ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Special Populations in Pivotal Clinical Trials: Eligibility and Supporting Evidence for Exclusion in EMA-Authorised Medicines.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence on the efficacy and safety of medicines supporting marketing authorization is largely derived from randomized controlled trials, yet these trials often exclude populations likely to use the medications in clinical practice. This study assessed eligibility of special populations, defined as pregnant and breast-feeding individuals, elderly individuals, and individuals with comorbidities, in pivotal clinical trials supporting centrally authorized products in the European Union between 2022 and 2024. It also examined whether exclusions of the special populations were supported by scientific justifications in the form of prior clinical or nonclinical evidence documented in regulatory sources. Among 24 products supported by 44 pivotal trials, pregnant and breast-feeding individuals were most frequently excluded (16/24 products), followed by individuals with cardiovascular disease or hepatic impairment (13/24 products) and renal impairment (10/24 products). Exclusion of elderly individuals based on age alone was uncommon (1/24 products). Of the 24 products, 15 excluded more than one special population. While exclusions of pregnant and breast-feeding individuals were largely supported by preclinical evidence suggesting safety concerns, those related to comorbidities were often not accompanied by prior evidence justifying exclusions. Broad exclusion criteria based on investigator judgment were also common. These findings reveal variation in how exclusion criteria are justified across special populations in regulatory documentation and suggest an opportunity for greater transparency and consistency in documenting the scientific and ethical justification for these criteria in clinical trials.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.