Archive

ShareThis Page
‘Low T’: The peril of medicating grumpy old men | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

‘Low T’: The peril of medicating grumpy old men

ptrocwoloshinpic2022314
ptrocwoloshinpic1022314

Could you have low testosterone?

That’s the question Abbott Laboratories (now AbbVie) has been urging men to consider with its “Is It Low T?” awareness campaign, an effort to change how doctors and the public think about managing aging in men.

Since 2008, this massive marketing endeavor has targeted middle-age men who have put on some weight, sometimes feel grumpy or get sleepy after meals, encouraging them to have their testosterone levels tested and to consider treatment if levels are low. It has helped persuade legions of men to take a drug that might not help and might actually do harm for a condition they probably don’t have.

In a recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine, we described the tactics such campaigns use to sell disease. Since the start of the campaign, testosterone sales, which had been stable for years, have risen more than 1,800 percent, exceeding $1.9 billion in 2012.

By targeting men worried about weight, muscle tone, energy levels, mood and sexual satisfaction, the campaigns imply that treatment will help them become thinner, more muscular, more energetic, less grumpy and more sexually satisfied. But there’s a big problem: We really don’t know if diagnosing and treating “low T” does any good. More important, there is some evidence it may cause harm.

Last month, a new study of men found that older men taking the drug were more likely to have heart attacks. Soon after the study’s release, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new investigation into the possible harms of testosterone.

Testosterone drugs were initially developed for a narrow use: treating men with a reduced ability to produce testosterone because of such things as trauma, chemotherapy, genetic abnormalities or undescended testicles. For these men, testosterone replacement provides a clear quality-of-life benefit, permitting normal sexual development or restoring male appearance and sexual function.

In the years since the drug was first developed, the FDA has approved a whole medicine cabinet of testosterone products — gels, pills, patches and even an underarm roll-on.

As physicians who study communication about prescription drugs, we find the marketing of low T eerily reminiscent of another campaign: the hyper-promotion of hormone replacement for post-menopausal women. While these drugs can have an important quality-of-life benefit for women with severe menopausal symptoms, a gold-standard randomized trial showed that for most women the hormones did more harm than good.

For men with severe hormone deficiency from a medical problem, testosterone replacement is a major advance. But for the aging men targeted by the low T campaign, the balance of benefits and harms is unknown. And there is good reason to worry about heart attacks, especially in men with heart disease and in the frail and elderly.

When it comes to testosterone, the pharmaceutical industry has gone too far — and the FDA not far enough. Maybe the problem isn’t low T; maybe instead it is low R — low regulation.

Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz are internists and professors of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H. They are the authors of “Know Your Chances: Understanding Health Statistics.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.