Impact of female underrepresentation in trials investigating long-term pharmacologic therapy after acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis and meta-regression
Abstract
Aims: Female underrepresentation in clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may hinder the assessment of sex-based differences in the outcomes of long-term pharmacological therapy. The presence of these differences and their potential association with female representation in clinical trials remain unclear.
Methods and results: A systematic search of Embase, Medline Ovid, and Cochrane Central was conducted through 1 July 2025, in accordance with the reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared long-term pharmacological therapy for ACS with placebo or standard care, included ≥1-year follow-up, and reported a clinical event as the primary outcome. Sex differences in treatment effects were analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis, while meta-regression was used to assess the association between the proportion of females in each trial and these differences. The main outcome was the sex difference in the relative effect measure (REM; mostly a hazard ratio) for the primary efficacy endpoint. Among 102 RCTs, female representation ranged from 10 to 52%. Forty-eight trials provided sex-stratified data. Pooled analysis showed no evidence of sex-related differences in efficacy: the mean difference in the log of the REM of males minus females was 0.00 (95% confidence interval, -0.05-0.05; P = 0.98; heterogeneity I² = 0%). Meta-regression indicated no…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.