Differences of Sex Development: What Neonatologists Need to Know

Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimation for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Baseline Data From the LITE Plus Cohort Study

Introduction

Approximately 2% of the U.S. population identifies as transgender, and transgender people experience disproportionate rates of cardiovascular disease mortality. However, widely used cardiovascular disease risk estimators have not been validated in this population. This study sought to determine the impact on statin therapy recommendations using 3 different approaches to operationalizing sex in the American Health Association/American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equation Risk Estimator.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline clinical data from LITE Plus, a prospective cohort study of Black and/or Latina transgender women with HIV. Data were collected from October 2020 to June 2022 and used to calculate Pooled Cohort Equation scores.

Results

The 102 participants had a mean age of 43 years. A total of 88% were Black, and 18% were Latina. A total of 79% were taking gender-affirming hormones. The average Pooled Cohort Equation risk score was 6% when sex assigned at birth was used and statins would be recommended for the 31% with Pooled Cohort Equation >7.5%. The average risk score was 4%, and 18% met the criteria for statin initiation when current gender was used; the mean risk score was 5%, and 22% met the criteria for statin initiation when current hormone therapy was used.

Conclusions

Average Pooled Cohort Equation risk scores vary substantially depending on the approach to operationalizing the sex variable, suggesting that widely used cardiovascular risk estimators may be unreliable predictors of cardiovascular disease risk in transgender populations. Collection of sex, gender, and hormone use in longitudinal studies of cardiovascular health is needed to address this important limitation of current risk estimators.

DSD/intersex: historical context and current perspectives

Intersex/Disorders/Differences of sex development conditions have been recognized for millennia. An organized approach was adopted in the 1960-70s using the philosophy that gender identity was fluid and malleable. Consequences of this approach were the lack of disclosure, stigmatization, and excessive surgery to "normalize" the genitalia. Often this led to quality of life issues for those patients. There have been many modifications in approach since then to avoid the problems noted. There is consensus on many of these changes (e.g. disclosure) but continued controversy on others (e.g. the benefits of early surgery). This review summarizes the historical context and the current areas of consensus and controversy.