Improving the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary individuals in the planning, completion, and mobilization of cardiovascular research

Creating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility statements for your CV: a resource guide to effectiveness and comprehensiveness

Diversity in academic medicine and research enhances the quality of the science produced and the efficacy of patient care. Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) statements have recently been suggested or required by academic job postings as a way to measure candidate's commitments to fostering DEIA in their role. In this perspective, we discuss steps to craft effective DEIA statements that convey your actions in, and commitment to, DEIA. We recognize that mandating DEIA statements may actually result in inauthentic or disingenuous statements and offer solutions to encouraging academics to arrive at a meaningful statement that represents their own perspectives on diversity. Last, we provide examples of DEIA statements from three academics at different career points.

Characterization of the literature informing health care of transgender and gender-diverse persons: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) persons experience health inequities compared to their cisgender peers, which is in part related to limited evidence informing their care. Thus, we aimed to describe the literature informing care provision of TGD individuals.

DATA SOURCE, ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Literature cited by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 8 was reviewed. Original research articles, excluding systematic reviews (n = 74), were assessed (n = 1809). Studies where the population of interest were only caregivers, providers, siblings, partners, or children of TGD individuals were excluded (n = 7). Results were synthesized in a descriptive manner.

RESULTS

Of 1809 citations, 696 studies met the inclusion criteria. TGD-only populations were represented in 65% of studies. White (38%) participants and young adults (18 to 29 years old, 64%) were the most well-represented study populations. Almost half of studies (45%) were cross-sectional, and approximately a third were longitudinal in nature (37%). Overall, the median number of TGD participants (median [IQR]: 104 [32, 356]) included in each study was approximately one third of included cisgender participants (271 [47, 15405]). In studies where both TGD and cisgender individuals were included (n = 74), the proportion of TGD to cisgender participants was 1:2 [1:20, 1:1]. Less than a third of studies stratified results by sex (32%) or gender (28%), and even fewer included sex (4%) or gender (3%) as a covariate in the analysis. The proportion of studies with populations including both TGD and cisgender participants increased between 1969 and 2023, while the proportion of studies with study populations of unspecified gender identity decreased over the same time period.

CONCLUSIONS

While TGD participant-only studies make up most of the literature informing care of this population, longitudinal studies including a diversity of TGD individuals across life stages are required to improve the quality of evidence.

Association between serum estradiol and cardiovascular health among transgender adults using gender-affirming estrogen therapy

Gender-affirming estrogen therapy (GAET) is commonly used for feminization in transgender and nonbinary (TNB) individuals, yet the optimal rate of change (ROC) in estradiol levels for cardiovascular health is unclear. We examined the association between serum estradiol levels and cardiovascular-related mortality, adverse events, and risk factors in TNB adults using GAET. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were systematically searched (inception-April 2023) for original articles reporting serum estradiol levels and cardiovascular-related mortality, adverse events, and risk factors in TNB adults using GAET. Data extraction was completed in duplicate following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Stratified random effect meta-analyses using serum estradiol ROC (serum estradiolbaseline - serum estradiolfollow-up/study duration) was used to assess longitudinal studies (low, 0 < ROC ≤ 1 pg/mL/mo; moderate, 1 < ROC ≤ 3 pg/mL/mo; high, ROC ≥ 3 pg/mL/mo). Thirty-five studies (13 cross-sectional, 19 cohort, and 3 trials) were included. Two studies collectively reported 50 cardiovascular-related deaths, and four collectively reported 23 adverse cardiovascular events. Nineteen studies reporting cardiovascular risk factors were meta-analyzed by ROC stratum (low = 5; moderate = 6; high = 8), demonstrating an association between moderate [0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22, 0.59 kg/m2, I2 = 28.2%] and high (0.46, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.78 kg/m2; I2 = 0.0%) serum estradiol ROC and increased body mass index. High (-6.67, 95% CI: -10.65, -2.68 mg/dL; I2 = 0.0%) serum estradiol ROC was associated with decreased low-density lipoproteins. Low (-7.05, 95% CI: -10.40, -3.70 mmHg; I2 = 0.0%) and moderate (-3.69, 95% CI: -4.93, -2.45 mmHg; I2 = 0.0%) serum estradiol ROCs were associated with decreases in systolic blood pressure. In TNB adults using GAET, serum estradiol ROC may influence cardiovascular risk factors, which may have implications for clinical cardiovascular outcomes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 studies involving 7,745 participants, high rates of serum estradiol change were associated with small increases in body mass index. Moderate to high rates of change were associated with decreases in low-density lipoprotein. Low rates of change were associated with small decreases in systolic blood pressure. Rate of serum estradiol change in adults using gender-affirming estrogen therapy may influence cardiovascular risk factors, though further research is warranted.

