It’s still unclear as to why women participate less in areas like cardiovascular disease, so Van Diemen and her colleagues looked for evidence behind the motivators, facilitators and barriers to trial participation. They only found six studies (including a total of 846 men and 1,122 women) that fit their criteria, according to the paper published in the European Heart Journal.
The primary motivators for enrolment in trials were the possibility of better care, and the altruistic desire to promote science – while barriers such as time constraints and the potential for unfavourable outcomes were also highlighted by both sexes.
However, women appeared to perceive a higher risk of harm from participation versus men,
Women are more risk averse than men. This is long known – see the Lehman Sisters barb from Harriet Harman – so why is anyone surprised?
Seriously, “Hold my beer and watch this” is a gendered phrase after all.
And yet the feminists complain that tests are skewed towards men…
If this is the cause, then surely it would hold true for all trials of similar risk level, not just cardiovascular trials?
Most of dim cowardly mugs still wearing their maskies are women. A few scum males –cant call them men. Mostly older folk who still swallow MSM shite.
Julia, that has always been the impression I’ve gained; the wicked patriarchy refuses to do sufficient tests to make sure the particular problems of women are dealt with. But of course this may simply be the result of the sort of stuff I read.
Interesting though to see that it is claimed that there is actually some evidence that women are less experimented on than men.
The whole article is so great it needs a Fisking. It’s not to be entirely dismissed but plenty of handwringium to deal with.
“…more women die of heart disease than men…”
That’s because women live longer and heart gets clapped out with age. Depending on how you define heart disease, more men than women _have_ it but fewer _die of it_ because men have more competing risks, and die younger. And it’s the patients currently with, not those about to die of, that generally end up in clinical trials. (Cancer trials are different but that’s because you count dead people in cancer trials to see if it works). So we could simply be looking at the wrong ratio here.
“One of the study’s authors, Dr Jeske van Diemen…”
…Checks author list:
Xurui Jin, Chanchal Chandramouli, Brooke Allocco, Enying Gong, Carolyn S P Lam, Lijing L Yan.
“…it is crucial to have proportional representation of both sexes in medical research…”
No it isn’t. Do you expect proportional representation of both sexes in breast cancer trials? We’d have to exclude 1000 women while waiting for a man to come along. There are loads of diseases in which there is a sex imbalance.
“…women … also cited transport limitations as a reason for declining trial participation more often”
Every serious clinical trial will pay your taxi fare to and from site visits so this is bullshit.
“Women only constituted 10% of clinical trial leadership committees in cardiovascular studies published in three medical journals”
Source, please. This sounds like policy-based evidence making, but cardiology is certainly a male-dominated medical discipline.
“Historically, clinical trials have favoured male subjects. A series of birth defects and other problems resulting from foetal exposure to certain drugs between the 1940s and 1970s prompted scientists to initially exclude women and their foetuses, and later women of childbearing age, from clinical drug research.”
And this is still done for most phase 1 work. Because the foetus can’t give informed consent. It’s a strange kind of favour to men to expose them to unknown risks but not women! Inclusion of women of childbearing age in post phase 1 has been standard since reliable contraception has been available.
It also occurs that those birth defects are a big potential barrier to cardiovascular trials in women. “Hey, the active comparator in this blinded trial is losartan. Best not plan on getting pregnant for the next four years!” This is a huge, and entirely rational, informal barrier to trial participation by women.
“…the analysis of data by sex does not always occur…”
Yes it does. Even in breast cancer trials. It doesn’t always make it into those hallowed “peer reviewed publications” because it usually shows little of interest.
“…with sometimes damning outcomes.”
[citation]
Study finds women more selfish than men at a societal level. Quelle surprise……….I’ve always said that women’s only altruistic interest is in the very small bubble around them, which will include their children and possibly close family and spouses, but outside that they couldn’t give a toss. I’m alright Jack should really have been I’m alright Jacky.
It makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms, protecting the child is the most important thing in the female world, if you can do that you have won the evolutionary game, regardless of what happens to everyone else. So women are utterly pragmatic and focussed on what makes that little bubble around them better for them and those in it, everyone else can go to hell.
Enying Gong
Thus spake a Chinese mechanic lifting the bonnet of a VW beetle!
handwringium
Culturally appropriating that, ta.
Cardiovascular disease used to slaughter middle-aged men. Over the decades since the late 60s/early 70s, for no known reason that epidemic has died away and CVD has become largely a killer of the old – who have to die of something, after all. (Ignore preposterous claims from the cardiologists that it’s their expertise that has defeated the epidemic.)
Here’s my wild guess. “Epidemic” is right – it was brought about by unidentified bacteria. And it’s dwindled away because of the generosity with which medics dole out antibiotics to everyone.
@ Mr Ecks @Jim
I get what you’re saying- my heart sinks when I see a clearly fit & healthy 20 something woman mask-wearing- the unthinking conformists. On the other hand, at the 7 London Freedom marches I have attended women outnumbered men significantly- 60/40 to 65/35 in my crude estimation. The same is true of Stand in the Park attendance. After all, women bear the brunt of the restrictions on children/schools & aged parents…
dearieme,
I wouldn’t totally rule out awareness, chest pain units in every A&E, thrombolysis and DAPT, bypasses, 101 flavours of antihypertensive as contributors but agree, a big unknown factor in it too. And epidemic is an intriguing suggestion. So intriguing that I think we should lock down and wear masks until we have zero heart failure/infarct deaths, or at least until we can rule out that the causative organism is spread by contact and breathing.
TMB, outstanding, but I have nevertheless reported you to the appropriate authorities.
“…breast cancer trials? We’d have to exclude 1000 women while waiting for a man to come along.”
Though that doesn’t reflect the incidence. About 1% of UK breast cancer patients are men, one of my uncles had it, as did Sterling Archer.
Don’t we forget the harsh truth that women can make better bucks per hour doing something relatively safe like being of Negotiable Affection instead of having untested chemicals pumped into their bodies?
Nowadays in the Age of the Webcam doubly so..
So unless there’s sincere idealism involved, the financial incentives are not really effective for them.
@dearieme
There is widespread speculation about links between gum disease and heart problems. See, for example, https://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/what-is-the-relationship-between-heart-disease-and-gum-disease so it could be improved dental hygiene is improving heart health.