Mar 072016
 

Double_mars_symbol.svgGay and bisexual cisgender men (men who have sex with men) have their own health needs…and unlike what the popular media would suggest, it’s not all about HIV.

All men who have sex with men should…

  • Talk with their physician about their physical and mental health
  • Talk with their physician about their risk for HIV infection and discuss pre-/post- exposure prophylaxis, in case prophylaxis is ever needed
  • Avoid the use of steroids
  • Practice safer sex where possible. Barrier methods such as condoms and dental dams are best.
  • Receive the Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccines. If you are HIV+, you may also need additional immunizations depending on your T cell count. Those additional vaccines include measles/mumps/rubella, pneumococcus, and varicella (chicken pox).
  • If under the age of 26, get the HPV vaccine. This will reduce the chance for anal, oral, and penile cancer.
  • Talk with their physician about substance use, if relevant. If you choose to use substances (e.g., “poppers” during sex) and are unwilling to stop, consider using them in the safest ways possible. As always, it’s best to avoid tobacco, limit alcohol, and limit/avoid other drugs as much as possible
  • Take special care to maximize your mental health. Get a support network in place.
  • Get help if you’re experience domestic violence.
  • See your physician regularly to maintain your health

Your physician may wish to do other tests, including:Emoji_u1f46c.svg

  • Anal pap smear. This is a test to screen for anal cancer.
  • PSA blood test or digital rectal exam. These are screening tests for prostate cancer. The PSA, however, is not recommended routinely by the USPSTF because it is often positive even when there is no cancer. Talk with your physician about the pros/cons about the PSA before getting it.

If you have unprotected anal sex, especially with multiple partners, you should be checked for the following infections and health conditions:

  • Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C
  • HIV
  • Syphilis
  • Other sexually transmitted infections

Your physician may wish to screen you for these infections even if you do not have unprotected anal sex.

If you are HIV+ it is extremely important that you continue to receive medical care for HIV. This can be through specialized infectious disease physicians or your primary care. Keeping the HIV viral load low is the best way to live a long and healthy life and avoid spreading the virus to others.

Need more information? Check out the CDC, USPSTF, and GLMA webpages.

Feb 012016
 
Human heart and lungs -- the core of the human cardiovascular system

Human heart and lungs — the core of the human cardiovascular system

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. And it’s growing, largely because the factors that lead to CVD are growing too: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diets based on meat, and physical inactivity. We have data on how CVD risk varies depending on sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. But we don’t have strong data on how gay, lesbian, and bisexual peoples risk factors add up to actual CVD risk.

CVD risk is often calculated using data from the Framingham study, a massive multigenerational study started back in 1948. The risk calculators that still come from that study today are some of the most well validated calculators we have. A physician can plug in a few numbers and get a good estimate of your risk of having a cardiovascular-related event over the next few years. The calculators are publicly available, but really do need training to interpret.

Why do I bring up the Framingham study? Because the study I’m examining this week uses those same calculators and other factors to try to estimate the cardiovascular risk of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cisgender people. Let’s take a look at what they did!

This study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. They used data from a whopping 13,427 participants. That’s a lot of people — one of the largest sample sizes covered here on Open Minded Health. The participants were also quite young for a study on heart disease — mostly around 28-29 years old. They looked at social factors like age, ethnicity, educational level, and level of financial stress. They also looked at medical factors, like their diabetes status and hypertension (high blood pressure) status.

The researchers reported sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like 5-point scale, from “heterosexual” to “mostly heterosexual” to “bisexual” to “mostly homosexual” to “homosexual”. I’ll try to stick to that language for clarity. Among the participants, 80% of the women and 93.5% of the men said they were heterosexual. In contrast, .9% of the women and 1.7% of the men said they were homosexual, and 18.7% of women and 4.8% of men were in the middle.

So what about their cardiovascular risk?

The men’s 30 year CVD risk was 17.2%, and the women’s was 9%. What does that mean? It means the men has a 17% chance of having cardiovascular disease in the next 30 years. In other words, a little under 1 in 5 of the men would have CVD by the end of 30 years. By then, they’d be in their late 50’s. Roughly one in five men and one in ten women in the entire study would likely have cardiovascular disease by their late 50’s.

What happens when we look at sexual orientation?

For women: Compared to heterosexual women (9% risk), all other sexual orientations were at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Mostly heterosexual women had the lowest of non-heterosexual women, at 9.8%. Mostly homosexual women had the highest, at 11.8%.

