87%使用青春期阻断剂的荷兰青少年转用异性激素；3.5%因焦虑缓解而停止

因性别焦虑接受促性腺激素释放激素类似物治疗的青少年的轨迹

Authors: Tessa Brik, Lieke J.J.J. Vrouenraets, Martine C. de Vries, Sabine E. Hannema
Journal: Archives of Sexual Behavior
Year: 2020
Source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01660-8

Summary

Puberty blockers are often described as a "pause button" that gives teenagers time to think about their gender. This study from one Dutch clinic checked what actually happened to the 143 teens who started blockers there between 2010 and 2018. Almost all (87%) went on to cross-sex hormones, usually within a year. Only nine stopped blockers, and five of those (3.5%) no longer wanted gender treatment. The authors say the high rate of moving on may be because the clinic only chose teens very likely to continue. They openly say their study cannot tell whether blockers themselves make teens more likely to stay on the medical path. Many trans boys started blockers at about 16, when puberty was mostly over. Tracking stopped once hormones began, so the study tells us nothing about long-term health or later detransition.

Key findings

在莱顿诊所年龄和青春期发育程度达到条件的214名青少年中，143人（67%）被判断适合使用青春期阻断剂，他们全部在2010年11月至2018年1月间开始。
125人（87%）在使用阻断剂典型的10个月后继续使用跨性别激素；5人还太年轻，不能使用激素，6人转到了其他诊所。
九名青少年（6%）停用阻断剂。其中四人仍然想要性别治疗，因副作用、情绪问题或实际原因而停止；一人重新开始，三人后来开始使用激素或停经药物。
五名青少年（3.5%）不再想要性别治疗。他们的原因包括感觉自己是非二元性别、坠入爱河，以及妨碍他们探索自己感受的个人或家庭问题。
20名青少年使用阻断剂的时间超过了诊所计划的要求，最常见的原因是不稳定的家庭或社交生活、自闭症或抑郁等其他状况，或是实际原因。
开始使用的典型年龄为：跨性别女孩15岁，跨性别男孩16岁，因此许多人在青春期后期或青春期之后才开始，那时阻断剂在身体上几乎没有作用。
作者承认，他们的研究无法说明阻断剂本身是否使性别痛苦更可能持续。

Abstract

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) are recommended as initial treatment for adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria, providing time to follow gender identity development and consider further treatment wishes without distress caused by unwanted pubertal changes. This has been described as an extended diagnostic phase. However, there are also concerns about the physical, neurocognitive, and psychosocial effects of this treatment. In this retrospective study, we document trajectories after the initiation of GnRHa and explore reasons for extended use and discontinuation of GnRHa. Treatment was considered appropriate in 143 (67%) of the 214 adolescents eligible for GnRHa treatment by virtue of their age/pubertal status, and all started GnRHa (38 transgirls, 105 transboys; median age, 15.0 years [range, 11.1-18.6] and 16.1 years [range, 10.1-17.9]). After a median duration of 0.8 years (0.3-3.8) on GnRHa, 125 (87%) started gender-affirming hormones (GAH). Nine (6%) discontinued GnRHa, five of whom no longer wished gender-affirming treatment. Thirteen had used GnRHa for longer than required by protocol for reasons other than logistics and regularly met with a mental health professional during this time, supporting the use of GnRHa treatment as an extended diagnostic phase. In conclusion, the vast majority who started GnRHa proceeded to GAH, possibly due to eligibility criteria that select those highly likely to pursue further gender-affirming treatment. Due to the observational character of the study, it is not possible to say if GnRHa treatment itself influenced the outcome. Few individuals discontinued GnRHa, and only 3.5% no longer wished gender-affirming treatment.

Conclusion

A small number of adolescents discontinued GnRHa because they no longer wished gender-affirming treatment, showing that gender identity can still fluctuate on GnRHa in some adolescents; whether gender dysphoria would have subsided in more of them without GnRHa is uncertain. Some used GnRHa for a prolonged period while regularly meeting a mental health professional, consistent with GnRHa as an extended diagnostic phase. The great majority continued to gender-affirming hormones, possibly because eligibility criteria select those highly likely to pursue further treatment, and this should be taken into account when counselling adolescents and parents.

Methodological limitations

No comparison group: The study did not include teens who went without blockers. So it cannot tell whether the 87% who moved on had settled identities, were carefully chosen, or were pushed further along the path by the blockers themselves. The authors say this openly.
Based on old medical files: What happened to each teen, and why some stopped, came from routine clinic notes. If notes were incomplete or unclear, the reasons recorded may be wrong or missing.
Short follow-up: Teens were only tracked until they started hormones or until July 2019. The authors note gender distress might return in those who stopped, and nobody checked whether those who continued later detransitioned.
Some results unknown: Six teens moved to other clinics and five were not yet old enough for hormones when data were collected, so we do not know what happened to them.
Only pre-screened teens: A third of teens old enough were not given blockers, including those without a confirmed diagnosis and those with other problems. The results only apply to a carefully chosen group.
Small, single clinic: 143 patients from one Dutch clinic, with only 9 who stopped, gives rough numbers that may not hold for other clinics or countries.
Treatment came late: Many trans boys started blockers at about 16, when puberty is mostly finished. So the idea of a "pause to explore" barely applied, and some patients told the team blockers added nothing at that stage.
No health results measured: The study only reports which path teens took. It did not measure mental health, bone strength, thinking skills or sexual development, so it says nothing about benefit or harm.
Rules changed during the study: The clinic lowered the age for starting hormones in 2016 and 2017. This changed how long teens stayed on blockers and makes the time on blockers harder to interpret.
Authors have ties to the treatment: Two authors (M.C. de Vries and S.E. Hannema) were paid for talks by Ferring, a drug company, and all the authors work at the clinic that gives the treatment.

detrans.ai

Summary

Key findings

Abstract

Conclusion