Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41231225›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2025

Representation of Older Adult Patients in Clinical Trials.

Sebastian Haertter, Navita L Mallalieu, Soundos Saleh, Paul Goldsmith, Rucha Sane, Jack Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Diversity in Translation: Equal Is Greater Than.Clinical and translational science · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Representation of Older Adult Patients in Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
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

6 authors.

Sebastian HaertterClinical Pharmacology, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Ingelheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3569-5626
Navita L MallalieuClinical Pharmacology, A2-Ai, LLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7203-6307
Soundos SalehR&D Due Diligence Lead, Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-9370-5816
Paul GoldsmithExploratory Medicine and Pharmacology, Eli Lilly, Bracknell, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9909-2536
Rucha SaneClinical Pharmacology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9043-5336
Jack CookClinical Pharmacology, A2-Ai, LLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8710-5697

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Older adults remain significantly underrepresented in clinical trials. This is concerning because age-associated physiological changes can alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. This paper examines the status of older adult representation in clinical trials, analyzes contributing factors, and discusses initiatives to address gaps. Data were collected from studies completed between 2010 and 2025 using ClinicalTrials.gov to assess age-related inclusion/exclusion criteria. Further, two surveys of pharmaceutical companies were initially conducted to assess age ranges of randomized patients in pivotal trials, what clinical pharmacology approaches were applied to potentially support dosing in older adult patients, whether exclusion criteria disproportionally excluded older patients, reasons older adult patients were not randomized, and whether older patients more often discontinued trials prematurely. Exclusion criterion based on an age cut-off was rarely applied. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed for most trials, but only one age-related dosing recommendation was reported out of 29 products. In a survey of 41 clinical studies, exclusion criteria showed no bias toward exclusion of patients > 80 years. Reasons for not randomizing older patients were diverse and trial dependent. Subjective reasons for non-randomization at higher frequencies in older patients were patient wish and doctor advice. Discontinuation rate did not reveal a clear age-related trend. When comparing trial age composition to disease prevalence by age, a mismatch was evident with fewer than expected older patients enrolled. This research identifies the gap between trial participation and disease prevalence by age groups, offering insights for sponsor companies to enhance older adults' inclusion in clinical research.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedclinical trialsdiscontinuationexclusion criteriaolder adult patientsscreening failure

Identifiers

PMID41231225
PMCPMC12614078

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.