Why we need testosterone products designed for women
For many, the effects of this hormonal shift are more than frustrating – they can be life altering. Symptoms like brain fog, hot flushes, night sweats, headaches, insomnia, fatigue, joint pain, low libido, anxiety, depression and even bone loss from osteoporosis are all common.
Read more:
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has helped many women manage these symptoms – but one key hormone is often overlooked in both treatment and conversation: testosterone.
Testosterone is typically viewed as a 'male hormone,' but it plays a crucial role in women's health too. In fact, women have higher levels of testosterone than either oestrogen or progesterone for most of their adult lives. And like the other sex hormones, testosterone also declines with age – with consequences that are only now being fully explored.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is now widely used to replace oestrogen and progesterone during and after menopause. These treatments – available as tablets, patches, gels and implants – are regulated, evidence-based and increasingly accessible through the NHS.
But when it comes to testosterone, the situation is entirely different.
Currently, there are no testosterone products licensed for use by women in the UK or Europe. The only exception is in Australia, where a testosterone cream specifically designed for women is available. Europe once had its own option – a transdermal patch called Intrinsa, designed and approved by regulators based on clinical evidence to treat low libido in women with surgically induced menopause. But the manufacturer withdrew product in 2012, citing 'commercial considerations' in their letter to the European Medicines Agency, the agency in charge of the evaluation and supervision of pharmaceutical products in Europe.
Since then, women across Europe have been left without an approved option.
In the absence of licensed treatments, some clinicians – mainly in private practice – are prescribing testosterone 'off label', often using products developed for men. These are typically gels or creams with dosages several times higher than most women need. While doctors may advise on how to adjust the dose, this kind of improvisation comes with risks: inaccurate dosing, inconsistent absorption and a lack of long-term safety data.
Some women report significant improvements – not just in libido, but also in brain fog, mood, joint pain and energy levels. However, the only proven clinical benefit of testosterone in women is in improving sexual desire for those with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) following surgical menopause.
Even so, interest is growing – fuelled by patient demand, celebrity use, social media buzz and a growing sense that testosterone may be a missing piece in midlife women's care.
While there is increasing consensus that testosterone can play a role in supporting women's health, the current situation presents two serious problems:
Safety and regulation: without licensed products, standardised dosing guidelines, or long-term safety data, off-label use puts both patients and clinicians in uncertain territory.
Access and inequality: testosterone therapy is rarely available through the NHS and is often only accessible through private clinics, creating a two-tier system. Those who can pay hundreds of pounds for consultations and prescriptions can access care, while others are left behind.
There are signs of change. For example, I founded Medherant, a University of Warwick spin-out company that is currently developing a testosterone patch designed specifically for women. It's in clinical trials and, if approved, could become the first licensed testosterone product for women in the UK in over a decade. It's a much-needed step – and one that could pave the way for further innovation and broader access.
But the urgency remains. Millions of women are currently going without effective, evidence-based care. In the meantime, off-label prescribing should used with care and use based on the best available science – not hype or anecdote – and delivered through transparent, regulated healthcare channels.
Women deserve more than workarounds. They deserve treatments that are developed for their bodies, rigorously tested, approved by regulators and accessible to all – not just the few who can afford private care.
When half the population is affected, this isn't a niche issue. It's a priority.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
David Haddleton works for and owns shares in Medherant Ltd
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
16-year-olds to be given vote at next election in landmark change
The voting age is to be lowered to 16 in time for the next election, the government has announced in a move that would allow around 1.5 million more teenagers to cast a ballot. The change will bring UK-wide elections in line with Scotland and Wales by the time the country next goes to the polls, due by the summer of 2029 at the latest. The 'seismic' development, which is part of a raft of measures set to be introduced through a new Elections Bill, is the biggest change to the electorate since 1969 when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Keir Starmer encouraged 16 and 17 year olds to use their vote at next election. No 10 said the PM would 'absolutely encourage them to be as engaged as they can be in the future of their country'. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy… and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote.' Sixteen-year-olds already work, pay taxes and serve in the military, ministers point out. