Sex bias in rhinology research

Biological sex as a modulator in rhinologic anatomy, physiology, and pathology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Biological sex is increasingly recognized as a critical variable in health care. The authors reviewed the current literature regarding sex-based differences in rhinology to summarize the data and identify critical knowledge gaps.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Publications reporting sex-based differences in anatomy, physiology, and pathology focusing on disease prevalence, disease burden, and outcomes in rhinology were identified.

RESULTS

Seventy-five relevant manuscripts were identified. While paranasal sinuses are of similar size at birth, they become larger in males leading to differences in ostium location. Females outperform males in olfactory identification but only in the 18- to 50-year age group. Estrogen and progesterone administration can impact muscarinic and α1 -adrenergic nasal mucosa receptor density. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and CRS without nasal polyps are more prevalent in females while CRS with nasal polyps is more prevalent in males. CRS symptom burden is higher in females before and after endoscopic sinus surgery; however, no difference in endoscopic sinus surgery utilization was found based on sex. Allergic rhinitis is more common in males before puberty and in females after puberty. Epistaxis is more prevalent in males and postmenopausal females compared with premenopausal females, perhaps from differences in sex-hormonal and hypertension status. In nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the incidence of sinus abnormalities was higher in males than females.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many sex-based differences exist in rhinology, further research is necessary to offer evidence-based treatment guidelines. Gonadal hormones should be studied as a therapeutic in rhinologic pathology as baseline physiologic differences exist such as those found in nasal mucosa receptor density.

Making a 'sex-difference fact': Ambien dosing at the interface of policy, regulation, women's health, and biology

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2013 decision to lower recommended Ambien dosing for women has been widely cited as a hallmark example of the importance of sex differences in biomedicine. Using regulatory documents, scientific publications, and media coverage, this article analyzes the making of this highly influential and mobile 'sex-difference fact'. As we show, the FDA's decision was a contingent outcome of the drug approval process. Attending to how a contested sex-difference fact came to anchor elite women's health advocacy, this article excavates the role of regulatory processes, advocacy groups, and the media in producing perceptions of scientific agreement while foreclosing ongoing debate, ultimately enabling the stabilization of a binary, biological sex-difference fact and the distancing of this fact from its conditions of construction.

Minimal influence of estrous cycle on studies of female mouse behaviors

Introduction

Sex bias has been an issue in many biomedical fields, especially in neuroscience. In rodent research, many scientists only focused on male animals due to the belief that female estrous cycle gives rise to unacceptable, high levels of variance in the experiments. However, even though female sexual behaviors are well known to be regulated by estrous cycle, which effects on other non-sexual behaviors were not always consistent in previous reports. Recent reviews analyzing published literature even suggested that there is no evidence for larger variation in female than male in several phenotypes.

Methods

To further investigate the impact of estrous cycle on the variability of female behaviors, we conducted multiple behavioral assays, including the open field test, forced swimming test, and resident-intruder assay to assess anxiety-, depression-like behaviors, as well as social interaction respectively. We compared females in the estrus and diestrus stages across four different mouse strains: C57BL/6, BALB/c, C3H, and DBA/2.

Results

Our results found no significant difference in most behavioral parameters between females in these two stages. On the other hand, the differences in behaviors among certain strains are relatively consistent in both stages, suggesting a very minimal effect of estrous cycle for detecting the behavioral difference. Last, we compared the behavioral variation between male and female and found very similar variations in most behaviors between the two sexes.

Discussion

While our study successfully identified behavioral differences among strains and between the sexes, we did not find solid evidence to support the notion that female behaviors are influenced by the estrous cycle. Additionally, we observed similar levels of behavioral variability between males and females. Female mice, therefore, have no reason to be excluded in future behavioral research.

Sex-based Differences in Hearing Loss: Perspectives From Non-clinical Research to Clinical Outcomess

INTRODUCTION

It is estimated over 466 million people worldwide have disabling hearing loss, and untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer health outcomes. The influence of sex as a biological variable on hearing loss is not well understood, especially for differences in underlying mechanisms which are typically elucidated through non-clinical research. Although the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in clinical studies has been required since 1993, sex reporting has only been recently mandated in National Institutes of Health funded non-clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the literature on recent non-clinical and clinical research concerning sex-based differences in hearing loss primarily since 1993, and discusses implications for knowledge gaps in the translation from non-clinical to clinical realms.

CONCLUSIONS

The disparity between sex-based requirements for non-clinical versus clinical research may inhibit a comprehensive understanding of sex-based mechanistic differences. Such disparities may play a role in understanding and explaining clinically significant sex differences and are likely necessary for developing robust clinical treatment options.

Sex Bias in Laryngology Research and Publishing

OBJECTIVE

To investigate sex bias in laryngology research and publishing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published in 2019 in seven mainstream otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Original manuscripts were included. Study type (medical, speech-language pathology, basic science, or pedagogy), subject sex, ≥50% sex-matching (SM_≥50), sex-based analysis, and bibliometric data including author sex were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 1619 publications reviewed, 259 patient-centered original laryngology studies were included, totaling 7,130,991 subjects (3,411,741 [47.8%] male; 3,718,694 [52.1%] female; 556 [0.0%] unreported). 29 studies included subjects of a single sex and 14 did not report sex. 114 (44%) studies met SM_≥50, and 95 (37%) used sex-based analysis; no differences were found among study types or location. Sex-based analysis was used less in single-institution (33%) than database studies (62%, P = 0.01). No difference in SM_≥50 was found among single or multi-institution, or database. There were 1340 total authors (578 [43%] female). First, corresponding, and senior authors were 47%, 39%, and 35% female, respectively. Studies that had female first and/or senior authors did not differ in rates of SM_≥50 or sex-based analysis or mean enrollment of females compared to studies with male first and senior authors. The proportion of female physician first and senior authors did not differ from the proportion of female Association of American Medical Colleges otolaryngology faculty, but was non-significantly smaller than the proportion of female laryngology fellows at four academic institutions.

CONCLUSION

Laryngology research exhibits sex bias in subject enrollment and sex-based analysis. Female authorship was representative of national demographics and author sex did not influence the rate of sex bias.