RESUMEN
Purpose: Given evidence from cisgender patients that sex hormones can impact risk for some forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD), there are concerns regarding CVD among transgender patients using gender-affirming hormone therapy (HT). Methods: Using a retrospective cohort at a U.S. urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) focused on sexual and gender minority health, we examined associations between HT in transgender patients and two specific CVD outcomes, hypertension (HTN) and thromboembolism (TE). We assessed outcomes by ICD-10 codes in electronic medical records (EMR) of 4402 transgender patients. Hormone use was assessed both by blood concentrations and by prescriptions, from EMR. Results: Nineteen transwomen (TW) (0.8%) had a TE and 49 (2.1%) developed HTN; among transmen (TM), 27 (1.5%) developed HTN and there were no significant associations between hormones and HTN. Among transwomen, there was no association between TE and HT as assessed by blood concentrations. However, recent progestin prescriptions were associated with an increased odds of TE (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.95 [95% confidence interval; CI 1.02-8.57]), with possibly differential effects for medroxyprogesterone acetate versus micronized progesterone. Higher total testosterone blood concentrations were associated with greater odds of HTN in TW (aOR 1.16 [95% CI 1.01-1.33]), after controlling for body mass index. Among TW, ever having a progestin prescription was protective for HTN (aOR 0.36 [95% CI 0.15-0.87]). Conclusion: We found no associations between HT and HTN among TM, More research is needed to examine the effect of recent progestin, specifically medroxyprogesterone acetate, on TE among transwomen. The protective association between progestins and HTN among TW is reassuring.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To examine the benefits of a culturally targeted compared with a nontargeted smoking cessation intervention on smoking cessation outcomes among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) smokers. METHODS: A prospective randomized design was used to evaluate the added benefits of an LGBT culturally targeted Courage to Quit (CTQ-CT) smoking cessation treatment (N = 172) compared with the standard intervention (CTQ; N = 173). The smoking cessation program consisted of six treatment sessions combined with 8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy. The primary smoking cessation outcome was 7-day point prevalence quit rates. Secondary outcomes examined included changes in nicotine dependence, nicotine withdrawal, cigarettes per day, smoking urges, self-efficacy, and readiness to quit. RESULTS: Overall quit rates were 31.9% at 1 month, 21.1% at 3 months, 25.8% at 6 months, and 22.3% at 12 months. Quit rates did not differ between treatment groups [1 month OR = 0.81 (0.32, 2.09), 3 months OR = 0.65 (0.23, 1.78), 6 months OR = 0.45 (0.17, 1.21), 12 months OR = 0.70 (0.26, 1.91)]. Compared with baseline levels, all secondary smoking cessation outcomes measured were improved at 1 month and were maintained at 12-month follow-up. Compared with the CTQ, the CTQ-CT intervention was more highly rated on program effectiveness (d = 0.2, p = .011), intervention techniques (d = 0.2, p = .014), the treatment manual (d = 0.3, p < .001), and being targeted to the needs of LGBT smokers (d = 0.5, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: LGBT smokers receiving the CTQ intervention achieved smoking cessation outcomes in the range reported for other demographic groups. Cultural targeting improved the acceptability of the intervention but did not confer any additional benefit for smoking cessation outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Study results have implications for understanding the benefits of culturally targeted compared with nontargeted smoking cessation interventions for improving smoking cessation outcomes among LGBT smokers. Shorter and longer term 7-day point prevalence quit rates associated with the targeted and nontargeted interventions were modest but comparable with other group-based interventions delivered in a community setting. Although cultural targeting improved the overall acceptability of the intervention, no added benefits were observed for the culturally targeted intervention on either the primary or secondary outcomes.
