Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503637›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2020

Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women.

Irving Zucker, Brian J Prendergast

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 363 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
363citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
54.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

363 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 735 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Assessment of Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Volume-Dependent Conductive Hearing Loss in Healthy Volunteers: First-in-Human, Open-Label, Placebo-Controlled Study of a Single Intratympanic Injection of AC102.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Sex-Related Differences in Physiologically-Based Biopharmaceutics Modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026
    Article

303 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Irving ZuckerDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, 2121 Berkeley Way West, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA. irvzuck@berkeley.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8431-5370
Brian J PrendergastDepartment of Psychology and Committee on Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Berkeley College · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen experience adverse drug reactions, ADRs, nearly twice as often as men, yet the role of sex as a biological factor in the generation of ADRs is poorly understood. Most drugs currently in use were approved based on clinical trials conducted on men, so women may be overmedicated. We determined whether sex differences in drug pharmacokinetics, PKs, predict sex differences in ADRs.

methodsSearches of the ISI Web of Science and PubMed databases were conducted with combinations of the terms: drugs, sex or gender, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug safety, drug dose, and adverse drug reaction, which yielded over 5000 articles with considerable overlap. We obtained information from each relevant article on significant sex differences in PK measures, predominantly area under the curve, peak/maximum concentrations, and clearance/elimination rates. ADRs were identified from every relevant article and recorded categorically as female-biased, male-biased, or not sex-biased.

resultsFor most of the FDA-approved drugs examined, elevated blood concentrations and longer elimination times were manifested by women, and these PKs were strongly linked to sex differences in ADRs. Of the 86 drugs evaluated, 76 had higher PK values in women; for 59 drugs with clinically identifiable ADRs, sex-biased PKs predicted the direction of sex-biased ADRs in 88% of cases. Ninety-six percent of drugs with female-biased PK values were associated with a higher incidence of ADRs in women than men, but only 29% of male-biased PKs predicted male-biased ADRs. Accessible PK information is available for only a small fraction of all drugs

conclusionsSex differences in pharmacokinetics strongly predict sex-specific ADRs for women but not men. This sex difference was not explained by sex differences in body weight. The absence of sex-stratified PK information in public records for hundreds of drugs raises the concern that sex differences in PK values are widespread and of clinical significance. The common practice of prescribing equal drug doses to women and men neglects sex differences in pharmacokinetics and dimorphisms in body weight, risks overmedication of women, and contributes to female-biased adverse drug reactions. We recommend evidence-based dose reductions for women to counteract this sex bias.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacokineticsSex CharacteristicsAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsFemaleHumansMaleAdverse drug reactionsDrugsPharmacokineticsSex differences

Identifiers

PMID32503637
PMCPMC7275616
OpenAlexW3033773215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.