For men: Compared to heterosexual men (17.2% risk), some sexual orientations were at higher risk and some were at lower risk. Mostly heterosexual and completely homosexual men were at lower risk of cardiovascular disease — 16.3% and 16.6% respectively. In contrast, mostly homosexual men had higher risk, at 20.2%!

What factors other than sexual orientation came into play? Risks were lower with more education. Being a college graduate reduced risk from 3% for women to 5% for men. Being of Asian or Hispanic descent was also protective, though not nearly as much. And the factors that increased risk? Being of African descent (up to 1% higher), being older (up to 1.5% higher), and having financial stress (up to 1.2% higher).

Let’s summarize a bunch of those numbers, shall we?

Overall, men are at twice the risk for cardiovascular disease as women. Non-heterosexual women are at higher risk than heterosexual women. Among men, mostly heterosexual and completely homosexual men were at lowest risk and mostly homosexual men were at the highest risk. Among everyone, poorer black people were at higher risks and richer, more educated hispanics and asians were at lower risks.

Why such a difference?

It’s hard to say. The researchers don’t go into detailed statistics to figure it out. I have some thoughts from looking over the data they published though. For women, it looks like part of that increased risk is from smoking — it looks like a higher percentage of non-heterosexual women smoked. On the male side, it looks like diabetes may play a role. But I haven’t run statistics to see if what I think I’m seeing is real or just by chance.

Regardless — this is valuable information which will help public health officials determine where to put their resources.

What can you do with this information? You can work to reduce your own cardiovascular risk! Here are some things to consider doing (depending on what works for you!):

  • Move more, eat less. Most Americans eat too much and don’t move enough, which leads to obesity and cardiovascular disease.
  • Stop smoking. Much easier said than done, but this is one of the best things you can do for your health
  • If you have diabetes, keep your blood sugar under control as best you can. Aim for the lowest HbA1c you can, but under 7% is a great place to be. If you haven’t spoken with a diabetes nurse educator, they can be great allies.
  • If you have hypertension, keep it under control as best you can. Take your medications, and talk with your doctor about them.
  • Get some healthy stress relief. Whether that’s a long hot bath, a fitness class, a long walk/run in the wilderness, or knitting a scarf — find something that helps you relax every day.

Want to read the study for yourself? The abstract is publicly available!

Jan 182016
 

There’s been a cluster of publications and news recently that I won’t be able to dig fully into and write a full article on, but still needs mentioned. So this week’s post is a quick summary of a bunch of them!

Several articles came out pointing out that various health care professionals have a role to play in gender/sexual minority health. Articles like this are important in helping the wider medical community understand why learning about gender and sexual minority health issues is important. The articles include…

  • Obstetricians can help screen fetuses for being intersex and help to manage the medical aspect of intersex medical conditions. Gynecologists can help adult intersex people with both medical and social issues associated with being intersex. See the article.
  • Pharmacists can help with the care of trans people above and beyond just filling a prescription. They can help make sure that certain laboratory calculations are done correctly, based on the hormonal status of the patient. They can counsel on the various forms of hormones (e.g., pill vs patch vs injection). See the article.
  • Dermatologists may be able to assist in medical transition by providing hair removal and other noninvasive, aesthetic procedures. See the article.

Asking about sexual orientation and gender identity and recording it in the electronic health record is now a required part of all electronic health records by Medicare/Medicaid. This is part of “meaningful use”, and is part of the larger goal of having electronic health records that actually cooperate with each other and record the same things. Here’s a quick abstract discussing this. This is really the beginning of a change in health care around the United States — there’s now a financial incentive to screen for sexual orientation and gender identity and to handle patients who aren’t cisgender and straight. It’s good stuff.

A study of examined the effectiveness of therapy intended to change same sex sexual attraction as performed within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Less than 4% of those surveyed experienced a change. 42% reported that it wasn’t effective, and 37% found it to be moderately to severely harmful. Those who seek to modify their sexual orientation should keep this in mind — therapy intended to change sexual orientation is far more likely to do harm than good. For context, if this therapy was a new drug the FDA would never allow it into the marketplace. It would never get past early clinical trials. In contrast, acceptance therapy (i.e., therapy meant to help one be accepting of one’s orientation) in this study was found not only to reduce depression and improve self esteem but also improved relationships with family. See the abstract.

It’s well known that lesbian, gay, and bisexual cisgender people are at higher risk of suicide than the general public. A study recently clarified some of that risk, finding that bisexual cis women are at nearly 6 times higher risk of suicide than straight cis women (roughly 4-9% of the women). Gay men were 7 times more likely to attempt than straight men (roughly 3.5-13% of gay men). Lesbian and bisexual women were also more likely to attempt suicide at a younger age than straight women — roughly 16 years old vs 19 years old. Sad news. See the abstract.

