Benefits of testosterone therapy in reducing risk of heart disease remain murky, despite claims from Bayer-funded researchers

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Cost estimates for long-term testosterone therapy are missing from this release. This matters because, although health insurance often covers testosterone treatments if a physician deems them warranted, a month’s worth of medication can cost hundreds of dollars.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Harms are not on this text’s radar screen. Testosterone treatment does have a few side effects including sleep apnea, stimulation of benign growths in the prostate, enlarged breasts and increased risk of blood clots. The study on which this release was based does not appear to discuss these outcomes either, but their inclusion here would have been helpful.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The release does a nice job of describing the study and reflecting on the relative value of an observational study compared to more rigorous clinical trial designs. That comparison should serve as a signal to journalists to explain these differences in more detail. For example, patients are not randomly assigned to study conditions in observational studies such as this; rather, they end up in one or another treatment arm by choice, thus opening the door for confounding variables to play a role in the outcome. The study did statistically control for a number of possible confounds, and a mention of that in the news release would have been useful.

It’s because of the study’s large risk for confounding that leads to uncertainty that we rate this unsatisfactory. The control group (those not taking testosterone therapy) had more prevalent cardiovascular disease and more cardiovascular risk factors.  Even with the statistical adjustment used in the study, the validity of the results is highly questionable. The other measures that were addressed — including diabetes and lipid levels — are surrogate endpoints and were likely confounded by factors other than testosterone replacement.  The comment that testosterone has a “protective effect” is an egregious misstatement given the important limitations of the study design.  Randomized controlled trials have addressed this issue and found there does not necessarily appear to be a risk from testosterone, but there is certainly no indication of a protective effect.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

We credit the release for not referring to the manufactured disease label “low T” that others have ascribed to the natural decline in testosterone levels as men age.

Given the controversies over the necessity for testosterone replacement, the study results beg the question of why these men were on testosterone replacement in the first place — and whether it was successfully addressing the symptoms for which it was prescribed. If not disease mongering, then this is product mongering.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

A study funder, Bayer Pharma, is not acknowledged although several coauthors are identified as receiving compensation from the company. Missing entirely from the press release is an acknowledgement that Bayer Pharma markets hormone replacement drugs to treat low levels of testosterone.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

No other options are discussed.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The release notes that testosterone therapy is controversial but then makes a pitch for the novelty of the study’s ability to clarify that landscape. Unfounded hyperbolic conclusions are not novel. As noted above, randomized trials have addressed this issue.