Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NICE Evidence Review for Use of Puberty Blockers for GD - Now Released

192 replies

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 31/03/2021 14:09

now released. NC. The full link is below, this is the summary. It's not looking good.

Discussion
A key limitation to identifying the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria is the lack of reliable comparative studies. The lack of clear, expected outcomes from treatment with a GnRH analogue (the purpose of which is to suppress secondary sexual characteristics which may cause distress from unwanted pubertal changes) also makes interpreting the evidence difficult.

The studies included in this evidence review are all small, uncontrolled observational studies, which are subject to bias and confounding, and all the results are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They all reported physical and mental health comorbidities and concomitant treatments very poorly. All the studies are from a limited number of, mainly European, care facilities. They are described as either tertiary referral or expert services but the low number of services providing such care and publishing evidence may bias the results towards the outcomes in these services only and limit extrapolation.

Many of the studies did not report statistical significance or confidence intervals. Changes in outcome scores for clinical effectiveness and bone density were assessed with regards to statistical significance. However, there is relatively little interpretation of whether the changes in outcomes are clinically meaningful.
In the observational, retrospective studies providing evidence on bone density, participants acted as their own controls and change in bone density was determined between starting GnRH analogues and follow up. Observational studies such as these can only show an association with GnRH analogues and bone density; they cannot show that GnRH analogues caused any differences in bone density seen. Because there was no comparator group and participants acted as their own controls, it is not known whether the findings are associated with GnRH analogues or due to changes over time.

Conclusion
The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning), in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.

Studies that found differences in outcomes could represent changes that are either of questionable clinical value, or the studies themselves are not reliable and changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance. It is plausible, however, that a lack of difference in scores from baseline to follow-up is the effect of GnRH analogues in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, in whom the development of secondary sexual characteristics might be expected to be associated with an increased impact on gender dysphoria, depression, anxiety, anger and distress over time without treatment. The study by de Vries et al. 2011 reported statistically significant reductions in the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR) scores from baseline to follow up, which include measures of distress. As the aim of GnRH analogues is to reduce distress caused by the development of secondary sexual characteristics, this may be an important finding.

However, as the studies all lack appropriate controls who were not receiving GnRH analogues, any positive changes could be a regression to mean.

The results of the studies that reported bone density outcomes suggest that GnRH analogues may reduce the expected increase in bone density (which is expected during puberty). However, as the studies themselves are not reliable, the results could be due to confounding, bias or chance. While controlled trials may not be possible, comparative studies are needed to understand this association and whether the effects of GnRH analogues on bone density are seen after they are stopped. All the studies that reported safety outcomes provided very low certainty evidence.

No cost-effectiveness evidence was found to determine whether or not GnRH analogues are cost-effective for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.

The results of the studies that reported outcomes for subgroups of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, suggest there may be differences between sex assigned at birth males (transfemales) and sex assigned at birth females (transmales).

arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 31/03/2021 17:43

I have wondered for some time why NICE has had nothing to say about puberty blockers. So glad they have addressed it at last.

NICE doesn't spontaneously decide to scrutinise an area - it has to be invited to do so by the NHS (for England and for Wales) or by DHSC.

Belleende · 31/03/2021 17:42

Ahh, of course off licence, they probably started life with another purpose and have morphed into this.

Not all new treatments go through Nice approval. The benefits of some advances in radiotherapy for example were so self evident that practice changed without the need for a Nice appraisal.

Getting cancer drugs approved for off label use in cancer is a total ball ache. If it is not approved or in the cancer drug fund it requires huge amounts of paperwork between the drug company and the Clinician to access it. Many Clinicians won't get involved because it takes so much effort. I bet the process is so much easier for puberty blockers.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 31/03/2021 17:41

Why are these studies so poorly conducted?

Poor design.
Difficult to understand ethical decisions that let some of those older studies proceed.
This week I've seen an objection to a brain study (relating to sex) on the grounds that any results might be disturbing to the participants because it's in a contentious area- and this might be sufficient to reconsider the ethics approval.

To be fair, it's (sadly) not that unusual for a systematic review to include of lot of low GRADE evidence categorisations - but they'd normally contain some RCTs rather than observational trials.