Participation of transgender and gender diverse persons in cardiovascular clinical trials

Study objective

Transgender persons face increased risk in developing cardiovascular diseases due to administration of hormonal therapy used for gender expression, or due to the presence of other risk factors, such as minority stress and difficulty to have full access to health care. Even though the need for gender diversity in research has been identified, the number of clinical trials including transgender persons remains low. The aim of this study was to highlight gaps in inclusion of transgender individuals in cardiovascular clinical research.

Design setting

A search in the pubmed.com database, as well as in the clinicaltrials.gov repository, was performed with search terms regarding transgender persons and cardiovascular diseases.

Main outcome measures

The inclusion of transgender persons in cardiovascular clinical trials was evaluated.

Results and conclusions

This study revealed that there is only a small number of cardiovascular clinical trials including or studying transgender persons. This finding demonstrates the overall lack of clinical trials regarding cardiovascular health in transgender individuals and is indicative of their under-representation in clinical research.

Sex- and Gender-Based Reporting in Antihypertensive Medication Literature Informing Hypertension Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the leading modifiable cardiovascular risk factor with recognized sex- and gender-based differences. We assessed the incorporation of sex and gender reporting in the antihypertensive medication literature informing hypertension guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Literature cited in the International Society of Hypertension (2020), European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (2018), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2017), Latin American Society of Hypertension (2017), Pan-African Society of Cardiology (2020), and Hypertension Canada (2020) guidelines was systematically reviewed. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews involving antihypertensive medications were included. Studies with participants of a single sex, guidelines, and commentaries were excluded. Data on study participation-to-prevalence ratio by sex, analysis of baseline demographics and study outcomes by sex, and stratification of adverse events by sex were extracted. Of 1659 unique citations, 331 studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 81% reported the sex of participants, and 22% reported a male-to-female participation-to-prevalence ratio of 0.8 to 1.2. Three percent of studies stratified baseline characteristics by sex, and 20% considered sex during analysis through statistical adjustment or stratification. Although 32% of studies reported adverse events, only 0.6% stratified adverse events by sex. Most (58%) studies reporting sex/gender used sex and gender terms interchangeably.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of sex- and gender-based considerations in study population, analysis, or reporting of results and adverse events is not common in the antihypertensive medication literature informing international hypertension guidelines. Greater attention to sex- and gender-based factors in research is required to optimally inform management of hypertension.

Sex as a biological variable for cardiovascular physiology

There have been ongoing efforts by federal agencies and scientific communities since the early 1990s to incorporate sex and/or gender in all aspects of cardiovascular research. Scientific journals provide a critical function as change agents to influence transformation by encouraging submissions for topic areas, and by setting standards and expectations for articles submitted to the journal. As part of ongoing efforts to advance sex and gender in cardiovascular physiology research, the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology recently launched a call for papers on Considering Sex as a Biological Variable. This call was an overwhelming success, resulting in 78 articles published in this collection. This review summarizes the major themes of the collection, including Sex as a Biological Variable Within: Endothelial Cell and Vascular Physiology, Cardiovascular Immunity and Inflammation, Metabolism and Mitochondrial Energy, Extracellular Matrix Turnover and Fibrosis, Neurohormonal Signaling, and Cardiovascular Clinical and Epidemiology Assessments. Several articles also focused on establishing rigor and reproducibility of key physiological measurements involved in cardiovascular health and disease, as well as recommendations and considerations for study design. Combined, these articles summarize our current understanding of sex and gender influences on cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology and provide insight into future directions needed to further expand our knowledge.

