Lung research survey highlights lack of minority subjects in many biomedical studies

first_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Fewer than 5% of lung disease studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the past 2 decades have included a statistically meaningful number of participants from racial or ethnic minorities, concludes a new analysis. The finding highlights the continuing difficulty of adequately representing minorities in biomedical research, the authors say, but they argue the problem could be remedied through a number of steps.NIH officials don’t dispute the results, but note the survey’s focus on published results may understate the agency’s ongoing efforts to improve minority representation in clinical research and other studies.The new survey, published online last month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, examined respiratory disease studies published between 1993 and 2013. A search of PubMed found 58,160 studies that reported NIH funding. Of these, 2534 studies—just 4.4%—reported that minorities made up 25% or more of the study population. Below the 25% participation threshold, it can be difficult for statistical analyses to detect racial or ethnic differences in risk factors or disease effects, write the authors, led by physician-scientist Esteban Burchard of the University of California, San Francisco.center_img Email Over the 20-year period, minority inclusion increased slightly, from just over 2% of studies in 1993 to nearly 5% in 2013, the study found. Over the same time period, the authors note, the proportion of people in the United States who identified as part of a racial or ethnic minority group increased from 26.5% to 38.9%.“The findings are disturbing given that we know many lung diseases disproportionately impact underrepresented minorities,” says Patricia Finn, a pulmonologist at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and immediate past president of the American Thoracic Society. (Finn was not involved in the study.)The study is the latest in a long line to put the spotlight on minority representation in clinical research. Last year, for example, a similar review of cancer studies funded by the National Cancer Institute found that fewer than 2% focused on minorities. In 1993, Congress ordered NIH to step up its effort to recruit more minorities into federally funded studies, and the agency has since launched an array of efforts, including programs aimed at recruiting Latinos and African-Americans into asthma studies.The new survey may not fully capture those efforts, NIH officials say, because not all studies have published results. “Analyses that focus on selected publications may not … completely reflect the inclusion of all individuals enrolled in studies supported by NIH,” wrote a representative for NIH’s Office of Extramural Research to ScienceInsider in an e-mail. The agency says that, in 2013, about 30% of all clinical research it funded included some minority participation.Efforts to fully represent minority populations in biomedical research are becoming increasingly important as new “personalized” or “precision” approaches expand, researchers say. The approaches aim to use each person’s specific genetic and other traits to develop tailored treatments, and “in order to harness the power of this science, we need to include everyone,” Finn says.Better representation also helps researchers understand disparities in disease rates among different ethnic groups, said the study authors. Studies have shown that African-Americans may be more likely to develop some forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after smoking than whites, for instance. They are also more likely to die of lung cancer.Health disparities are especially glaring in asthma, according to Burchard. Asthma is the most common chronic disease of childhood, affecting about 26 million people in the United States. Prevalence is higher among Puerto Ricans and African-Americans than non-Hispanic whites, other Hispanic groups, or Asians. Black children with asthma are four times more likely to die of the disease than white children with asthma, according to studies.Environmental and socioeconomic factors play a role, but so does ancestry. In a previous study, Burchard and colleagues found that one genetic mutation linked to asthma severity was about 40% more common in African-Americans.Even the effectiveness of treatments may vary by race or ethnicity. For instance, albuterol, the most commonly prescribed asthma medication, is less likely to work in African-Americans and Puerto Ricans than in whites. “Ethnic background is the single strongest predictor of response to albuterol,” says Burchard, who has helped start two large gene-environment studies of asthma among minority children in the United States. (The studies are known as GALA, or Genetics of Asthma in Latino Americans, and SAGE, or Study of African Americans, Asthma, Genes, & Environments.)Burchard and his team say a number of factors contribute to the underrepresentation of minorities in NIH-funded studies. They include a lack of training on how to run inclusive studies, a lack of incentives to run inclusive studies, the relatively low numbers of minority scientists, and “a dearth of successful partnerships between academic medical centers and under-represented communities.” Addressing those problems systematically, they suggest, could help shift the numbers.last_img read more