> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# TV Ads Persuaded Men to Get Testosterone: Study
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/tv-ads-persuaded-men-to-get-testosterone-study/
- Published: 2017-03-23T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T22:13:29.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5138276

A study in the *Journal of the American Medical Association* says that there is a correlation between increases in the number of men seeking and taking testosterone and televised direct-to-consumer ads for the drug. An online *CardioBrief* post says that although testosterone is approved only for men with pathological hypogonadism, the drug industry spent years promoting its much broader use as a “lifestyle” drug in men, despite an absence of evidence for either safety or efficacy. The study authors said that existing clinical studies “offer little support for widespread use of testosterone outside the narrow approved indication.”

The researchers reviewed commercial insurance claims in 75 TV markets for the period 2009-2013\. They found that testosterone uptake correlated closely with advertising intensity. The authors calculated that each commercial resulted in an increase in new testosterone testing, new initiation of treatment, and even new initiation of treatment without a recent test. Although the increase associated with each individual ad was small, the cumulative effect was quite large, the researchers said, since “advertisements were widespread and frequent during the study period, with cumulative ad exposures of close to 200.”

*CardioBrief* quotes Yale University’s **Joe Ross** that the study confirms both the pros and cons of direct-to-consumer drug ads. “On the pro side,” he said, “the ads work—men who were exposed to the ads were more likely to seek out testing and treatment. But on the con side, advertising likely motivates overuse of a treatment that has been associated with increased risk and without strong evidence of benefit.”

In an accompanying editorial, University of California, Davis, professor **Richard Kravitz** said that the campaign was “startlingly effective” and that “physicians were ill prepared to respond, as practice guidelines at the time were ambiguous…. As learned intermediaries, physicians are supposed to protect consumers from the potential adverse effects of drug advertisements. However, when clinical indications are weak or uncertain, signals of harm are suggestive but unproven, and patient demand is strong, physicians may not be able to provide that protection.”