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

Hypnotic Use and the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases in Insomnia Patients

AIMS

We aimed to examine the association between hypnotic agents and cardiovascular outcomes in general individuals with insomnia.

METHODS

In a propensity score matched cohort of UK Biobank (UKB) participants with insomnia, Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the association between regular use of hypnotic agents and predetermined cardiovascular outcomes including incident coronary heart diseases (CHD), heart failure (HF), stroke, and cardiovascular death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting, competing risk models, and shared frailty models were further performed during sensitivity analysis. Drug-target Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were employed for further evaluation of the association between therapeutic targets of hypnotics and cardiovascular diseases.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 14.3 years, the matched cohort documented a total of 929 CHD cases, 360 HF cases, 262 stroke cases, and 180 cardiovascular deaths. No significant association was detected between Z-meds and CHD, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality. Benzodiazepine use was significantly associated with the increased risk of CHD, HF, and cardiovascular mortality. The inverse probability of treatment weighting, competing risk models, and shared frailty models didn't alter the above associations. Moreover, drug-target MR analyses corroborated the safety of Z-meds in the general population regarding cardiovascular health.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested the heterogeneous associations between different categories of hypnotics and incident cardiovascular events in individuals with insomnia. Both observational and genetic evidence raised safety concerns regarding the cardiovascular impact of benzodiazepines. No cardiovascular hazard of Z-meds was discovered in the UKB population with insomnia.

Sex mechanisms as nonbinary influences on cognitive diversity

Essentially all neuropsychiatric diagnoses show some degree of sex and/or gender differences in their etiology, diagnosis, or prognosis. As a result, the roles of sex-related variables in behavior and cognition are of strong interest to many, with several lines of research showing effects on executive functions and value-based decision making in particular. These findings are often framed within a sex binary, with behavior of females described as less optimal than male "defaults"-- a framing that pits males and females against each other and deemphasizes the enormous overlap in fundamental neural mechanisms across sexes. Here, we propose an alternative framework in which sex-related factors encompass just one subset of many sources of valuable diversity in cognition. First, we review literature establishing multidimensional, nonbinary impacts of factors related to sex chromosomes and endocrine mechanisms on cognition, focusing on value- based decision-making tasks. Next, we present two suggestions for nonbinary interpretations and analyses of sex-related data that can be implemented by behavioral neuroscientists without devoting laboratory resources to delving into mechanisms underlying sex differences. We recommend (1) shifting interpretations of behavior away from performance metrics and towards strategy assessments to avoid the fallacy that the performance of one sex is worse than another; and (2) asking how much variance sex explains in measures and whether any differences are mosaic rather than binary, to avoid assuming that sex differences in separate measures are inextricably correlated. Nonbinary frameworks in research on cognition will allow neuroscience to represent the full spectrum of brains and behaviors.

Training in the implementation of sex and gender research policies: an evaluation of publicly available online courses

BACKGROUND

Recently implemented research policies requiring the inclusion of females and males have created an urgent need for effective training in how to account for sex, and in some cases gender, in biomedical studies.

METHODS

Here, we evaluated three sets of publicly available online training materials on this topic: (1) Integrating Sex & Gender in Health Research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (2) Sex as a Biological Variable: A Primer from the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH); and (3) The Sex and Gender Dimension in Biomedical Research, developed as part of "Leading Innovative measures to reach gender Balance in Research Activities" (LIBRA) from the European Commission. We reviewed each course with respect to their coverage of (1) What is required by the policy; (2) Rationale for the policy; (3) Handling of the concepts "sex" and "gender;" (4) Research design and analysis; and (5) Interpreting and reporting data.

RESULTS

All three courses discussed the importance of including males and females to better generalize results, discover potential sex differences, and tailor treatments to men and women. The entangled nature of sex and gender, operationalization of sex, and potential downsides of focusing on sex more than other sources of variation were minimally discussed. Notably, all three courses explicitly endorsed invalid analytical approaches that produce bias toward false positive discoveries of difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests a need for revised or new training materials that incorporate four major topics: precise operationalization of sex, potential risks of over-emphasis on sex as a category, recognition of gender and sex as complex and entangled, and rigorous study design and data analysis.

Sex contextualism in laboratory research: Enhancing rigor and precision in the study of sex-related variables

Understanding sex-related variation in health and illness requires rigorous and precise approaches to revealing underlying mechanisms. A first step is to recognize that sex is not in and of itself a causal mechanism; rather, it is a classification system comprising a set of categories, usually assigned according to a range of varying traits. Moving beyond sex as a system of classification to working with concrete and measurable sex-related variables is necessary for precision. Whether and how these sex-related variables matter-and what patterns of difference they contribute to-will vary in context-specific ways. Second, when researchers incorporate these sex-related variables into research designs, rigorous analytical methods are needed to allow strongly supported conclusions. Third, the interpretation and reporting of sex-related variation require care to ensure that basic and preclinical research advance health equity for all.

Sex-specific considerations in nanomedicine: highlighting the impact of the menstrual cycle on drug development

Tweetable abstract The female menstrual cycle is one of the most overlooked sex-specific factors in drug distribution and response. Unlocking the potential of nanomedicine demands a fundamental understanding of the impact biological sex has on drug distribution, efficacy and adverse effects.

Best practices to promote rigor and reproducibility in the era of sex-inclusive research

To enhance inclusivity and rigor, many funding agencies and journals now mandate the inclusion of females as well as males in biomedical studies. These mandates have enhanced generalizability and created unprecedented opportunities to discover sex differences. However, education in sound methods to consider sex as a subgroup category has lagged behind, resulting in a problematic literature in which study designs, analyses, and interpretations of results are often flawed. Here, we outline best practices for complying with sex-inclusive mandates, both for studies in which sex differences are a primary focus and for those in which they are not. Our recommendations are organized within the "4 Cs of Studying Sex to Strengthen Science: Consideration, Collection, Characterization and Communication," a framework developed by the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Following these guidelines should help researchers include females and males in their studies while at the same time upholding high standards of rigor.