Testosterone supplementation therapy （TST） use has dramatically increased over the past decade, due to the availability of newer agents, aggressive marketing, and an increasing incidence of testosterone deficiency （TD）. Despite the increase in TST, a degree of ambiguity remains as to the exact diagnostic criteria of TD, and administration and monitoring of TST. One explanation for this phenomenon is the complex role testosterone plays in multiple physiologic pathways. Numerous medical co-morbidities and medications can alter testosterone levels resulting in a wide range of nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms of TD. The diagnosis is also challenging due to the lack of a definitive serum total testosterone level that reliably correlates with symptoms. This observation is particularly true in the aging male and is exacerbated by inconsistencies between different laboratory assays. Several prominent medical societies have developed guideline statements to clarify the diagnosis, but they differ from each other and with expert opinion in several ways. Aside from diagnostic dilemmas, there are numerous subtle advantages and disadvantages of the various testosterone agents to appreciate. The available TST agents have changed significantly over the past decade similar to the trends in the diagnosis of TD. Therefore, as the usage of TST increases, clinicians will be challenged to maintain an up-to-date understanding of TD and TST. The purpose of this review is to provide a clear description of the current strategies for diagnosis and management of TD.
New concerns have been raised regarding cardiovascular （CV） risks with testosterone （T） therapy （TTh）. These concerns are based primarily on two widely reported retrospective studies. However, methodological flaws and data errors invalidate both studies as credible evidence of risk. One showed reduced adverse events by half in T-treated men but reversed this result using an unproven statistical approach. The authors subsequently acknowledged serious data errors including nearly 10% contamination of the dataset by women. The second study mistakenly used the rate of T prescriptions written by healthcare providers to men with recent myocardial infarction （MI） as a proxy for the naturally occurring rate of Mh Numerous studies suggest T is beneficial, including decreased mortality in association with TTh, reduced MI rate with TTh in men with the greatest MI risk prognosis, and reduced CV and overall mortality with higher serum levels of endogenous T. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated benefits of TTh in men with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. Improvement in CV risk factors such as fat mass and glycemic control have been repeatedly demonstrated in T-deficient men treated with T. The current evidence does not support the belief that TTh is associated with increased CV risk or CV mortality. On the contrary, a wealth of evidence accumulated over several decades suggests that low serum T levels are associated with increased risk and that higher endogenous T, as well as TTh itself, appear to be beneficial for CV mortality and risk.
