Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42698293›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026

Special Populations in Pivotal Clinical Trials: Eligibility and Supporting Evidence for Exclusion in EMA-Authorised Medicines.

Maja J Jørgensen, Débora D Gräf, Christine E Hallgreen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Maja J JørgensenDepartment of Pharmacy, Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science and Real-World Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4308-8164
Débora D GräfDepartment of Pharmacy, Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science and Real-World Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5900-540X
Christine E HallgreenDepartment of Pharmacy, Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science and Real-World Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7916-3915

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42698293
PMCPMC13545516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.