Test for Women

[Sassy69]

This was interesting today:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/02/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main658687.shtml

Booster Mulled For Sex Desire
NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 2004


Food and Drug Administration advisers are scheduled on Thursday to review Procter and Gamble's Intrinsa, which could be the first prescription medication to win approval for female sexual dysfunction.

"What we're talking about," says The Early Show medical correspondent Dr. Emily Senay, "is a new form of testosterone replacement therapy for women who suffer from sexual problems after they have their ovaries removed.

"We usually think of testosterone as the male hormone, but women also produce a small amount in their ovaries. When testosterone levels drop in women, some experience a drop in sexual desire."

Senay explains that, "Intrinsa is delivered by a patch. The idea is to replace lost testosterone and improve sexual desire. The patch slowly releases testosterone into the blood stream. It's replaced twice a week, and it takes about four weeks for women to start to notice a difference.

"Studies show that the patch restored sexual desire in many post-menopausal women who had their ovaries removed," Senay continued. "Another product which delivers testosterone in gel form is also in the pipeline.

She cautions that, "The term 'female Viagra' doesn't accurately reflect what the medication does. Intrinsa works very differently than male impotence drugs like Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction. Viagra does not increase a man's interest in sex, it improves his performance. Intrinsa increases a woman's desire for sex. Also, unlike Viagra and similar drugs that are only taken when needed, wearing the patch is a longer-term commitment."

It must be worn at all times, Senay points out.

"If approved," she adds, "this drug will not be available for all women with sexual dysfunction. Intrinsa was tested on women who had low testosterone because their ovaries had been removed, and the FDA is deciding whether to approve it for this specific group of women.

"Further study is needed on the drug's usefulness for the much larger population of naturally-menopausal women who lose testosterone as they age and experience sexual problems," but still have their ovaries.

In addition, says Senay, "This will not work for women who have sexual dysfunction due to psychological factors or a physiological reason not related to testosterone. It won't help women who have a low sex drive due to depression or relationship problems, for instance."

P&G says, if the drug is approved, it would be made available in the first half of next year.

 

[The Shadow]

makes sense....I thought a lot of FRhormone blends had test like estra-test.

 

[superqt4u2nv]

Very interesting.

 

[BUBBLES]

if this works men won't be able to cope with the high sex demand from females...

won't that cause a lot of bodily hair growth?

 

[FitFossil]

if this works men won't be able to cope with the high sex demand from females...

won't that cause a lot of bodily hair growth?

As long as it's not over-dosed, side effects from therapeutic testosterone supplementation should be minimal. The key here is bringing a woman's testosterone within the natural range for women. That's a pretty wide range, and what's optimal for one woman might be too high or too low for another woman. Side effects like excessive hair growth, acne, etc. would indicate the dose is too strong. Testosterone doses for therapeutic purposes are significantly lower than those used for muscle-building.

 

[joe_garibaldi]

and then they went and decided not to approve it anyway. although there are a number of other things like this in the pipeline. There is a very screwed up kind of ethic at work here and it applies to steroid use in general. theres no medication under the sun that doesnt have side effects and the point is that people go ahead, get these things and use them outside of the law and then maybe the results are even worse. look at the whole Giambi thing. as far as women and test goes, i think that if a woman is aware of the potential side effects, but has assessed the risk benefit ratio, its should be her decision, whether its for purposes of stimulating her libido (although the other point about Intrinsa is that it only increased the number of satisfying sex encounters on an average of 1 per month; so how potent could it be anyway) or muscle building.

 

[Sassy69]

Yep, they didn't approve it. Said they need to conduct more tests w/ it. Isn't it basically just a patch-form delivery system for a dose of test that is already doctor-prescribable? I also wonder if the FDA isn't under more scrutiny since the Vioxx thing as well?

I do agree w/ joe though, it is very interesting the ethics that these sorts of things begin to beg if you look at what they are doing w/ similar drugs across the board. Is it the context that makes it different? Sort of like medical marijuana? And then if a legal form of something is available, does that introduce the chance to abuse it? OR does the illegal use of the substance make the legitimate use of the substance much much harder?

 

[joe_garibaldi]

or is it some republican commissioner deciding "we dont want our women looking like men"; stepping over some unstated conservative doctrine about what is right and proper for women in america?

Yep, they didn't approve it. Said they need to conduct more tests w/ it. Isn't it basically just a patch-form delivery system for a dose of test that is already doctor-prescribable? I also wonder if the FDA isn't under more scrutiny since the Vioxx thing as well?

I do agree w/ joe though, it is very interesting the ethics that these sorts of things begin to beg if you look at what they are doing w/ similar drugs across the board. Is it the context that makes it different? Sort of like medical marijuana? And then if a legal form of something is available, does that introduce the chance to abuse it? OR does the illegal use of the substance make the legitimate use of the substance much much harder?

 

[Sassy69]

or is it some republican commissioner deciding "we dont want our women looking like men"; stepping over some unstated conservative doctrine about what is right and proper for women in america?

That's a discussion that's been going on for a "few" more years than just recently.... Hell, its only in the last decade or two that they stopped giving hysterectomies to women as a solution to just about an "female" problem.