Skip to main content

Age Discrimination in Clinical Research: Time For Action

Older persons are often severely underrepresented in clinical trials of new drugs, therapies, and devices. Usually, their exclusion from these studies can not be scientifically justified. Some studies actually have age cutoffs, but more often the exclusion of older persons is more indirect. For example, most older persons have more than one disease. A study of a treatment for disease X may exclude a person who also happens to have disease Y, even though persons with disease Y will be part of the target population for therapy once the treatment is approved. Sometimes, the exclusion of the elderly is even more subtle---such as excluding subjects who need transportation assistance to get to the study center.


The exclusion of older persons from clinical studies, whether through direct exclusion of older persons, or indirect exclusions based on factors such as comorbidity or functional impairment is rarely justificable. If an elder would be a realistic candidate for the therapy being studied, there is no valid reason for their exclusion.


The absence of older persons from clinical studies has adversely impacted our ability to care for them. For a multitude of problems common in older persons, the best approach to care is not clear because we have minimal research which informs what works and what does not work in older persons.

These concerns are discussed in an excellent article in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society titled, "Fighting Age Discrimination in Clinical Trials." The article examines many of the barriers that have inhibited enrollment of older persons in clinical research and proposes solutions. It calls for steps to end age discrimination in clinical trials.


It is time to move beyond moral persuasion, and to take regulatory action to end the harmful practice of age discrimination in clinical research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is best placed to take the lead on this initiative. The NIH could use mechanisms already in place that have reduced other types of discrimination in clinical research. And the great prestige and stature of the NIH would cause their action to have more widespread impact.

The NIH could use processes they already have in place that have been effective in remediating exclusions of women and minority subjects from clinical research. Currently, any clinical study proposed for funding to the NIH MUST describe plans for the inclusion of women and minority populations. As part of the grant evaluation process, reviewers are required to comment on whether these plans are adequate. A grant that fails to present a valid scientific rationale for the exclusion of women and minority populations gets penalized. Further, the NIH will withhold funding until the representation of women and minority populations is addressed.


It it time for the NIH to add inclusion of older populations to the mandatory review criteria. This would mean that all clinical research applications to the NIH would be required to describe plans for the inclusion of older persons, or provide a compelling scientific justification for their exclusion. Grant reviewers would be required to comment on elder inclusiveness. And NIH would withhold funding from clinical research that has inadequate plans for inclusion of older persons until the plans are remediated.


This step by the NIH is the right thing to do and would go a long way towards making clinical research more relevant to older persons.


by: Ken Covinsky

Comments

R. said…
This is a long-overdue issue especially since older populations are often more sensitive to medications & require a lower dose.

Can GeriPal set up a E-mail function so that readers can clink on a link & send their message to NIH? Doing that would send the message loud & clear to NIH.
John A. Lynch said…
The obvious reason, of course, is that older patients would experience more side effects and "compromise" study results. Fewer drugs might be approved with more documented side effects and complications, which is exactly what should happen.

Instead, drugs are approved without long-term effects considered that will produce more adverse effects in the real world.

And drugs that should be used with extreme caution will be over-prescribed by a medical profession woefully uninformed of older patients' greater susceptibility to adverse medication interactions.

But drug company profits are enhanced. isn't that what it's all about?

Popular posts from this blog

Lost in Translation: Google’s Translation of Palliative Care to ‘Do-Nothing Care’

by: Cynthia X. Pan, MD, FACP, AGSF (@Cxpan5X)

My colleagues often ask me: “Why are Chinese patients so resistant to hospice and palliative care?” “Why are they so unrealistic?” “Don’t they understand that death is part of life?” “Is it true that with Chinese patients you cannot discuss advance directives?”

As a Chinese speaking geriatrician and palliative care physician practicing in Flushing, NY, I have cared for countless Chinese patients with serious illnesses or at end of life.  Invariably, when Chinese patients or families see me, they ask me if I speak Chinese. When I reply “I do” in Mandarin, the relief and instant trust I see on their faces make my day meaningful and worthwhile.

At my hospital, the patient population is about 30% Asian, with the majority of these being Chinese. Most of these patients require language interpretation.  It becomes an interesting challenge and opportunity, as we often need to discuss advance directives, goals of care, and end of life care options…

Delirium: A podcast with Sharon Inouye

In this week's GeriPal podcast we discuss delirium, with a focus on prevention. We are joined by internationally acclaimed delirium researcher Sharon Inouye, MD, MPH. Dr Inouye is Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Director of the Aging Brain Center in the Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife.

Dr. Inouye's research focuses on delirium and functional decline in hospitalized older patients, resulting in more than 200 peer-reviewed original articles to date. She has developed and validated a widely used tool to identify delirium called the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and she founded the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) to prevent delirium in hospitalized patients.

We are also joined by guest host Lindsey Haddock, MD, a geriatrics fellow at UCSF who asks a great question about how to implement a HELP program, or aspects of the program, in a hospital with limited resources.  


You can also find us on Youtube!


Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes…

Are Palliative Care Providers Better Prognosticators? A Podcast with Bob Gramling

Estimating prognosis is hard and clinicians get very little training on how to do it.  Maybe that is one of the reasons that clinicians are more likely to be optimistic and tend to overestimate patient survival by a factor of between 3 and 5.  The question is, aren't we better as palliative care clinicians than others in estimating prognosis?  This is part of our training and we do it daily.   We got to be better, right? 

Well, on todays podcast we have Bob Gramling from the Holly and Bob Miller Chair of Palliative Medicine at the University of Vermont to talk about his paper in Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (JPSM) titled “Palliative Care Clinician Overestimation of Survival in Advanced Cancer: Disparities and Association with End of Life Care”.

Big findings from this JPSM paper include that we, like all other clinicians, are an optimistic bunch and that it actually does impact outcomes.   In particular, the people whose survival was overestimated by a palliative care c…