 3058 children with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma (1533 boys [50.1%]; mean [SD] age, 10.7 [14.7] months) and 6029 children with high-risk neuroblastoma (3493 boys [57.9%]; mean [SD] age, 45.8 [37.4] months) who were enrolled in a Children's Oncology Group or legacy group neuroblastoma biology study between 1991 and 2020. A total of 1513 patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma (49.5%) and 2473 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (41.0%) were also enrolled in a clinical trial, for a cohort total of 3986 of 9087 children (43.9%) enrolled in a clinical trial. The prevalence of prognostic markers for the clinical trial and non-clinical trial cohorts differed, although representation of patients from racial/ethnic minority groups was similar in both cohorts. Among patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma, OS was higher among those who participated in a clinical trial compared with those enrolled only in a biology study (OS, 95% [95% CI, 94%-96%] vs 91% [95% CI, 89%-94%]; P = .01). Among patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, participation in a clinical trial was not associated with OS (OS, 38% [95% CI, 35%-41%] in the clinical trial group vs 41% [95% CI, 38%-44%] in the biology study group; P = .23)., Conclusions and Relevance: Approximately 44% of patients in this large cohort of patients with neuroblastoma were enrolled in up-front clinical trials. Compared with children not enrolled in clinical trials, a higher prevalence of favorable prognostic markers was identified among patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma enrolled in clinical trials, and unfavorable features were more prevalent among patients with high-risk neuroblastoma enrolled in clinical trials. No evidence of recruitment bias according to race/ethnicity was observed. Participation in a clinical trial was not associated with OS in this cohort, likely reflecting the common practice of treating nontrial participants with therapeutic and supportive care regimens used in a previous therapeutic trial.

Importance: During the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer clinical trial participation decreased precipitously. Given the continued pandemic-especially the severe wave of new cases and deaths in winter 2020 to 2021-a vital question is whether trial enrollments have remained low or even worsened., Objective: To examine the experience of cancer clinical trial enrollment 1 year after the COVID-19 outbreak., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examines initial enrollments to treatment trials and cancer control and prevention (CCP) trials conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network between January 1, 2016, and February 28, 2021. Participants include patients enrolled in the trials., Exposures: Landmark time points reflecting the onset and the apex, respectively, of the initial COVID-19 wave (March 1 to April 25, 2020) and the winter 2020 to 2021 wave (October 4, 2020, to January 23, 2021)., Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used interrupted time-series analysis to examine enrollments over time related to the COVID-19-derived exposure variables using negative-binomial regression. Relative risk (RR) estimates representing weekly enrollment changes compared with expected rates (had the pandemic not occurred) were derived. The numbers of enrollments lost during the pandemic were estimated., Results: Overall, 29 398 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [13.2] years) were enrolled (24 034 before the pandemic and 5364 during the pandemic), with 9198 patients (31.3%) aged 65 years or older, 17 199 female patients (58.6%), 3039 Black patients (10.8%), and 2260 Hispanic patients (7.9%). Most enrollments (19 451 [66.2%]) were to treatment trials. During the initial COVID-19 wave, there was a 9.0% model-estimated weekly reduction in enrollments (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93; P < .001), with effects compounding each week. Enrollment recovered thereafter, but decreased again during the winter 2020 to 2021 wave, although by only 2.0% each week (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < .001). Overall, during the pandemic, actual enrollments were 77.3% of expected enrollments (5364 of 6913 enrollments; 95% CI, 70.5%-85.0%; P < .001). Actual enrollments were 54.0% of expected enrollments for CCP trials (1421 of 2641 enrollments; 95% CI, 43.0%-67.0%; P < .001) and 91.0% of expected enrollments for treatment trials (3922 of 4304 enrollments; 95% CI, 81.0%-102.0%; P = .12)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, clinical trial enrollments decreased during the full year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrollment reductions were primarily to CCP trials, whereas, remarkably, there was not strong evidence of enrollment reductions to treatment trials. This finding suggests that clinical research rapidly adapted to the circumstances of enrolling and treating patients on protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Importance: Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category., Objective: To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex., Exposures: The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase., Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials., Results: Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.

Importance: Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics., Objective: To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8., Results: From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.

Importance: Use of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin has increased substantially since 2015. Little is known about characteristics of real-world patients who use empagliflozin or about empagliflozin's effectiveness in reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in routine clinical care., Objectives: To characterize real-world initiators of empagliflozin, to examine the proportion of initiators who would have been eligible for participation in phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of empagliflozin, and to assess changes in HbA1c levels after empagliflozin initiation., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used linked population-based medical databases containing complete information on redeemed prescriptions, laboratory tests, and diagnoses for all residents in Northern Denmark. A total of 7034 residents of Denmark who filled a first-time empagliflozin prescription from January 2014 to December 2018 were included. Data analysis was performed in August 2019., Exposure: Empagliflozin initiation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of real-world users ineligible for RCT inclusion and absolute reduction in HbA1c level 6 months after empagliflozin initiation., Results: Of 7034 first-time empagliflozin initiators (median [interquartile range] age, 61.50 [53.30-69.38] years; 4475 [63.6%] men), 3878 (55.1%) would have been ineligible for phase 3 RCT participation; frequent reasons were concurrent use of specific glucose-lowering drugs (1955 initiators [27.8%]), baseline HbA1c level outside the eligibility range (1772 [25.2%]), or presence of comorbidities (1067 initiators [15.3%]). Initiation of empagliflozin was associated with a mean HbA1c reduction of -0.91% (95% CI, -0.94% to -0.87%) after 6 months, similar to phase 3 RCT results. Real-world empagliflozin initiators who would have been eligible for RCT participation experienced slightly lower mean HbA1c reductions (-0.78%; 95% CI, -0.82% to -0.74%) compared with patients who would have been ineligible (-1.01%; 95% CI, -1.07% to -0.95%). Ineligible initiators had higher median (interquartile range) baseline HbA1c values than eligible initiators (8.5% [7.4% to 10.1%] vs 8.2% [7.6% to 9.8%])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, more than half of empagliflozin initiators exhibited clinical characteristics that would have led to ineligibility for the RCTs leading to the drug's approval. While the findings suggest that the efficacy of empagliflozin in reducing HbA1c levels translates into real-world effectiveness, further studies should examine clinical outcome effectiveness and drug safety in routine clinical care.