Medical Research Still Ignoring Women

medical research
A study released today, Monday March 3, reports on the findings that despite a landmark law passed in 1993 requiring government-funded medical research to adequately represent women, the “fairer sex” is still being too-often ignored. This is even more so when the health issues are unique to women. The new findings were released today at a national summit on women’s health, held in Boston.

The author of the report, Dr. Paula Johnson, reports that some progress has been made in the last 20 years, but also says it is not enough by any stretch. Women are more often included in clinical trials today says Johnson, Executive Director of the Connors Center for Women’s Health at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston. However she adds there are still “enormous gaps” in the process of medical research as relating to women.

Several reasons are thought to be responsible for the gap. There are legitimate concerns, such as protecting women of childbearing age (and, potentially, fetuses) from trials regarding new and unknown substances. This is prudent when possible long-term effects are unknown. However another reason often given is women’s changing hormones—that hormonal differences exist between women of the same age, and that throughout a life a single woman’s hormones change. This indeed makes the problem more complex, but the Society for Women’s Health Research points out this is all the more reason why more women need to be studied.

Many studies either do not include women and assume people taking the drug after its release will react in the same way as the people in the study (all men), or, more frequently, a small number of women is included and results are given for the entire group. These results are misleading. If numbers do not at least approach a 50/50 split, and worse, women are vastly underrepresented, outcomes cannot be said to be clear across the board. Further, manufacturers are not presently required to show separate results for men and women. If 10 women in a study of 50 people (40 being men) all have a side-effect of high blood pressure, for instance, the study only need report that 20 percent of participants experienced that side effect. Medical research results still therefore essentially ignore women, misleading the public and being downright dangerous. This is what Dr. Johnson is trying to highlight.

Another reason behind less women being included in studies is financial. Since the law was passed in 1993 the amounts allocated are thought not to have increased proportionate to how many women now need to be included. However, instead of reducing the numbers of male participants, some women have been added on to existing studies. Further, women make up only about 5 percent of top academia at U.S. medical schools, so the research is still being driven almost entirely by men. Dr. Eve Higginbotham from the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine is vice dean for diversity and inclusion. She says that women are still struggling to get to the top-tier of academic medicine. She notes that bias exists and it definitely “comes down to the people…doing the studies.”

Dr. Lynn Gordon of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine points out that even when researchers are reluctant to include women in studies involving new drugs, women can be followed to discover and track which conditions they have, develop over their lifetimes and so on. This information, when pooled, can paint a more accurate picture of women’s health. More importantly than this, however, Gordon feels studies involving chemical trials should be obligated to have a disclaimer when enough women have not been included, so that even if the reason was because of hormonal imbalances or any such thing, women can at least be informed before taking something that has essentially not been tested on them.

Many of the researchers find this trend egregious. There are particular instances where results can be fatal. For instance, more women die of heart disease in the United States than men each year, but clinical trial subjects are still over 66 percent male. Further, plaque on the heart is dispersed quite differently on the surface of women’s and men’s hearts, by gender. Testing is built around men, though, and the male-centered test actually does not “see” the plaque on a woman’s heart as successfully, essentially because it is designed to see plaque dispersed across a male heart. To compound all this, less than one-third of the trials involving women report their findings by gender. Doing the arithmetic while considering one-third of test subjects are women, and one-third of the findings are reported by gender, result efficacy is greatly diminished. This costs lives.

When more women are at the top of the academic medical-research ladder, their health will no longer be ignored, but advocates point out government should still be mandating clearer and more stringent policies. These should include true reporting of results by gender, and should require specific ratios within studies, where medically relevant and possible. The 1993 law required better representation of women and minorities in medical research. It should be noted that the report released today touched only on progress, or lack of, with regards to the inclusion of women.

By Julie Mahfood

Sources:

Bloomberg Businessweek
U.S. & World News
SWHR

6 Responses to "Medical Research Still Ignoring Women"

  1. JS   March 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Why do more women die of heart attacks than men? Are they of similar age when they have heart attacks, or do men succumb from them earlier and predecease women? If the latter is the case and contributes to women living longer than men, does it make sense to allocate medical spending equally if women are not on the wrong side of a statistically meaningful quality of life differential? What are we trying to achieve with the resources society devotes to health care and does it make sense to isolate the dollars spent on medical studies from investments society makes elsewhere? For example, should the tax revenue that supports medical care figure into the equation since that revenue likely favors women whose obstetric and longevity maintenance expenses are not inconsiderable? With due respect to the author, even if the conclusions reached in the study are entirely on the mark, this article reminds again that special interest groups never fail to find very facile friends in statistics.

    Reply
  2. janesauric   March 3, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    Why would anyone care about women’s health; we’re replaceable, as well as interchangeable, aren’t we?

    Reply
    • Fozee Black   March 3, 2014 at 10:11 pm

      That’s irrelevant because this study was published by a moron. They can only use the number of women that sign up, they can’t magically force women into participating. More importantly, it’s illegal in most circumstances to even write down the gender of participants.

      Reply
  3. JT   March 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    If you wander into a poker room at any casino you’ll find 97% men and 3% women. It is possible that women are likewise less interested in gambling on clinical trials of new drugs.

    I also went to a few annual shareholder meetings of a development biotech company. Different cities, different years, but there were almost ZERO women there and 100-200 men.

    Men and women have lots of differences in behavior. For example, I noticed that if you go to an outdoor pool at 8am there will be about 95% women, but at 9pm there will be about 90% men.

    Reply
  4. Julie Mahfood   March 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    Do you remember who did that study?

    Reply
  5. jobardu   March 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    I read in a number of publications, including the Washington Post, that the US spends twice as much women’s medical research than it does on men. All this PC media shuck and jive lead me to not believe anything I read on the subject.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.