A framework for evaluating the diversity of clinical trials

被引:4
作者
Agboola, Foluso [1 ,2 ]
Wright, Abigail C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Clin & Econ Review ICER, Boston, MA 02108 USA
[2] Inst Clin & Econ Review, 14 Beacon St, Boston, MA 02108 USA
关键词
Tool development; Health technology assessment; Health equity; Sex; Race; Ethnicity; Older adults; MOLECULAR ENTITY DRUGS; FDA;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111299
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The topic of diversity in clinical trials is rising to the forefront of many conversations in evidence-based medicine, and efforts are being made to improve the diversity of clinical trials. However, there is little uniformity in the methods used to evaluate these efforts. In this article, we describe our Clinical trial Diversity Rating (CDR) framework and the development process, including the broader considerations for evaluating the demographic diversity of clinical trials and their implications, and demonstrate its use through an illustrative example. Study Design and Setting: The development of the framework was a four-step process, including a scoping review, a cross-sectional study, creation of the tool, and integration of feedback from an advisory group. Results: Our scoping review identified 110 publications that examined clinical trial diversity. Race/ethnicity, sex, and age were the most common characteristics evaluated. About 85% clearly defined the benchmark used for evaluation, but less than half (48%) used disease prevalence as the benchmark. Only 64% of studies defined what would be considered adequate representation. The cross-sectional study, which applied some of the approaches identified in the literature, helped to identify the complexities of evaluating multinational trials and certain demographic characteristics. Key decisions for the CDR framework, such as the demographic characteristics to be evaluated, the benchmark and thresholds for evaluation, and how these factors contribute to the overall rating of clinical trial diversity, were informed by the two earlier phases and feedback from an advisory group. Conclusion: The CDR framework provides an objective and transparent approach to evaluating clinical trial diversity. Groups such as Health Technology Assessment bodies, clinical trial regulators, policymakers, journal editors, and individual researchers can use this tool to examine, monitor, and improve diversity in clinical trials. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Agboola F, 2023, Advancing health technology assessment methods that support health equity
  • [2] Evaluation of Diversity of Clinical Trials Informing Health Technology Assessments in the United States: A 5-Year Analysis of Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Assessments
    Agboola, Foluso
    Wright, Abigail C.
    Herron-Smith, Serina
    Mathur, Diya
    Rind, David
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (09) : 1345 - 1352
  • [3] Striving for Diversity in Research Studies
    不详
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2021, 385 (15) : 1429 - 1431
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2022, Data and Statistics
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2017, NIH POLICY GUIDELINE
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2022, DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR DIVERSITY PLANS TO IMPROVE ENROLLMENT OF PARTICIPANTS FROM UNDERREPRESENTED RACIAL AND ETHNIC POPULATIONS IN CLINICAL TRIALS
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2023, Nested Knowledge Robot Screener
  • [8] Under-representation of ethnic minorities in early phase clinical trials for multiple myeloma
    Asher, Samir
    Kazantzi, Aikaterini
    Dekaj, Fatjon
    Steventon, Luke
    Khatun, Aisha
    Ainley, Louise
    McMillan, Annabel
    Rabin, Neil
    Wechalekar, Ashu
    Sive, Jonathan
    Kyriakou, Charalampia
    Papanikolaou, Xenofon
    Xu, Ke
    Mahmood, Shameem
    Wisniowski, Brendan
    Lee, Lydia
    Yong, Kwee
    Popat, Rakesh
    [J]. HAEMATOLOGICA, 2022, 107 (12) : 2961 - 2965
  • [9] The Prevalence and Impact of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Figures and Trends From Government Health Studies
    Burch, Rebecca
    Rizzoli, Paul
    Loder, Elizabeth
    [J]. HEADACHE, 2018, 58 (04): : 496 - 505
  • [10] Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews
    Chai, Kevin E. K.
    Lines, Robin L. J.
    Gucciardi, Daniel F.
    Ng, Leo
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)