Guidelines on the use of sex and gender in cardiovascular research

In cardiovascular research, sex and gender have not typically been considered in research design and reporting until recently. This has resulted in clinical research findings from which not only all women, but also gender-diverse individuals have been excluded. The resulting dearth of data has led to a lack of sex- and gender-specific clinical guidelines and raises serious questions about evidence-based care. Basic research has also excluded considerations of sex. Including sex and/or gender as research variables not only has the potential to improve the health of society overall now, but it also provides a foundation of knowledge on which to build future advances. The goal of this guidelines article is to provide advice on best practices to include sex and gender considerations in study design, as well as data collection, analysis, and interpretation to optimally establish rigor and reproducibility needed to inform clinical decision-making and improve outcomes. In cardiovascular physiology, incorporating sex and gender is a necessary component when optimally designing and executing research plans. The guidelines serve as the first guidance on how to include sex and gender in cardiovascular research. We provide here a beginning path toward achieving this goal and improve the ability of the research community to interpret results through a sex and gender lens to enable comparison across studies and laboratories, resulting in better health for all.

Cardiovascular disease in transgender individuals

The population of people identifying as transgender has grown rapidly in recent years, resulting in a substantive increase in individuals obtaining gender-affirming medical care to align their secondary sex characteristics with their gender identity. This has established benefits for patients including improvements in gender dysphoria and psychosocial functioning, while reducing adverse mental health outcomes. Despite these potential advantages, recent evidence has suggested that gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, owing to a paucity of research, the mechanisms underpinning these increased risks are poorly understood. Moreover, previous research has been limited by heterogenous methodologies, being underpowered, and lacking appropriate control populations. Consequently, the need for evidence regarding cardiovascular health in LGBTQ + individuals has been recognised as a critical area for future research to facilitate better healthcare and guidance. Recent research investigating the effect of transmasculine (testosterone) GAHT on cardiovascular disease risk points to testosterone effecting the nitric oxide pathway, triggering inflammation, and promoting endothelial dysfunction. Equivalent studies focussing on transfeminine (oestrogen) GAHT are required, representing a crucial area of future research. Furthermore, when examining the effects of GAHT on the vasculature, it cannot be ignored that there are multiple factors that may increase the burden of cardiovascular disease in the transgender population. Such stressors include major psychological stress; increased adverse health behaviours, such as smoking; discrimination; and lowered socioeconomic status; all of which undoubtedly impact upon cardiovascular disease risk and offers the opportunity for intervention.

Sex and gender in health research: intersectionality matters

Research policies aiming to integrate sex and gender in scientific studies are receiving increased attention in academia. Incorporating these policies into health research is essential for improving targeted and equitable healthcare outcomes, by considering both disparities and similarities between individuals relating to sex and gender. Although these efforts are both urgent and critical, only an intersectional approach, which considers broad and multidimensional aspects of an individual's identity, can provide a complete understanding of the factors that impact health. In this commentary, we emphasize that it is crucial to examine how sex and gender intersect with factors such as culture, ethnicity, minority status, and socioeconomic conditions to influence health outcomes. To approach health equity, we must consider disparities linked to both biological and environmental factors, in order to facilitate evidence-based health interventions with tangible impact.

Importance of survey demographic questions to foster inclusion in medicine and research and reduce health inequities for LGBTQIA2S+ individuals

A clear, inclusive, and accurate approach to the collection of demographic information in clinical research and medical practice is critical to understanding the healthcare needs of the specific population. Inclusive demography constitutes appropriate and accurate characterization of an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data. Appropriate demography fosters sense of inclusion and belonging for those belonging to medically marginalized communities such as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and Indigenous Two-Spirit (LGBTQIA2S+) communities and improves health outcomes. Acquiring inclusive demographics in healthcare research is needed for the following critical reasons. First, LGBTQIA2S+ individuals experience undue psychological harm when their identities are not appropriately captured in survey data, promoting further alienation of the LGBTQIA2S+ community in medicine and research. Second, LGBTQIA2S+ populations are disproportionately burdened by several major cardiovascular and cardiovascular-associated diseases, including hypertension and diabetes. Failure to include these populations, and accurately characterize their participation, in research leads to failure to identify associations between identities and disease, resulting in worse health outcomes. Furthermore, this lack of precision in current data for sex, gender, and sexual orientation may lead to inaccurate data for all populations, not just the LGBTQIA2S+ community. Finally, there are currently major political and social threats and attacks on the LGBTQIA2S+ community and, in particular, on transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Proper medical inclusion and advocacy for the LGBTQIA2S+ community by the medical community may help protect the community from further undue harm through creating sense of belonging and reductions in marginalization-related health inequities.