As healthcare professionals, we have a responsibility to ensure that the treatments we provide are effective and safe for all our patients. However, recent developments threaten to undermine the progress we’ve made in diversifying clinical research, potentially setting us back decades in cancer care and beyond. I’m Dr. Ruemu Birhiray, and I want to share my concerns about this urgent issue and call on my colleagues to take action.
In 2022, Congress passed the FDORA Act, requiring pharmaceutical companies to develop diversity action plans for clinical research. This was a significant step forward in addressing disparities in cancer research and ensuring that clinical trials were more representative of the patients we treat. The FDA subsequently published guidelines to help implement these plans.
Due to the current administration, the very word “diversity” has become contentious. This raises several troubling questions: Is the FDORA Act now effectively dead? Are we abandoning the goal of representative clinical research? And have we lost the ability to understand that words can have different meanings in different contexts?
The consequences of this retreat from diversity in clinical research could be severe. It’s crucial to understand that diversifying clinical trials is not a zero-sum game. Less than 5 percent of eligible patients in the U.S. participate in clinical research, meaning there’s ample room to increase participation across all demographics. By bringing more diverse populations into trials, we’re not taking spots away from anyone – we’re expanding the pool of knowledge that benefits everyone.
Moreover, the nature of modern cancer treatments makes diversity in research more critical than ever. Unlike older, broad-spectrum chemotherapies, many of today’s drugs are highly targeted and rely on activating a patient’s immune system. Different ethnicities can respond differently to these drugs due to variations in immune system composition and drug metabolism. Without diverse representation in clinical trials, we risk prescribing ineffective or potentially harmful treatments to certain populations.
This issue extends beyond race. Factors such as geographic location and diet can significantly impact a patient’s gut
microbiome, which we now know plays a crucial role in immune function and drug response. A person living in an urban area may have a very different response to a drug compared to someone in a rural setting, even if they share the same racial background.
The potential harm is particularly acute for Black patients, who are already severely underrepresented in clinical trials and experience poorer cancer outcomes compared to other groups. With only about 3 percent enrollment in many trials, we often lack sufficient data to understand how new drugs will affect Black patients. Abandoning efforts to diversify research will only exacerbate these disparities.
So, what can we as healthcare professionals do to address this issue?
- Make diversity a scientific imperative: We should call on major medical societies to require that all clinical research presentations include a diversity ranking, clearly showing the demographic representation in the study. This information should be as prominent as the study’s primary results.
- Educate patients: Many patients are unaware that the drugs they’re prescribed may not have been adequately tested in people like them. By informing patients about this issue, we can empower them to ask questions and demand better representation in clinical trials.
- Pressure the industry: As healthcare providers, our voices carry weight. We should call on pharmaceutical companies to prioritize diverse representation in their trials, regardless of government mandates. If we make it clear that we value this data, the industry will respond.
- Look beyond race: While race remains an important factor due to its connection with ancestry and genetic variations, we should also consider other diversity factors such as geographic location, diet, and environmental exposures in clinical research.
- Support research into biological markers: Encourage and participate in research that aims to identify genetic or biological markers that could replace broad racial categories in predicting drug responses.
- Advocate for transparency: Demand that clinical trial data clearly report the demographics of study participants, making this information easily accessible to both healthcare providers and patients.
- Collaborate across specialties: Work with colleagues in different medical specialties to ensure that the importance of diversity in clinical research is understood and prioritized across all areas of medicine.
As healthcare professionals, we have a unique opportunity and responsibility to champion diversity in clinical research. This is not about politics or ideology – it’s about ensuring that we have the best possible scientific data to treat all of our patients effectively and safely.
I urge you to take these concerns seriously and to act. Reach out to medical societies, contact pharmaceutical companies, and educate your patients. Make it known that you consider diverse representation in clinical trials to be a crucial factor in evaluating new treatments.
The health and lives of our patients depend on our ability to provide treatments that have been proven safe and effective for them specifically. By standing up for diversity in clinical research, we’re standing up for better, more equitable healthcare for all. Let’s not allow misunderstandings or political pressures to undo the progress we’ve made. The future of cancer care – and indeed, all of medicine – depends on our actions today.
Ruemu E. Birhiray, MD, is a hematologist/oncologist and clinical investigator at Hematology Oncology of Indiana in Indianapolis and president and CEO of Indy Hematology Education. He is also a clinical professor of medicine at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis. Dr. Birhiray has published research on immunotherapy, lymphomas, and bone marrow transplantation, and recently authored a practical strategy for creating diversity, equity, inclusion, and access in clinical research, which appeared in Blood Advances.