Evidence for Puberty Blockers is ‘Very Low’ Says UK Guidance Body
In an official review of studies, the UK’s National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said that the evidence for puberty blockers is “very low”.
In an assessment of the evidence for puberty blockers commissioned by NHS England, the guidance body said that existing studies of the drugs were small and “subject to bias and confounding”. The assessment forms part of a review into gender identity services for children and young people.
NHS England said the advice would be considered by the review and it would not be commenting further.
Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, popularly known as puberty blockers, are prescribed to some young people with gender dysphoria – distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity (how they see themselves regarding their gender) and their sex at birth.
The NICE evidence review looked at what impact puberty blockers had on gender dysphoria, mental health – such as depression, anger and anxiety – and quality of life.
NICE, which provides national guidance and advice to improve health and social care, said: “The quality of evidence for these outcomes was assessed as very low certainty.”
The review sought to find out how treatment with GnRH analogues compared in terms of clinical effectiveness with other interventions that may be offered to young people with gender dysphoria. These include psychological support, social transitioning to the desired gender – such as changing pronouns and clothes but without medication – or no intervention at all.
NICE found it was difficult to draw conclusions from existing studies because they were “all small” and lacked control groups. They found other issues with the studies too, such as not describing what other physical and mental health problems a young person may have alongside gender dysphoria.
The review said there was “very little data” on any additional interventions, such as counselling or other drug treatments, that the young people may have received alongside taking puberty blockers, leading to possible bias in results. Impacts of puberty blockers on bone density were another concern.
However without a “comparator group”, it was not known whether bone density changes observed “are associated with GnRH analogues or due to changes over time”.
It is argued by some that it is difficult to withhold support to create a comparator group because it would mean unfairly disadvantaging some. NICE accepted this, but said offering psychological support to compare puberty blockers “may reduce ethical concerns in future trials”.
No evidence of cost-effectiveness of treatment was found by the review.
NICE also reviewed the evidence base for gender-affirming hormones, which can be given to young people with gender dysphoria from age 16 in the NHS. These start the development of the physical sex characteristics of the gender with which they identify with the aim of improving mental health, quality of life and body image.
The review found the evidence of clinical effectiveness and safety of gender-affirming hormones was also of “very low” quality.
“Any potential benefits of gender-affirming hormones must be weighed against the largely unknown long-term safety profile of these treatments in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria,” NICE said.
Source: BBC News