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, said the move would take 'a generational step forward in restoring public trust and boosting engagement in UK democracy'. But politicians from other parties have accused Starmer of trying to 'rig future elections' with the change. The PM insisted last year the issue was one of fairness. He said: 'If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.' Across the world there are only a handful of countries where the voting age is less than 18. In 2024 only Nicaragua, Scotland (for devolved Scottish Parliament and council elections), the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Ethiopia, Ecuador, Cuba, Brazil, and Austria had votes at 16. Last year the then Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns, who has since lost her seat and defected to Nigel Farage's Reform party, put a video out on X (formerly Twitter) claiming that Starmer wants to 'rig future elections'. But Chris Annous, from pollsters More in Common, said expanding the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds 'will have little impact on election results - outside of hyper marginal seats'. A new poll has also found nearly half of 16 and 17-year-olds don't think they should be allowed to vote. The survey of 500 16 and 17-year-olds by Merlin Strategy for ITV News found that 49 per cent didn't think the voting age should be lowered to 16, while 51 per cent said it should. The plans will also see UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at the polling stations. A more automated voter registration system will also make it easier for people to register to vote, the government said. New changes will also close loopholes that would allow foreign donors via 'shell companies' to influence UK political parties. It follows reports earlier this year that Elon Musk was preparing to give $100m (£80m) to Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, in what would have been by far the largest donation in British electoral history. The changes will also allow the Electoral Commission to take action and enforce heavier fines of up to £500,000 on those who breach political finance rules, and enable tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners. The reforms come as the official watchdog the Electoral Commission reported that spending at last summer's general election hit a record high of £94.5 million, including £69.3 million spent by political parties. Labour outspent its rivals, shelling out £30 million during the campaign, more than twice the amount it spent five years earlier, while the Conservatives spent £23.9 million and the Liberal Democrats £5.6 million. Reform spent £5.5 million, the Greens £1.7 million and the SNP £799,000. Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director of the IPPR think tank, said the changes were "the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969", when the voting age was lowered to 18. He said: "Barely half of people voted in last year's general election. Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. The government has clearly heard these alarm bells." No 10 'absolutely rejected' claims that the reform was being brought in to shore up the government's vote.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Streeting: We are doing everything we can to minimise patient harm during strike
Wes Streeting has said 'we are doing everything we can to minimise' patient harm as thousands of doctors go on strike over pay. A five-day walkout by resident doctors in England is under way, with members of the British Medical Association (BMA) manning picket lines across the country. The Health Secretary condemned the strike as 'reckless' and said the Government would not allow the BMA to 'hold the country to ransom'. Asked about the risk of patient harm, he told the PA news agency on Friday: 'I'm really proud of the way that NHS leaders and frontline staff have prepared and mobilised to minimise the disruption and minimise the risk of harm to patients. 'We've seen an extraordinary response, including people cancelling their leave, turning up for work, and resident doctors themselves ignoring their union to be there for patients. I'm extremely grateful to all of them. 'What I can't do today is guarantee that there will be no disruption and that there is no risk of harm to patients. 'We are doing everything we can to minimise it, but the risk is there, and that is why the BMA's action is so irresponsible. 'They had a 28.9% pay award from this Government in our first year, there was also an offer to work with them on other things that affect resident doctors – working lives – and that's why I think this is such reckless action. 'This Government will not allow the BMA to hold the country to ransom, and we will continue to make progress on NHS improvement, as we've done in our first year.' Asked about next steps and the continued threat of doctor strikes, given the BMA has a six-month mandate to call more industrial action, Mr Streeting said: 'When the BMA asks, 'what's the difference between a Labour government and a Conservative government?', I would say a 28.9% pay rise and a willingness to work together to improve the working conditions and lives of doctors. 'That is why the public and other NHS staff cannot understand why the BMA have chosen to embark on this totally unnecessary, reckless strike action..' It comes as NHS chief executive Sir Jim Mackey told broadcasters on Friday about his different approach to managing the strike, including keeping as much pre-planned care going as possible rather than just focusing on emergency care. 'So the difference this time is the NHS has put a huge effort in to try and get back on its feet,' he said. 'As everybody's been aware, we've had a really tough period, and you really feel colleagues on the ground, local clinical leaders, clinical operational colleagues etc, really pulling together to try and get the NHS back on its feet. 'And we also learned from the last few rounds of industrial action that harm to patients and disruption to patients was much broader than the original definitions. So we've decided to say it needs to be a broader definition. We can't just focus on that small subset of care. 'Colleagues in the service have tried to keep as much going as humanly possible as well, and the early signs are that that's been achieved so far, but it is early doors. 'In the end, capacity will have to be constrained by the numbers of people we've actually got who do just turn up for work, and what that means in terms of safe provision, because the thing that colleagues won't compromise is safety in the actual delivery. But it does look like people have really heard that. 'They're really pulling together to maximise the range of services possible.' Asked about further strikes, he said: 'It is possible. I would hope not. I would hope after this, we'll be able to get people in a room and resolve the issue. 'But if we are in this with a six month mandate, we could be doing this once a month for the next next six months, but we've got to organise ourselves accordingly.' Asked why he was not willing to bump pay from what the BMA calculates is £18 an hour to £22 per hour, Mr Streeting told broadcasters: 'I think the public can see, and other NHS staff can see the willingness this Government showed from day one coming into office to try and deal with what had been over a decade of failure on behalf of the previous government, working with resident doctors to improve their pay and to improve the NHS. 