Whitney, Madeline

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the fertility preservation (FP) utilization rate among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients at the Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic (TISCC) within the Mayo Clinic? SUMMARY ANSWER The rate of utilization of FP services by TGD patients at Mayo Clinic’s TISCC was determined to be 6.62%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY TGD patients encounter several barriers when pursuing FP, which may contribute to a lower utilization rate of these services. These barriers include financial constraints and lack of insurance coverage, as well as societal and healthcare provider attitudes; TGD individuals face discrimination or lack of understanding, making it uncomfortable or difficult to discuss FP options. Additionally, there continues to be a lack of inclusive policies and support within healthcare systems that can further impede access to FP services for TGD individuals. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study was executed in two phases. In the first phase, a retrospective cohort study was completed with TGD patients who provided electronic health record (EHR) research authorization from Mayo Clinic’s TISCC in Rochester, MN between 1 January 2015 and 30 July 2021. Search terms related to FP were used to determine the FP utilization rate among this patient population. In the second phase of the study, two sets of patients, (i) patients who were included in the cohort study in Phase 1, and (ii) members of JASMYN, a community organization specializing in care and wellness coordination for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) teens and young adults in North Florida. Individuals were invited to participate in a qualitative interview exploring their cumulative healthcare experiences accessing gender-affirming care. Interviews were conducted from January 2023 to June 2023. Interviews examined participants’ perceptions of FP options, motivations for pursuing FP, and barriers to accessing both gender and fertility care. When applicable, participants also discussed their experiences pursuing FP and reflected on their satisfaction with their fertility and family planning decisions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In phase 1, a total of N = 1189 patients sought care from Mayo Clinic’s TISCC in Rochester, MN. Out of these patients, N = 589 patients provided research authorization and were included in the retrospective cohort study. The study team assessed whether FP terms were mentioned in each patient’s EHR, and whether patients scheduled and attended appointments with either the Department of Reproductive Endocrinology or the Department of Urology. FP search terms included sperm cryopreservation, sperm extraction, sperm aspiration, testicular tissue cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. In phase 2, N = 36 participants were interviewed, with N = 25 participants recruited from Mayo Clinic’s TISCC in Rochester, MN, and N = 11 participants recruited from JASMYN in Jacksonville, FL. Participants recruited from the Mayo Clinic participated in a video-call-based interview and those enrolled from JASMYN were interviewed in person. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The study team observed a 6.62% utilization rate of FP services among N = 589 patients (median age: 28 years; age range: 8–78 years) included in the retrospective cohort study. N = 39 patients completed FP, with N = 14 receiving these services at other institutions before seeking care with the TISCC at Mayo Clinic. N = 25 patients pursued FP services within the Mayo Clinic. Patients with testes were more likely to complete FP via sperm cryopreservation when compared to the utilization of egg cryopreservation among patients with ovaries. Participants who completed an interview in Phase 2 (median age 27 years; age range: 22–80 years) reflected on their decision on whether to preserve their fertility and what factors influenced these decisions, and how their satisfaction with this decision has changed over their lifespan. The major themes reported here include the desire for biological children, planning gender care around fertility desires, conversations about FP options, physical and psychosocial barriers to pursuing FP, reflections on personal FP decisions, and reflections on having to make decisions about FP at a young age. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION All participants who completed an interview have done so voluntarily; as such, there is a possibility of selection and recall bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Findings suggest that there is a need for more structured conversations around FP when TGD patients seek medical and surgical gender-affirming care. Accessibility, including financial barriers and limited insurance coverage, continues to limit the utilization of FP services among TGD patients. Increased affordability through insurance coverage may additionally improve FP utilization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This project was funded by the Mayo Clinic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS), grant number UL1TR002377. This project was also supported by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Grant Number TL1TR002380 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Felicity Enders reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality paid to her institution; speakers’ fees for lectures or presentations from Mount Sinai, University of Washington, University of Minnesota, University of Rochester, Cincinnati University, the National Institutes of Health, Duke University, Wake Forest University, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University; travel support from the Association for Clinical and Translational Science and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; and an unpaid leadership role on the Board of Directors of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, aprepitant, and fosaprepitant are increasingly used perioperatively. These medications may interfere with the effectiveness of hormonal contraception. This study assessed anesthesia providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of interactions with hormonal birth control, and patient counseling practices to identify possible knowledge gaps or opportunities for practice improvement. METHODS: In January 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to all anesthesia providers at Mayo Clinic sites (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida, and Mayo Clinic Health System hospitals). The survey included 32 questions assessing providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of the medications’ interactions with hormonal contraceptives (HC), their perceptions regarding education of these interactions during training, and their perioperative patient counseling practices. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 337 of 1092 (31%) providers completed the survey. While almost all respondents (324; 96%) knew that sugammadex may interfere with oral contraceptive effectiveness, only 158 (47%) knew about aprepitant’s potential contraceptive interference. Only 176 providers (52%) knew the recommended duration for alternative contraceptive methods after use after sugammadex, and 119 providers (35%) knew the recommended duration after aprepitant exposure. Most respondents considered the interference of these perioperative drugs with HCs to be clinically relevant (sugammadex, 217, 64%; aprepitant, 191, 58%). Despite the common belief that the decision between these medications and alternatives should be shared between provider and patient, most providers reported rarely engaging in such shared decision-making (SDM) in practice. Most providers recognized the need for preoperative discussions on sugammadex (280, 83%) and aprepitant (257, 76%), yet 184 providers (73%) never or rarely discussed contraception use before surgery for aprepitant, and 135 (36%) never or rarely did so for sugammadex. Lastly, many providers believed that the interference between sugammadex, aprepitant, and HC was poorly taught during training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the need for increased education and awareness among anesthesia providers regarding drug interactions with HCs during the perioperative period. To facilitate SDM, it is imperative that providers discuss alternative medications and the potential need for additional contraception methods after drug administration and communicate the risks with patients preoperatively to enable informed and SDM. The patient’s preferences should be accounted for, especially if they are unwilling or unable to use an alternative contraceptive for 7 to 30 days, thereby avoiding the complexities and burdens of altering birth control methods.