This story failed to provide good information about testosterone treatment.
After reading this piece, a person was not much better informed about what testosterone treatment could and could not do. The story failed to provide insight that would enable a person to weigh the risks and benefits of this intervention.
There are many differences between older and younger individuals. While the story attempted to dampen enthusiasm for testosterone replacement therapy as a fountain of youth for older men, it did not adequately balance the quotes from experts to achieve this objective.
The story supplied no information about the costs of treatment.
The story did not provide any quantification of the benefits of treatment.
The story mentioned the ongoing discussion about the association between levels of testosterone and prostate cancer. It should have distinguished between what is known about testosterone levels and prostate cancer in general and how that compares with what is known about the use of testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer.
There are also other potential harms of testosterone replacement therapy including fluid retention, liver toxicity, polycythemia, etc. Given these are older men, likely with comorbid illness and multiple medications already, the addition of another medication, especially a hormone with possible severe side effects, should not be taken lightly.
The story did not actually present much in the way of evidence about the benefits of testosterone replacement therapy. Although linking low levels of testosterone with a number of common complaints, it did not describe what is known (or not known) about whether or to what extent these resolve in a population treated with testosterone.
The story quoted one expert who wondered why testosterone wasn’t used to treat testosterone deficiency in old men when it is used for this purpose in young men. The story should have included some balance with a quote from someone who might have insight into reasons why old men and young men differ.
In addition, the story stated that ‘…evidence is accumulating’ without providing additional information about the nature of the clinical evidence. Instead, it is followed by anecdotal tales which is really the antithesis of what characterizes good ‘evidence’.
The story mentioned a wide range of complaints that aren’t specific to testosterone deficiency. It failed to clearly explain that while these complaints (lack of energy, sexual dysfunction, mood changes, etc) may be associated with low testosterone levels, there are a number of other potential causes.
This story is, however, to be commended for not falling into the rabbit hole of using the term ‘andropause’ which was apparently popular at the meeting discussed.
The story provided interview quotes from a number of people who attended the 6th Annual World Congress on the Aging Male, and mentioned that they all had ties to pharmaceutical firms marketing testosterone. However, it could have sought out someone to provide balance and talk about what is not known about the efficacy of the treatment and the harms that may accompany its use.
While mentioning a laundry list of symptoms that aren’t specific to testosterone deficiency, the story failed to mention that there are interventions for management of these besides testosterone.
The story talked about testosterone replacement therapy being available by prescription. It mentioned that it is currently available in an injectable form, a topical gel and in a transdermal patch. This was very clear and well done.
However the story also included discussion about pharmaceutical companies working on the development of an oral form which would deliver the benefits without the potential harms without sufficient framing to indicate that outstanding questions remain both as to whether an oral mode of delivery would be effective and if it were, whether the potential harms would really be diminished.
The story was clear that it was not about a new therapy.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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