'That's why resident doctors had a 28.9% pay award, and that's why the disruption they are inflicting on the country is so unnecessary and so irresponsible.' He said patients, particularly those who end up waiting a long time for care due to strikes, 'do come to harm, and however much the BMA try and sugarcoat it, what they are fundamentally doing today is forgetting the three words that should be at the forefront of every doctor's minds every day, which is, 'do no harm'.' On whether strikes are going to become the 'new normal', he added: 'As I've said before, the BMA have had a 28.9% pay award from this Government, and we were willing to go further to help on some of the working conditions that doctors face. 'That offer of joint working, that partnership approach, that hasn't gone away, but it does take two to tango, and I hope that the BMA will reflect very carefully on the disruption they are inflicting on patients, the pressures they're putting on their colleagues, and the circumstances in which they are doing so – a 28.9% pay rise and a government that was willing to work with them. 'Those are not grounds for strike action.' It comes after Sir Keir Starmer made a last-minute appeal to resident doctors, saying the strikes would 'cause real damage'. He added: 'Most people do not support these strikes. They know they will cause real damage… 'These strikes threaten to turn back the clock on progress we have made in rebuilding the NHS over the last year, choking off the recovery.' The BMA has argued that real-terms pay has fallen by around 20% since 2008, and is pushing for full 'pay restoration'. The union took out national newspaper adverts on Friday, saying it wanted to 'make clear that while a newly qualified doctor's assistant is taking home over £24 per hour, a newly qualified doctor with years of medical school experience is on just £18.62 per hour'. BMA council chairman Dr Tom Dolphin told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the union had been expecting more pay for doctors. He said: 'Where we were last year when we started the pay campaign, we were down a third on our pay compared to 2008. 'So you've got last year's pay offer which did indeed move us towards (pay restoration), but Wes Streeting himself said that pay restoration is a journey, not an event, implying that there would be further pay restoration to come, and we were expecting our pay to be restored in full – that's our campaign's goal. 'We got part way there, but then that came to a halt this year – we've only had an offer that brings us up, just to catch up with inflation.' Asked what it would take for doctors to go back to work, he said the BMA needed to see 'a clear, guaranteed pathway' to pay restoration. He added that 'it's very disappointing to see a Labour Government taking such a hard line against trade unions'. Resident doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training. They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years of working and gaining experience to become a GP.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Weight-loss jabs could minimise the symptoms of asthma
Weight-loss jabs could help minimise asthma symptoms in obese people, according to a study. The drugs should be explored as a potential treatment for obese people with the respiratory condition, who are 'often resistant' to steroids, researchers said. Weight-loss jabs, also known as glucagon-like peptide1 receptor-agonists (GLP1-RAs), work by mimicing the hormone GLP-1 to regulate blood sugar and insulin levels. They were initially developed as a treatment for people with type 2 diabetes. A number of types of the drug are recommended to help tackle obesity on the NHS, including semaglutide, or Wegovy, and tirzepatide, or Mounjaro. Previous studies have suggested the drugs may slash the risk of illnesses like dementia and stroke, with an international team of experts exploring their potential impact on obese people with asthma. Professor David Price, University of Aberdeen chair in primary care respiratory medicine, said: 'People with obesity and asthma are unique in that they are often resistant to steroid treatments. READ MORE: Brits issued drink warning at popular Mediterranean holiday spot READ MORE: Gran banned from Asda after being accused of swapping yellow stickers 'We know that GLP1s work on inflammatory responses in the airways in a different way to traditionally used steroids.' For the study, published in Advances in Therapy, researchers analysed the records of 10,111 people on GLP1-RAs and 50,555 people who were not on the drugs. After a follow-up period, the team found that those taking weight-loss jabs lost more weight and had improved asthma control. Researchers said the findings suggest medics 'should pay attention to the relationship between GLP-1 RA and the risk of respiratory diseases'. Prof Price added: 'We found compelling evidence that GLP1s, as well as increasing weight loss, also improved asthma symptoms. In addition, it is important to note that the benefits to asthma symptoms occurred despite fairly modest weight loss of around 0.9kg over the course of the year. 'Our findings suggest that GLP1s may have beneficial effects on asthma control for people with obesity and this should be explored further.' Prof Alan Kaplan, chairperson of the Family Physician Airways Group of Canada and the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, said: 'Our findings suggest that GLP1-RAs have benefits on asthma control in people with obesity, and this information should contribute to the discussions around the decision to use these drugs.' Dr Erika Kennington, head of research and innovation at Asthma and Lung UK, said: 'Research has previously shown that people living with obesity who lose weight see improved control of their asthma, so it's encouraging to see this study show this is still the case when the weight loss is driven by drugs, like the new class of weight loss drugs. 'Although exercise can help people lose weight, for some people it can cause anxiety about becoming breathless or having an asthma attack, so people are stuck in a vicious cycle of not being able to lose weight and their asthma worsening. Therefore, where exercise hasn't worked for someone these drugs that support weight loss could offer a promising alternative. 'It's too early to say whether these drugs would be effective for people with asthma more widely. More research is needed to understand how these drugs actually improve asthma control. Funding for lung health research is on life support and urgent action is needed to increase investment.'