Gay and bisexual men may be more likely to rely on chosen family for social and economic support than lesbian and bisexual women and heterosexuals, who may rely more on blood relatives. See the abstract.

And very exciting — the FDA has changed their blood donation policy for men who have sex with men! Instead of an “indefinite deferral”, people who quality as “men who have had sex with men” need to wait 12 months after the last sexual encounter to donate. This brings the guidelines for sex who have sex with men roughly equivalent to the guidelines for others who are at higher risk for HIV.

If you are transgender, the guidelines are still unclear. Transgender women who had ever had sex with a man (unclear if cis or trans) used to count as “men who have sex with men” in the FDA’s eyes. Now the FDA advises that transgender people should self report their gender. What this seems to say is that trans women should be counted as women and trans men should be counted as men regardless of hormonal/surgical status. So according to the guidelines, this should be the logic…

  • If you are a cis/trans man who has had sex with another cis/trans man once since 1977, but over 12 months ago: You may donate blood.
  • If you are a cis/trans man who has had sex with another cis/trans man within the past 12 months: Wait until 12 months after that sexual encounter to donate, whether you used a condom/barrier or not.
  • If you are a cis/trans woman who has had sex with a cis/trans man in the past year, and that cis/trans man has had sex with a cis/trans man in the past year: Wait until 12 months after your sexual encounter to donate, whether you used a condom/barrier or not.
  • If you are a cis/trans woman who has not had sex with a cis/trans man in the past year: You may donate blood.
  • If you are a cis/trans woman who has had sex with a cis/trans man in the past year, but that cis/trans man has not had sex with a cis/trans man in the past year: You may donate blood.

Confusing enough? I hope that still helped. Keep in mind that all of the guidelines I attempted to simplify assumes that you’re not HIV+ (no one who is HIV+ may donate). If you’re confused still, take a look at the new guidelines or reach out to your local blood donation center.

And that’s it for this week! I hope this was fun, interesting, and helpful! Have a wonderful week.

Oct 122015
 
Human Papilloma Virus

Human Papilloma Virus

Little is known about reproductive cancer risks among cisgender lesbian and bisexual women. Cancer registries generally don’t ask about sexual orientation. Studies suggest so far that lesbian and bisexual women are less likely to get a pelvic exam and pap smear when it’s recommended. Pap smears help to detect cancer in its earlier, most easily treated and cured stages. Logically, lesbian and bisexual women may be at risk for having more developed (and potentially incurable) cancers. The data confirming that aren’t in yet, but it seems likely.

And now we have HPV vaccines. The human papilloma virus is a major cause of cervical cancer, along with anal cancer, penile cancer, and mouth/throat cancers. Human papilloma virus spreads by skin-to-skin sexual contact regardless of biological sex or gender. Along with pap smears, the HPV vaccine has been a great tool for preventing advanced cervical cancers.

This week I looked at a study of survey data from 15-25 year old women from the National Survey of Family Growth, from 2006-2010. They asked the questions: “Have you heard of the HPV vaccine?” and “Have you received the HPV vaccine?”

The results were rather spectacular. Lesbian, bisexual, and straight women had heard of the HPV vaccine. There was no difference there. However, 28% of straight women, 33% of bisexual women and 8.5% of lesbian women received the HPV vaccine.

That’s 8.5% of lesbians vs 28-33% of non-lesbian women.

Why?? Lesbians are at risk for HPV infection too!

Before looking at what the authors thought, I have some thoughts of my own.

2006, the earliest year this study had data on, isn’t too far off from when I graduated high school. I remember the sex ed class we had. We were lucky to have sex ed at all. It was a one-day class focused on the effectiveness of birth control options, how to put a condom on a banana (or maybe it was a cucumber?), and sexually transmitted diseases that can be passed between men and women in penis-in-vagina sex. There was no discussion of sexually transmitted diseases that are passed between men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women. I remember walking out of the class feeling confused and alone — what STDs were passable between women, and how can women protect themselves and their partners? Were there diseases that women could spread? Was protection warranted? I had no idea.

The study authors discuss similar problems and attributed the difference between lesbian HPV vaccine and bisexual/heterosexual HPV vaccine to misinformation. The idea that lesbian women who have never had sexual contact with men don’t need pap smears or HPV vaccines is old and incorrect, but still persists. I remember when pap smears were recommended starting at first sexual contact with men — if a woman never had sexual contact with a man then she didn’t ever need a pap, right? Wrong!

