Abraham Morgentaler1. 1. Men's Health Boston, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, MA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A public outcry against testosterone (T) therapy has suddenly occurred based on two reports suggesting treatment was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risks. AIM: To analyze scientific and social bases for concerns regarding T therapy. METHODS: Analysis of recent articles regarding CV risks with T and comparison with events surrounding publication of results of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002. RESULTS: In the first study, the percentage of individuals with an adverse event was lower by half in men who received T compared with untreated men (10.1% vs. 21.2%). However, an opposite conclusion was reached via complex statistics. The second study reported minor increased rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) up to 90 days after receiving a T prescription compared with the prior 12 months. However, there was no control group, so it is unknown whether this MI rate was increased, reduced, or unchanged compared with untreated men. Neither study provided substantive evidence of risk, yet these were lauded as proof of dangers, despite a substantial literature to the contrary. Similar events followed the publication of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002 when a media frenzy over increased risks with female hormone replacement therapy obscured the fact that the reported excess risk was clinically meaningless, at two events per 1,000 person-years. Stakeholders driving concerns regarding hormone risks are unlikely to be clinicians with real-world patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: The use of weak studies as proof of danger indicates that cultural (i.e., nonscientific) forces are at play. Negative media stories touting T's risks appear fueled by antipharma sentiment, anger against aggressive marketing, and antisexuality. This stance is best described as "hormonophobia." As history shows, evidence alone may be insufficient to alter a public narrative. The true outrage is that social forces and hysteria have combined to deprive men of a useful treatment without regard for medical science.
INTRODUCTION: A public outcry against testosterone (T) therapy has suddenly occurred based on two reports suggesting treatment was associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risks. AIM: To analyze scientific and social bases for concerns regarding T therapy. METHODS: Analysis of recent articles regarding CV risks with T and comparison with events surrounding publication of results of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002. RESULTS: In the first study, the percentage of individuals with an adverse event was lower by half in men who received T compared with untreated men (10.1% vs. 21.2%). However, an opposite conclusion was reached via complex statistics. The second study reported minor increased rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) up to 90 days after receiving a T prescription compared with the prior 12 months. However, there was no control group, so it is unknown whether this MI rate was increased, reduced, or unchanged compared with untreated men. Neither study provided substantive evidence of risk, yet these were lauded as proof of dangers, despite a substantial literature to the contrary. Similar events followed the publication of the Women's Health Initiative in 2002 when a media frenzy over increased risks with female hormone replacement therapy obscured the fact that the reported excess risk was clinically meaningless, at two events per 1,000 person-years. Stakeholders driving concerns regarding hormone risks are unlikely to be clinicians with real-world patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: The use of weak studies as proof of danger indicates that cultural (i.e., nonscientific) forces are at play. Negative media stories touting T's risks appear fueled by antipharma sentiment, anger against aggressive marketing, and antisexuality. This stance is best described as "hormonophobia." As history shows, evidence alone may be insufficient to alter a public narrative. The true outrage is that social forces and hysteria have combined to deprive men of a useful treatment without regard for medical science.
Authors: Huanguang Jia; Charles T Sullivan; Sean C McCoy; Joshua F Yarrow; Matthew Morrow; Stephen E Borst Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Faysal A Yafi; Lawrence Jenkins; Maarten Albersen; Giovanni Corona; Andrea M Isidori; Shari Goldfarb; Mario Maggi; Christian J Nelson; Sharon Parish; Andrea Salonia; Ronny Tan; John P Mulhall; Wayne J G Hellstrom Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 52.329