Faculty Bibliography

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) populations experience health and healthcare disparities that may place them at higher risk for developing cancer. In addition, LGBTQ communities have psychosocial factors, such as fear of discrimination, that have substantial impacts on their medical care. As a result, these populations have specific needs with regard to cancer screening, treatment and support that must be addressed by cancer care providers. Although much has been done to address cancer care in the general population, more improvement is needed in the care of LGBTQ patients. We aim to present an overview of the current state of LGBTQ cancer care, opportunities for improvement and how cancer centers and providers can create a better future for the care of LGBTQ cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian/bisexual women with physical disabilities (LBPD) are an under-studied population. OBJECTIVES: This study compared LBPD to LB women without physical disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act on socio-demographic variables, health characteristics, and quality of life, physical activity, weight, and nutrition outcomes following a health intervention. METHODS: Data came from the Healthy Weight in Lesbian and Bisexual Women Study (HWLB) where 376 LB women were recruited into five geographically dispersed interventions. Baseline data were examined to compare women with and without physical disabilities as defined by the ADA, and pre/post intervention data were analyzed for differences in treatment outcomes including quality of life, physical activity, nutrition, and body size. RESULTS: Compared to women without disability, LBPD were more likely to be bisexual or another sexual identity than lesbian, single, report poor or fair health status, postmenopausal, and had a higher body mass index and waist circumference to height ratio. LBPD women were less likely to work and to drink heavily, and reported reduced physical and mental health quality of life. In spite of these differences, after the intervention, LBPD had similar outcomes to women without disabilities on most measures, and were more likely to show improvements in physical quality of life and consumption of fruits/vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: Although different from women without disabilities on many socio-demographic and health variables at baseline, the study suggests that LBPD have similar outcomes to women without disabilities, or may even do better, in group health interventions.

Purpose: Transgender individuals (TGI), who identify their gender as different from their sex assigned at birth, continue facing widespread discrimination and mistreatment within the healthcare system. Providers often lack expertise in adequate transgender (TG) care due to limited specialized training. In response to these inadequacies, and to increase evidence-based interventions effecting TG-affirmative healthcare, we implemented and evaluated a structural-level intervention in the form of a comprehensive Provider Training Program (PTP) in TG health within a New York City-based outpatient clinic serving primarily individuals of color and of low socioeconomic status. This pilot intervention aimed to increase medical staff knowledge of TG health and needs, and to support positive attitudes toward TGI. Methods: Three 2-h training sessions were delivered to 35 clinic staff across 4 months by two of the authors experienced in TG competency training; the training sessions included TG-related identity and barriers to healthcare issues, TG-specialized care, and creating TG-affirmative environments, medical forms, and billing procedures. We evaluated changes through pre-post intervention surveys by trainees. Results: Compared to pre-training scores, post-training scores indicated significant (1) decreases in negative attitudes toward TGI and increases in TG-related clinical skills, (2) increases in staff's awareness of transphobic practices, and (3) increases in self-reported readiness to serve TGI. The clinic increased its representation of general LGBT-related images in the waiting areas, and the staff provided highly positive training evaluations. Conclusion: This PTP in TG health shows promise in leading to changes in provider attitudes and competence, as well as clinic systems, especially with its incorporation in continuing education endeavors, which can, in turn, contribute to health disparities reductions among TG groups.

Transgender medicine presents a particular challenge for the development of evidence-based guidelines, due to limitations in the available body of evidence as well as the exclusion of gender identity data from most public health surveillance activities. The guidelines that have been published are often based on expert opinion, small studies, and data gathered outside the US. The existence of guidelines, however, helps legitimate the need for gender-affirming medical and surgical interventions. Research conducted on transgender populations should be grounded in gender-affirming methodologies and focus on key areas such as health outcomes after gender-affirming interventions.

Despite growing social acceptance of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) persons and the extension of marriage rights for same-sex couples, LGBT persons experience stigma and discrimination, including within the healthcare system. Each population within the LGBT umbrella term is likely at elevated risk for cancer due to prevalent, significant cancer risk factors, such as tobacco use and human immunodeficiency virus infection; however, cancer incidence and mortality data among LGBT persons are lacking. This absence of cancer incidence data impedes research and policy development, LGBT communities' awareness and activation, and interventions to address cancer disparities. In this context, in 2014, a 2-day National Summit on Cancer in the LGBT Communities was convened by a planning committee for the purpose of accelerating progress in identifying and addressing the LGBT communities' concerns and needs in the spheres of cancer research, clinical cancer care, healthcare policy, and advocacy for cancer survivorship and LGBT health equity. Summit participants were 56 invited persons from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, representatives of diverse identities, experiences, and knowledge about LGBT communities and cancer. Participants shared lessons learned and identified gaps and remedies regarding LGBT cancer concerns across the cancer care continuum from prevention to survivorship. This white paper presents background on each of the Summit themes and 16 recommendations covering the following: sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in national and state health surveys and research on LGBT communities and cancer, the clinical care of LGBT persons, and the education and training of healthcare providers.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that transgender women (TGW) are disproportionately affected by HIV, with an estimated HIV prevalence of 19.1% among TGW worldwide. After receiving a diagnosis, HIV-positive TGW have challenges accessing effective HIV treatment, as demonstrated by lower rates of virologic suppression and higher HIV-related mortality. These adverse HIV outcomes have been attributed to the multiple sociocultural and structural barriers that negatively affect their engagement within the HIV care continuum. Guidelines for feminizing hormonal therapy among TGW recommend combinations of oestrogens and androgen blockers. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that certain antiretroviral therapy (ART) agents, such as protease inhibitors (PIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and cobicistat, interact with ethinyl estradiol, the key oestrogen component of oral contraceptives (OCPs). The goal of this article is to provide an overview of hormonal regimens used by TGW, to summarize the known drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between feminizing hormonal regimens and ART, and to provide clinical care recommendations. METHODS: The authors identified English language articles examining DDIs between oestrogen therapy, androgen blockers and ART published between 1995 and 2015 using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and EBSCOhost. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Published articles predominantly addressed interactions between ethinyl estradiol and NNRTIs and PIs. No studies examined interactions between ART and the types and doses of oestrogens found in feminizing regimens. DDIs that may have the potential to result in loss of virologic suppression included ethinyl estradiol and amprenavir, unboosted fosamprenavir and stavudine. No clinically significant DDIs were noted with other anti-retroviral agents or androgen blockers. CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to address DDIs between ART and feminizing hormone regimens used by TGW. There is an urgent need for further research in this area, specifically pharmacokinetic studies to study the direction and degree of interactions between oral, injectable and transdermal estradiol and ART. Clinicians need to be vigilant about possible interactions and monitor hormone levels if concerns arise. More research is also needed on the provision of hormone therapy and gender-affirming care on the long-term health outcomes of HIV-positive TGW.