But it takes time to correct misinformation. As the authors correctly point out, important changes have happened since 2010. HPV vaccine is now recommended for all young people regardless of sex, sexual activity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It’s not just a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease — it’s a vaccine against some forms of cancer. Pap smears are now recommended for everyone with a cervix every 3-5 years or so.

So can you be part of the change? Help spread the word about HPV vaccine for *all* people, and pap smears for people cervixes!

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The abstract is publicly available.

Oct 052015
 

480px-RGB_LED_Rainbow_from_7th_symmetry_cylindrical_gratingI’ve been saying for years now that the phrase “LGBT community” is insufficient when it comes to health. It’s not one community — it is multiple communities. The social issues and health issues that a gay transgender man faces every day are different from the issues a bisexual cisgender woman faces every day. There are some similarities and grouping the communities together has been politically useful. But it should never be forgotten that L, G, B, and T all face different types of health concerns and have different civil rights battles to face.

A study came out in August that has to be one of my favorites this year. Researchers in Georgia surveyed over three thousand lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, and queer people. They asked about health behaviors of all kinds. And then they did statistical analysis, comparing the various genders (cis male, cis female, trans male, trans female, genderqueer) and sexual orientations (lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, straight). Let’s look at what they found!

  • Diet and exercise: The researchers asked about fatty foods, eating while not hungry, quantity of vegetables and fruits eaten, and about hours and types of exercise. Transgender women had the least healthy diet of all genders. As a group, they were less likely to eat many fruits and vegetables, and more likely to drink sugared drinks and eat when they weren’t hungry. Both cisgender and transgender men were also less likely to eat many vegetables compared with other groups. Genderqueer people and gay cisgender men were most likely to exercise.
  • Substance use: The researchers asked about smoking tobacco and alcohol consumption. Cisgender men were the most likely to drink alcohol, binge drink, and to drink even when they didn’t want to. Participants who identified as queer were also more likely to drink. When it came to tobacco, transgender men and straight participants were the most likely to smoke.
  • Motor vehicle risk: The researchers asked about seatbelt use, speeding, and texting while driving. No clear differences for speeding were noted. Transgender men and straight participants were most likely to drive without a seatbelt. Texting while driving varied considerably; gay and lesbian drivers were most likely to text while driving.
  • Sexual behaviors: The researchers asked about frequency of unprotected sex and sex while intoxicated. Gay men were least likely to have unprotected sex while lesbian women were most likely to have unprotected sex. When it came to sex while intoxicated, only the bisexual participants stood out as being most likely among the groups to have sex while intoxicated.
  • Violence: The researchers asked about self harm and expressing anger at others. Overall rates of interpersonal anger were very low. Transgender men and pansexual people were most likely to self harm.
  • Medical risk taking: The researchers asked about delaying medical care and not following physician advice. Transgender women were least likely to seek care; 1/3 reported that they regularly delayed seeking medical care. Both transgender women and transgender men were more likely to not follow medical advice when it was given. Bisexual people were also more likely to delay seeking medical care compared to lesbian and gay participants.

That’s a mouthful, right? There are a lot of details I left out of this summary and it still threatens to be overwhelming with detail. So how we can break this down even more simply? By talking about the conclusions.

The researchers go into some possible causes for all these different results. Maybe gay men are safer about sex because of HIV risk. Maybe transgender men eat few vegetables because of cultural expectations that “men eat lots of meat and not many vegetables.” Maybe gay and lesbian people text more while driving because of the lack of community-specific messages.

Maybe. And they’re all good thoughts.

I tend to look forward more to what we can do with these data. I’m pretty happy with this study — it’s one of the broadest I’ve seen for inclusion. Few health-oriented pieces of research include pansexual and genderqueer individuals.

It’s important to remember that these results are at the group level. Any individual person who is a gender/sexual minority will have their own health behaviors and risks. They should be evaluated and treated as individuals. From a public health perspective though, this research brings valuable data. Only by knowing what each group faces can prevention, screening, and treatment campaigns be created. Only by knowing, for example, that transgender and bisexual people avoid seeking medical care can we then examine “why?” and act to remove the barriers so that appropriate, respectful medical care is available.

So — can we change the conversation? Instead of talking about “the LGBT community”, let’s talk about “the LGBT communities”. Or, even better, “gender and sexual minority communities” — removing the alphabet soup and expanding the definitions at the same time. This research is only the tip of the iceberg. We have so much more to explore.

The paper is published online ahead of print. The abstract is publicly available.