Normally commissioners would want the nod from Nice before paying for them.
Agreed. I don't know if there have been individual case applications made but I don't know how much the drugs as such cost.

NICE has "highly specialised health technology appraisals" but they are for ultra-rare conditions which is why they can have some leeway about the types of evidence taken into account.

WarriorN · 31/03/2021 17:39

I remember a statement on the mermaids we I saying that they follow the WPATH standards of care...

WarriorN · 31/03/2021 17:38

Yes R0, WPATH are not an official professional association; they are a lobby group of self interested people. I believe Susie Green is a member?

Tibtom · 31/03/2021 17:36

The lack of research is more unusual for a pharmaceutical intervention. Drug companies prefer the 'overwhelm them' approach to NICE reviews. They also use a range of sneaky measures: selectively reporting positive outcomes from a large range of study outcomes, testing against a placebo or sub-optimal alternative rather than the best available alternative, very selective inclusion criteria for participants in a trial, short term follow up... They go to quite some effort to get drugs approved.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 31/03/2021 17:36

I wonder if things would have moved so far in the wrong direction if these had been new drugs rather than existing drugs being used for a new purpose.

FannyCann · 31/03/2021 17:33

I have wondered for some time why NICE has had nothing to say about puberty blockers. So glad they have addressed it at last.

I have always had faith that it would be the NHS and the various associated organisations such as NICE and the CQC as well as a few well targeted court cases that would bring the show down.

The USA with its fragmented, private/insurance based commercial health system is ripe for introducing a highly questionable but profitable range of treatments, especially when combined with the power of an extremely noisy and demanding customer base.

flyingfoxkins · 31/03/2021 17:33

@MaudTheInvincible - that Huxley quotation is bloody chilling.

R0wantrees · 31/03/2021 17:30

One of the key issues which seems yet to be grasped is the reliance on WPATH to inform UK health and social care as the provider of 'international best practice'. There is a definite need for investigation into this lobby group and examination of the evidence basis of the claims it makes and papers it has endorsed.

AnyOldPrion · 31/03/2021 17:28

@Belleende

I am so glad this has been through Nice. I work in another field of medicine and I know just how high the standards are for efficacy and value for money to get any treatment approved.

It has been staggering to me that anyone has been allowed to prescribe children experimental drugs, with known, severe and permanent side effects outside of a well defined randomised clinical trial.

If this went through the usual approval routes as a clinical trial, I am not sure how it would get past an ethics committee.

It is yet another example of how usual practices, that are there to safeguard people, have been trampled over in the name of transgender rights. It is so so damaging.

It’s good NICE finally got round to looking at it. One of the reasons I assumed the use of these drugs and protocols were well established and relatively safe was because I trusted the NHS to have done due diligence. That they had not has been a real eye-opener.

Though this confirms what I had thought having looked through deal of the evidence presented by transactivists, it’s truly worrying to consider how much harm is potentially being done to children all over the world.

WarriorN · 31/03/2021 17:26

Pressure groups obviously have a huge hand in this.

WarriorN · 31/03/2021 17:26

That's the problem; they're used off license so much that the general public think it's an official "treatment."

Pbs are being featured in mainstream tv series.

They're mainstream.

NecessaryScene1 · 31/03/2021 17:24

NICE reports carry weight so lets hope this will finally provide the objective evidence that cannot be denied.

This was why NICE was formed - to be a weighty central body in a position to say an evidence-based "yes" or "no" to experimental new treatments being touted as miracle cures (or just life extensions) for cancer or whatever by drug companies to desperate potential patients.

This does seem like it could be potentially their toughest challenge yet though. So many organisations are invested in this snake oil.

Tibtom · 31/03/2021 17:23

Does this happen with other drugs where there is a poor outcome of evidence to support their efficacy?

Yes. Beta-interferon was a big one for MS. Pharmaceutical companies poured huge amounts into promoting it, including funding and 'support/information' for patient groups who then also pushed for its use. I am not sure where the evidencw for beta interferon is now but when first considered by NICE the evidence did not support its use. Some sort of fudge was agreed in the end becauae of public pressure.

