‘Concerning’ lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health experts

Sly Saint

Sly Saint

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Health experts are calling for more UK clinical trials to focus on finding new treatments for women, as “concerning” data reveals they are severely under-represented, with 67% more male-only studies than female-only.

Details of thousands of studies were collected by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the University of Liverpool. The evidence shows the UK is a hub for pioneering research, with one in eight trials testing humans for the first time, and cutting-edge treatments such as gene therapies becoming a new growth area.

But a review of the data by the Guardian found that women were significantly under-represented. Both sexes were included in most trials (90%), but male-only trials (6.1%) were nearly twice as common as female-only studies (3.7%). Pregnant and breastfeeding women were especially under-represented – involved in just 1.1% and 0.6% of trials respectively.

Women’s health experts expressed alarm over the figures, which they said meant women and their doctors were having to make decisions about whether to take a drug in a “vacuum of evidence”. Some areas of research are dominated by men at all levels – funders, researchers, consultants and patients – and as a result there could be a “reluctance” to fund female-only trials, the experts added.

Dr Amy Brenner, an assistant professor in the clinical trials unit at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: “It is particularly concerning that there are more male-only trials than female-only trials as, while they may be disease-specific, it is certainly not true that there are more male-only than female-only diseases.”
Click to expand...
‘Concerning’ lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health experts
 
Sadly, a constant in our chaotic world.

NIH guts its first and largest study centered on women
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-cancels-its-first-and-largest-study-centered-women

President Donald Trump’s administration appears to be killing much, if not all, of a historic initiative that was the first, and is still the largest, National Institutes of Health (NIH) effort centered on the health needs of women. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) has enrolled tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials of hormones and other medications and tracked the health of many thousands more over more than 3 decades. Its findings have had a major influence on health care.
Click to expand...
For now there's an update that says it's probably back on track, but who knows, really?
Update, 25 April, 12:15 p.m.: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is quickly backing off the controversial cancellation of contracts to NIH's Women's Health Initiative (WHI) after criticism from scientists, senators, and even celebrities. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today claimed on social media that a New York Times story on the matter was “fake news,” but an HHS spokesperson acknowledged there had been a reversal of cuts to WHI. “These studies represent critical contributions to our better understanding of women’s health,” HHS Spokesperson Emily G. Hilliard told Science, adding that NIH “exceeded its internal targets for contract reductions [and] we are now working to fully restore funding to these essential research efforts, … and we are taking immediate steps to ensure the continuity of these studies.”
Click to expand...
 
Pregnant and breastfeeding women were especially under-represented – involved in just 1.1% and 0.6% of trials respectively.

And thank heavens for that. Since 90% of these trials will be on drugs that turn out to be useless why expose pregnant or breastfeeding women to them for goodness sake?

And why expose women, who, if they are fit to volunteer and in mid life, might be pregnant despite being pretty sure they are not.

To me this is wokery gone mad. You might as well say why aren't there more women in the army or in air-sea rescue? Maybe they are lucky to be allowed to opt out?

And what do the figures show? 96% of trials are open to men and 93% to women. Is that a shock hour misogynist scenario? Come off it.
 
There does seem to be a sizeable difference between male-only and female-only trials, which are presumably studying sex-dependent conditions.

Given the number of women who suffer with reproductive system problems—which are really common, and can be so hard hitting they affect the ability to work, parent, and socialise—it looks surprising.
 
Kitty said:
There does seem to be a sizeable difference between male-only and female-only trials, which are presumably studying sex-dependent conditions.
Click to expand...

Do we know that. Breast cancer trials may take both men and women because men do get breast cancer. Although female reproductive problem are common they may make up a small proportion of all the different sorts of diseases you can do trials on so may not make up a large number of trials (the number probably not having much to do with how common a problem is).

I don't think numbers like this should be used as political footballs. They mean absolutely nothing without a lot more detail. It is typical of the Guardian to pick up on stuff like this without the journalist having a clue what it is really about. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the male only trials were first in man volunteer studies where men are at lower risk because they won't be pregnant.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Do we know that.
Click to expand...

I took the figure from the report on the MHRA data in the OP, but it's not easy to know whether it's correct.

But we do know much more research needs to be done. GPs are still either reluctant or not competent to diagnose common conditions, which in turn means a devastating (and probably under appreciated) impact on lives and fertility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom