Editorial Perspective: Medical body modification in youth with gender dysphoria or body dysmorphic disorder - is current practice coherent and evidence-based?

[Beyond NICE: Updated Systematic Review on the Current Evidence of Using Puberty Blocking Pharmacological Agents and Cross-Sex-Hormones in Minors with Gender Dysphoria]

Beyond NICE: Updated Systematic Review on the Current Evidence of Using Puberty Blocking Pharmacological Agents and Cross-Sex-Hormones in Minors with Gender Dysphoria Abstract: Objective: The suppression of physiological puberty using puberty-blocking pharmacological agents (PB) and prescribing cross-sex hormones (CSH) to minors with gender dysphoria (GD) is a current matter of discussion, and in some cases, PB and CSH are used in clinical practice for this particular population. Two systematic reviews (one on PB, one on CSH treatment) by the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) from 2020 indicated no clear clinical benefit of such treatments regarding critical outcome variables. In particular, these two systematic NICE reviews on the use of PB and CSH in minors with GD detected no clear improvements of GD symptoms. Moreover, the overall scientific quality of the available evidence, as discussed within the above-mentioned two NICE reviews, was classified as "very low certainty" regarding modified GRADE criteria. Method: The present systematic review presents an updated literature search on this particular topic (use of PB and CSH in minors with GD) following NICE principles and PICO criteria for all relevant new original research studies published since the release of the two above-mentioned NICE reviews (updated literature search period was July 2020-August 2023). Results: The newly conducted literature search revealed no newly published original studies targeting NICE-defined critical and important outcomes and the related use of PB in minors with GD following PICO criteria. For CSH treatment, we found two new studies that met PICO criteria, but these particular two studies had low participant numbers, yielded no significant additional clear evidence for specific and clearly beneficial effects of CSH in minors with GD, and could be classified as "low certainty" tfollowing modified GRADE criteria. Conclusions: The currently available studies on the use of PB and CSH in minors with GD have significant conceptual and methodological flaws. The available evidence on the use of PB and CSH in minors with GD is very limited and based on only a few studies with small numbers, and these studies have problematic methodology and quality. There also is a lack of adequate and meaningful long-term studies. Current evidence doesn't suggest that GD symptoms and mental health significantly improve when PB or CSH are used in minors with GD. Psychotherapeutic interventions to address and reduce the experienced burden can become relevant in children and adolescents with GD. If the decision to use PB and/or CSH is made on an individual case-by-case basis and after a complete and thorough mental health assessment, potential treatment of possibly co-occurring mental health problems as well as after a thoroughly conducted and carefully executed individual risk-benefit evaluation, doing so as part of clinical studies or research projects, as currently done in England, can be of value in terms of generation of new research data. The electronic supplement (ESM) 1 is an adapted and abreviated English version of this work.

Breaking the Binary: How Clinicians Can Ensure Everyone Receives High Quality Reproductive Health Services

The gender binary has historically defined the study and practice of reproductive and sexual healthcare. However, the male and female binary categorization of sex does not adequately define patients seeking reproductive and sexual health. Comprehensive sexual healthcare should consider diverse gender identity and non-heteronormative sexual practices, family planning, sexually transmitted infections, cancer prevention, and sexual function. Recent research suggests clinicians do not feel prepared to provide care for sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients. In this narrative review, we focus on reproductive and sexual health within the scope of obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) clinical practice. We used traditional medical subject headings to summarize data from publications in peer-reviewed journals published in the last 10 years and identified barriers, facilitators and best practices for de-gendering reproductive healthcare. Following a roughly chronological care path across the lifespan, we categorized findings into the following topics: Early Care for SGM, Sexual Health, Family Planning, and Care Later in Life for SGM. We include recommendations for creating a welcoming environment, SGM inclusive training for clinicians and staff, and best practices for individualized counseling. We review suggested practices related to service delivery and clinical considerations in the provision of sexual and reproductive health care for gender and sexual minority patients.