Drug companies pour huge amounts into getting things through NICE approval because the american insurance companies take their reviews seriously.

In my field a new drug would not be allowed to be prescribed outside a clinical trial until it had approval from Nice. I don't know how puberty blockers were approved for proscribing.

Drugs are approved/licensed by MHRA - not all go through NICE. Puberty blockers are not licenced for this use; they are prescribed off-licence.

Belleende · 31/03/2021 17:21

Usually trials are funded by the pharma company, charities or government. Trials are vvv expensive, these trials would need to be life long so ££££££.

If they are being prescribed with crappy evidence, then why would companies invest in the research. I wouldn't trust any trial funded by a TRA charity they would be hugely biased, so that leaves government. If they do allow prescribing to continue then they will absolutely need to pony up for the trials.

AlwaysTawnyOwl · 31/03/2021 17:16

The atmosphere that has been whipped up around PBs with Mermaids and others describing them as 'life saving' has been disgraceful particularly when we are talking about an experimental treatment with long term consequences. Proper clinical decision making requires a cool head, an objective approach and rigorous evidence all of which have been nigh on impossible to get with fevered activists waving suicide statistics around and clinicians finding themselves pilloried for trying to get to the truth. NICE reports carry weight so lets hope this will finally provide the objective evidence that cannot be denied.

R0wantrees · 31/03/2021 17:11

Does this happen with other drugs where there is a poor outcome of evidence to support their efficacy?

The simple answer is no.

Sophoclesthefox · 31/03/2021 17:07

Blimey.

sleepyhead · 31/03/2021 16:55

Patient groups can be very powerful in insisting on experimental/off-label use of drugs. Sometimes, more power to them but also sometimes when you look at who's funding the patient groups ( Big Pharma ) they look a lot less grass-roots.

In this case, when you kick up a massive stink any time anyone suggests research into your condition (gender dysphoria) then don't be surprised when there's no good quality evidence to back up your assertions.

Why are these studies so poorly conducted?

Belleende · 31/03/2021 16:54

@flyingfoxkins

Does this happen with other drugs where there is a poor outcome of evidence to support their efficacy? I fear it's going to take deaths, - or an awful lot of people sueing the pharmaceutical companies and the medics when the results dont turn out as hoped or worse, have serious adverse effects.
Nice can look at new treatments or those already in use in the NHS. In my field a new drug would not be allowed to be prescribed outside a clinical trial until it had approval from Nice. I don't know how puberty blockers were approved for proscribing. Normally commissioners would want the nod from Nice before paying for them.

The Nice review has a pretty set structure and very clear definitions for what constitutes strong evidence (large scale meta analysis of several large high quality studies) versus weak evidence (pretty much everything highlighted above). They apply the same criteria across all their reviews. It is a tried and tested methodology.

Whilst there will always be room for interpretation, especially when it comes to value for money, it would be nigh on impossible to subvert the entire process. It simply is not possible to look at a poorly designed, small study in a badly defined patient group and conclude anything other than it has no real value in clinical decision making.

This is more sunlight, cold, hard, sunlight that leaves no wiggle room. One this evidence, where the the potential for harm remains and the benefits are so uncertain, they should not be prescribed. No other drugs would be.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 31/03/2021 16:53

I think there are big questions around why the UK’s supposed centres of excellence like the Tavistock have been unable to conduct rigorous research. Why is that?

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 31/03/2021 16:50

Is it awful that one of my first thoughts is fear for the authors of this NICE review; that they'll get attacked for doing their jobs?

Mumofgirls - it is awful in the fact that at the current time it is a reasonable concern for you to have.

They did do their best - they adopted all the 'correct' language, they carefully used 'assigned sex at birth' etc but I guess you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I do detect a slight note of exasperation in some of the conclusions.

OP posts:
WarriorN · 31/03/2021 16:39

Could Keira sue based on this lack of evidence?

MaudTheInvincible · 31/03/2021 16:39

The pharmaceutical companies definitely have an unhealthy interest in all this. I think they just see these kids as lifelong money farms 🤑🤑🤑

NICE Evidence Review for Use of Puberty Blockers for GD - Now Released
Swipe left for the next trending thread