Search

Background: Early in the pandemic, extensive attention was cast on limited inclusion of historically underrepresented patient populations in COVID-19 clinical trials. How diverse representation improved following these initial reports remains unclear., Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched (through April 2024) for US-based COVID-19 trials. Utilizing random-effects, we compared expected proportions of trial participants from racial and ethnic groups and of female sex between trials enrolling primarily in 2020 versus primarily 2021-2022. Meta-regression was performed to assess associations between trial characteristics and group representation., Results: We retrieved 157 studies comprising 198,012 participants. White (2020: 63.1% [95% CI, 60.8%-67.3%]; 2021-2022: 73.8% [95% CI, 71.5%-76.0%]) and female representation (2020: 46.1% [95% CI, 44.7%-47.4%)]; 2021-2022: 51.1% [95% CI, 49.3%-52.8%) increased across enrollment periods. Industry-sponsored trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.18]) and Hispanic or Latinx representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.25]) and lower Asian (coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.06- -0.003]) and female representation (coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.07- -0.002]). Outpatient trials were associated with higher White (coefficient, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.26]) and female representation (coefficient, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.13-0.18]), and lower Black representation (coefficient, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.10- -0.08])., Conclusions: Despite improved female representation in COVID-19 trials over time, there was no clear increase in non-White representation. Trial characteristics such as primary sponsor, clinical setting, and intervention type correlate with representation of specific demographic groups and should be considered in future efforts to improve participant diversity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Following the Delphi consensus process, the term steatotic liver disease (SLD) was introduced to replace fatty liver disease, while the term metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) emerged as the successor to the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). 1 This revised nomenclature aims to enhance precision and mitigate negative connotations and potential stigmatization, while refining comprehension and disease categorization. Concurrently, a novel category was introduced to capture individuals whose alcohol consumption exceeded the previously defined thresholds of NAFLD but remained unclassified within the existing system. This category, termed MetALD, now delineates a spectrum of conditions and is defined as a daily intake of 20 to 50 g of alcohol (or weekly 140-350 g) for females and 30 to 60 g daily for males (or weekly 210-420 g). 1 Within the MetALD spectrum, some individuals might predominantly exhibit MASLD characteristics, whereas others might be more inclined toward alcoholic liver disease (ALD). 1 In the present study, we used a US nationally representative data set to calculate the prevalence of SLD and its subcategories in the United States., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)