Feminizing hormone therapy in a Canadian cohort of transgender women with and without HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Potential bidirectional drug–drug interactions between feminizing hormone therapy (FHT) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) are of concern for trans women with HIV and their healthcare providers. This study aimed to characterize patterns of FHT and ART among trans women with HIV and to compare serum hormone levels to trans women without HIV. Methods Charts of trans women were reviewed at seven HIV primary care or endocrinology clinics in Toronto and Montreal from 2018 to 2019. ART regimens, FHT use, serum estradiol, and serum testosterone levels were compared on the basis of HIV status (positive, negative, missing/unknown). Results Of 1495 trans women, there were 86 trans women with HIV, of whom 79 (91.8%) were on ART. ART regimens were most commonly integrase inhibitor-based (67.4%), many boosted with ritonavir or cobicistat (45.3%). Fewer (71.8%) trans women with HIV were prescribed FHT, compared to those without HIV (88.4%) and those with missing/unknown status (90.2%, p < 0.001). Among trans women on FHT with recorded serum estradiol ( n = 1153), there was no statistical difference in serum estradiol between those with HIV (median: 203 pmol/L, IQR: 95.5, 417.5) and those with negative (200 mol/L [113, 407]) or missing/unknown HIV status (227 pmol/L [127.5, 384.5) ( p = 0.633). Serum testosterone concentrations were also similar between groups. Conclusions In this cohort, trans women with HIV were prescribed FHT less often than trans women with negative or unknown HIV status. There was no difference in serum estradiol or testosterone levels of trans women on FHT regardless of HIV status, providing reassurance regarding potential drug–drug interactions between FHT and ART.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".