Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35304352›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2022

Attention for sex in COVID-19 trials: a review of regulatory dossiers.

Sieta T de Vries, Viktoriia Starokozhko, Ingrid M M Schellens, Leonoor Wijnans, Harald Enzmann, Marco Cavaleri, Peter G M Mol

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6090-2434
Viktoriia StarokozhkoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7451-6793
Ingrid M M SchellensDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Leonoor WijnansDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Harald EnzmannCommittee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marco CavaleriEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands p.mol@cbg-meb.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4262-3180

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An under-representation of women and a lack of sex-specific analyses in COVID-19 trials has been suggested. However, the higher number of men than women who are severely affected by COVID-19 and the restricted information in scientific publications may have biased these suggestions. Therefore, we evaluated sex proportionality and sex-specific efficacy and safety data in trials of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines using both publicly available regulatory documents and confidential documents used by regulators in their review of medicinal products. Included were two treatments (ie, remdesivir and dexamethasone) and four vaccines (ie, BNT162b2 mRNA (BioNTech/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2-S (Janssen)) that received marketing authorisation by the European Commission at the time of the study conduct. An under-representation of women was shown in three of the nine data sets for one treatment (ie, remdesivir), but the proportion of women included was representative in each of the data sets for the other five products. This indicates that there is no structural under-representation of women in the COVID-19 trials. Currently, sex-specific efficacy data are available for five of the six assessed products and sex-specific safety data are available for half of the products only. It is important that this information will also be made available for the other products. There are only small differences in efficacy and safety between men and women which are likely to be of limited clinical relevance. Sex-specific efficacy information can generally be found in the publicly available regulatory documents other than the Summary of Product Characteristics, for which more awareness might be required.

Indexed as

BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19AttentionFemaleHumansMaleBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19public healthreviewtreatmentvaccines

Identifiers

PMID35304352
PMCPMC8935005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.