Clinic-based interventions to increase preexposure prophylaxis awareness and uptake among United States patients attending an obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Baltimore, Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Cisgender women account for 1 of every 5 new US HIV diagnoses, with most cases (85%) attributed to heterosexual contact. HIV preexposure prophylaxis is an effective prevention strategy; however, preexposure prophylaxis awareness and prescriptions among women are low. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to increase preexposure prophylaxis counseling and uptake among cisgender women attending obstetrics and gynecology clinics. STUDY DESIGN: The study included 3 obstetrics and gynecology clinics within a single health system in a high HIV prevalence region. There were 3 phases: baseline (the 3-month period before the clinical trial that included provider education and training of a registered nurse about preexposure prophylaxis), clinical trial (the 3-month period during which eligible patients were randomized to an active control or preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse intervention), and maintenance (the 3-month period after the trial ended). Electronic medical record clinical decision support tools were available to both arms during the clinical trial, which included best practice alerts, order sets, progress note templates, and written and video preexposure prophylaxis educational materials for patients. In the intervention arm, a preexposure prophylaxis nurse contacted and counseled patients and was equipped to prescribe preexposure prophylaxis. Moreover, this study evaluated the phases through the "reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance" framework. The primary outcome of the study was effectiveness (eg, percentage of eligible patients with documented HIV prevention counseling in the electronic medical record or preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions). The secondary outcomes included reach (eg, percentage of best practice alerts that providers acted on or the percentage of eligible patients who spoke with the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse), adoption (eg, percentage of eligible patients with a best practice alert that triggered or the percentage of eligible patients the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse attempted to contact), and maintenance (eg, percentage of patients with documented HIV prevention counseling or preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions during the maintenance phase). RESULTS: There were 904 unique patients in all phases with a mean age of 28.8±7.7 years, and 416 patients (46%) were pregnant; moreover, 436 patients were randomized in the clinical trial phase. Concerning reach and adoption, best practice alerts were triggered for 100% of eligible encounters; however, the providers acted on 52% of them. The preexposure prophylaxis nurse attempted to contact every patient and successfully spoke with 81.2% of them in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse arm. Concerning effectiveness, there were significantly more patients counseled about preexposure prophylaxis in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse group than in the active control group (66.5% vs 12.3%, respectively; P<.001), although preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions were equivalent (P=1.0). Among the subgroup of patients who were counseled about preexposure prophylaxis, 18.5% of patients in the active control arm and 3.4% in the preexposure prophylaxis registered nurse arm were prescribed preexposure prophylaxis (P=.02). Concerning maintenance, clinical decision support tools alone resulted in preexposure prophylaxis counseling of 1.0% of patients during the maintenance phase vs 0.6% of patients during the baseline phase and 11.2% of patients during the clinical trial phase (P<.001). Preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions were not statistically different among the 3 phases (P=.096). CONCLUSION: A preexposure prophylaxis nurse effectively increased HIV prevention discussions but did not lead to more preexposure prophylaxis prescriptions than the preexposure prophylaxis-focused clinical decision support tools used by providers. The decrease in preexposure prophylaxis counseling after the trial phase suggests that persistent interventions are needed to maintain effects.

Creating Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Guidelines for Transgender Patients With BRCA Mutations.

More than 1.5 million individuals in the United States identify as transgender. Transgender individuals have lower rates of health care utilization and higher rates of health care discrimination than cisgender patients. With a growing interest in providing comprehensive and compassionate care to the transgender community, there has been a concurrent increase in research on transgender health. However, lack of long-term data limits understanding the effects of hormone therapy on cancer risk factors in this population. This is particularly relevant for patients with hormonally mediated cancers and those at elevated risk from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes. Few cancer-screening and management guidelines currently exist for this population. Specific practices guided by the nuances of gender identity and gender-affirming care are essential to improve clinical management and to avoid further alienating a population that is already marginalized from the health care system. This commentary summarizes screening, management, and surveillance strategies devised for cisgender patients to offer corresponding recommendations tailored for transgender BRCA mutation carriers. In doing so, it highlights critical unanswered questions pertaining to the care of these patients. To address these questions, we must prioritize this population and adopt more inclusive frameworks in medicine and research.

Barriers to Evidence-Based Transgender Care: Knowledge Gaps in Gender-Affirming Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy.

Reversal of gender-discriminatory insurance coverage policies has led to a substantial increase in access to gender-affirming surgical care in the United States over the past 20 years. Although the evidence supports the safety, feasibility, and medical necessity of gender-affirming hysterectomy and oophorectomy, there are currently no evidence-based guidelines to define optimal care surrounding many aspects of these surgeries. This commentary reviews the evidence supporting the safety, feasibility, and route of hysterectomy and oophorectomy for transgender men, the benefits and risks of oophorectomy in cisgender women and their extrapolation to transgender men, and the effects of testosterone supplementation in transgender men with and without ovaries. In addition, this article highlights the data gaps surrounding whether oophorectomy should be performed at the time of hysterectomy. Oophorectomy in cisgender women is associated with negative outcomes such as an increase in cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, most likely attributable to attenuated estrogen levels. There are insufficient outcomes data regarding oophorectomy in transgender men to make the same inference about potential morbidity and mortality. Areas for future research to elucidate best practices are identified in the context of the increasing number of gender-affirming surgeries. As physicians, it is our duty to provide transgender patients with evidence-based recommendations on gynecologic gender-affirming care and to avoid any potential harm.