-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual...
BACKGROUND
Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Gender dysphoria can be associated with clinically significant psychological distress and may result in a desire to change sexual characteristics. The process of adapting a person's sexual characteristics to their desired sex is called 'transition.' Current guidelines suggest hormonal and, if needed, surgical intervention to aid transition in transgender women, i.e. persons who aim to transition from male to female. In adults, hormone therapy aims to reverse the body's male attributes and to support the development of female attributes. It usually includes estradiol, antiandrogens, or a combination of both. Many individuals first receive hormone therapy alone, without surgical interventions. However, this is not always sufficient to change such attributes as facial bone structure, breasts, and genitalia, as desired. For these transgender women, surgery may then be used to support transition.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hormone therapy with antiandrogens, estradiol, or both, compared to each other or placebo, in transgender women in transition.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Biosis Preview, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX. We carried out our final searches on 19 December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies that enrolled transgender women, age 16 years and over, in transition from male to female. Eligible studies investigated antiandrogen and estradiol hormone therapies alone or in combination, in comparison to another form of the active intervention, or placebo control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to establish study eligibility.
MAIN RESULTS
Our database searches identified 1057 references, and after removing duplicates we screened 787 of these. We checked 13 studies for eligibility at the full text screening stage. We excluded 12 studies and identified one as an ongoing study. We did not identify any completed studies that met our inclusion criteria. The single ongoing study is an RCT conducted in Thailand, comparing estradiol valerate plus cyproterone treatment with estradiol valerate plus spironolactone treatment. The primary outcome will be testosterone level at three month follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatment approaches for transgender women in transition. This lack of studies shows a gap between current clinical practice and clinical research. Robust RCTs and controlled cohort studies are needed to assess the benefits and harms of hormone therapy (used alone or in combination) for transgender women in transition. Studies should specifically focus on short-, medium-, and long-term adverse effects, quality of life, and participant satisfaction with the change in male to female body characteristics of antiandrogen and estradiol therapy alone, and in combination. They should also focus on the relative effects of these hormones when administered orally, transdermally, and intramuscularly. We will include non-controlled cohort studies in the next iteration of this review, as our review has shown that such studies provide the highest quality evidence currently available in the field. We will take into account methodological limitations when doing so.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estradiol; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Male; Placebos; Sex Reassignment Procedures; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 33251587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013138.pub2 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jan 2020Testosterone treatment rates in adult men have increased in the United States over the past 2 decades. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Testosterone treatment rates in adult men have increased in the United States over the past 2 decades.
PURPOSE
To assess the benefits and harms of testosterone treatment for men without underlying organic causes of hypogonadism.
DATA SOURCES
English-language searches of multiple electronic databases (January 1980 to May 2019) and reference lists from systematic reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 months' duration that evaluated transdermal or intramuscular testosterone therapies versus placebo or no treatment and reported prespecified patient-centered outcomes, as well as 20 long-term observational studies, U.S. Food and Drug Administration review data, and product labels that reported harms information.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Studies enrolled mostly older men who varied in age, symptoms, and testosterone eligibility criteria. Testosterone therapy improved sexual functioning and quality of life in men with low testosterone levels, although effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Testosterone therapy had little to no effect on physical functioning, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition. Harms evidence reported in trials was judged to be insufficient or of low certainty for most harm outcomes. No trials were powered to assess cardiovascular events or prostate cancer, and trials often excluded men at increased risk for these conditions. Observational studies were limited by confounding by indication and contraindication.
LIMITATION
Few trials exceeded a 1-year duration, minimum important outcome differences were often not established or reported, RCTs were not powered to assess important harms, few data were available in men aged 18 to 50 years, definitions of low testosterone varied, and study entry criteria varied.
CONCLUSION
In older men with low testosterone levels without well-established medical conditions known to cause hypogonadism, testosterone therapy may provide small improvements in sexual functioning and quality of life but little to no benefit for other common symptoms of aging. Long-term efficacy and safety are unknown.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42018096585).
Topics: Humans; Hypogonadism; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Testosterone; United States
PubMed: 31905375
DOI: 10.7326/M19-0830 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2008Although several agents are available to treat osteoporosis, the relative efficacy and toxicity of these agents when used to prevent fractures has not been well... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although several agents are available to treat osteoporosis, the relative efficacy and toxicity of these agents when used to prevent fractures has not been well described.
PURPOSE
To compare the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events of various therapies for osteoporosis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007) and other selected databases were searched for English-language studies.
STUDY SELECTION
For the efficacy analysis, investigators selected studies that reported the rate of or risk for fractures. For the adverse event analysis, they selected studies that reported the relationship between an agent and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, or upper gastrointestinal events; malignant conditions; and osteonecrosis.
DATA EXTRACTION
Using a standardized protocol, investigators abstracted data on fractures and adverse events, agents and comparators, study design, and variables of methodological quality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Good evidence suggests that alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, estrogen, parathyroid hormone (1-34), and raloxifene prevent vertebral fractures more than placebo; the evidence for calcitonin was fair. Good evidence suggests that alendronate, risedronate, and estrogen prevent hip fractures more than placebo; the evidence for zoledronic acid was fair. The effects of vitamin D varied with dose, analogue, and study population for both vertebral and hip fractures. Raloxifene, estrogen, and estrogen-progestin increased the risk for thromboembolic events, and etidronate increased the risk for esophageal ulcerations and gastrointestinal perforations, ulcerations, and bleeding.
LIMITATION
Few studies have directly compared different agents or classes of agents used to treat osteoporosis.
CONCLUSION
Although good evidence suggests that many agents are effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures, the data are insufficient to determine the relative efficacy or safety of these agents.
Topics: Androgens; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Estrogens; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Male; Osteoporosis; Risk Factors; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Testosterone; Vitamin D
PubMed: 18087050
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00198 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bias; Contraceptives, Oral; Desogestrel; Female; Goserelin; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Leiomyoma; Leuprolide; Levonorgestrel; Lynestrenol; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Nandrolone; Norethindrone Acetate; Premenopause; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Burden; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 33226133
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008994.pub3