This story reports on the further testing of a testosterone gel to treat women with decreased libido and the manufacturer’s hopes of getting FDA approval within the next few years. If approved, this gel would represent the first treatment specifically aimed at women with low libido.
The story clearly states that the gel is not yet available and is still in experimental stages. The story mentions that the company expects the gel to be available in 2011, however it does little to explain the rationale behind this prediction.
The story mentions the side effects of excessive testosterone in women and does a good job of describing concerns about safety that have yet to be examined in longer-term studies. The story also does a good job of not overly medicalizing declining libido in women. For example, the story avoids such labels as "female sexual dysfunction" and "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" that are used throughout the manufacturer’s press release that only serve to exagerrate the seriousness of the condition.
Finally, although the story adequately describes the design of the current studies, the story errs in discussing testosterone as a possible therapy for declining libido in postmenopausal women in general. The studies are being conducted in a specific subgroup of postmenopausal women, those who have undergone surgical menopause (removal of the ovaries), not natural menopause. It is misleading to imply as the article does that results in this group would be broadly applicable to all menopausal women. There is already strong evidence that testosterone supplements in surgically menopausal women are beneficial for improving libido, but scant evidence in naturally menopausal women.
The story does not discuss costs. Although the gel is not yet available, the drug company should have some idea of what the cost of the product will be. The story also could have mentioned the costs of currently available male testosterone gels as a reference point even if it’s too early to know the cost of the female product.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. It says that in one study, "the women using LibiGel reported a significantly increased number of satisfying sexual events compared with baseline measures and compared with the placebo group." Readers should be told what "significantly increased number" means. Is it 5? 15? 50?
The story mentions the side effects of excessive testosterone in women and does a good job of describing concerns about safety that have yet to be examined in longer-term studies.
The story adequately describes the design of the current studies and the plan for future research. However, the story makes a mistake by discussing testosterone as a possible therapy for declining libido in postmenopausal women in general. The studies are being conducted in a specific subgroup of postmenopausal women, those who have undergone surgical menopause (removal of the ovaries), not natural menopause. It is misleading to imply as the article does that results in this group would be broadly applicable to all menopausal women. There is already strong evidence that testosterone supplements in surgically menopausal women are beneficial for improving libido, but scant evidence in naturally menopausal women.
The story does a good job of not overly medicalizing declining libido in women. For example, the story avoids such labels as "female sexual dysfunction" and "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" that are used throughout the company’s press release that only serve to exagerrate the seriousness of the condition.
The story quotes multiple experts.
The story mentions womens’ off-label use of testosterone products for men as an alternative. It could have mentioned non-testosterone alternatives but there isn’t much evidence for effectiveness of these, so we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story clearly states that the gel is not yet available and is still in experimental stages. The story states that the company expects the gel to be available in 2011, yet it does little to explain the rationale behind this prediction.
The story clearly states that although testosterone for libido is not a new idea, the gel would represent the first product specifically aimed at using it as a treatment in women. However, the story should have mentioned that what is novel is the gel delivery form of testosterone. There has long been a pill on the market for women, Estratest, that contains methyltestosterone combined with estrogen. It is FDA approved for traetment of "vasomotor symptoms not improved by estrogens alone" with no specific mention of sexual function.
Because the story quotes multiple experts in addition to representatives of the drug company, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like