Long-Term Metabolic Outcomes of Testosterone Formulations: A Comparative Analysis for Research and Development

Abstract

This article synthesizes current evidence on the long-term metabolic effects of various testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) formulations, including injectables (cypionate, enanthate, undecanoate), transdermals, and pellets. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational pharmacology, application methodologies, and optimization strategies for these therapies. The review critically evaluates comparative efficacy on parameters such as insulin sensitivity, lipid profiles, body composition, and cardiovascular risk, highlighting the influence of patient factors like BMI and vitamin D status. It concludes by identifying key evidence gaps and future directions for preclinical and clinical research to advance the metabolic safety and efficacy profiling of androgen-based therapeutics.

Pharmacology and Core Metabolic Mechanisms of Testosterone Formulations

Testosterone esters represent a foundational pharmaceutical technology used to modulate the release and duration of action of endogenous testosterone. Through 17β-esterification with various fatty acids, the lipophilicity of testosterone increases significantly, enabling the formation of depot injections when administered in oil vehicles that provide sustained release over days to weeks [1]. The enzymatic hydrolysis of these esters by ubiquitous esterases liberates free, active testosterone into the circulation, with the ester side-chain length and structure primarily determining the pharmacokinetic profile [1]. This chemical modification approach has enabled the development of diverse testosterone replacement therapies (TRT) capable of mimicking physiological testosterone levels when properly administered, while also creating formulations with potential for misuse in performance enhancement.

The clinical imperative for ester-based testosterone formulations stems from the need to replace testosterone in hypogonadal men while avoiding the rapid clearance and hepatic first-pass metabolism that plagues oral unmodified testosterone. By carefully selecting ester chains of varying lengths, pharmaceutical scientists can design delivery systems that maintain testosterone within the therapeutic window for extended periods, from the short-acting propionate (2-3 days) to the long-acting undecanoate (12 weeks) [1]. This review systematically compares the chemical properties, release kinetics, and experimental assessment methodologies for major testosterone esters, providing researchers with a comprehensive framework for evaluating existing formulations and developing novel testosterone delivery systems.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Esters

Structural Foundations and Release Kinetics

The relationship between ester structure and release kinetics follows a predictable pattern where longer aliphatic chains increase lipophilicity, prolonging release from the injection depot. Testosterone undecanoate, with its 11-carbon aliphatic chain, demonstrates the most prolonged duration of action, maintaining physiological testosterone levels for approximately 12 weeks following a 1000-mg injection in castor oil [1]. In contrast, testosterone propionate with a short 3-carbon chain requires administration every 1-2 days to maintain stable serum levels, making it impractical for long-term replacement therapy [1]. The testosterone buciclate ester (trans-4-n-butylcyclohexane carboxylate) represents a specialized case where steric hindrance of ester side-chain hydrolysis significantly slows testosterone liberation, producing blood levels in the low-normal physiologic range for up to 4 months in hypogonadal men [1].

Intermediate-chain esters like testosterone enanthate and testosterone cypionate have similar pharmacokinetics, making them pharmacologically equivalent with half-lives of approximately 5-8 days [1]. These formulations have served as the cornerstone of testosterone replacement therapy for decades, typically administered at doses of 200-250 mg every 10-14 days for hypogonadal men [1]. The similar cyclohexane carboxylic acid chain of cypionate and heptanoic acid chain of enanthate result in nearly identical hydrophobic character and release profiles from oil vehicles.

Table 1: Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Common Testosterone Esters

Testosterone Ester	Ester Chain Structure	Approximate Half-Life (Days)	Dosing Frequency (Clinical)	Testosterone Yield (%)
Propionate	3-carbon aliphatic	2.5-3	Every 1-2 days	~83.7%
Enanthate	7-carbon aliphatic	5-7	Every 10-14 days	~72.0%
Cypionate	8-carbon cyclic	6-8	Every 10-14 days	~68.9%
Undecanoate	11-carbon aliphatic	18-21	Every 10-12 weeks	~61.8%

Experimental Assessment of Testosterone Kinetics

Sophisticated experimental designs are required to precisely characterize testosterone ester pharmacokinetics. One innovative approach involves pharmacological inhibition of endogenous steroidogenesis through CYP11A (cholesterol side-chain cleavage) blockade with ketoconazole, combined with glucocorticoid replacement and intravenous infusion of testosterone pulses at varying doses [2]. This "hormone clamp" methodology allows direct calculation of testosterone moiety-specific disappearance rates without confounding from endogenous production.

Deconvolution analysis of total, free, bioavailable, SHBG-bound, and albumin-bound testosterone concentration-time profiles reveals distinct kinetic behaviors. Research demonstrates that the rapid-phase half-lives (approximately 1.4 minutes) of all testosterone moieties are comparable and independent of dose, while slow-phase half-lives vary significantly: SHBG-bound testosterone (32 minutes) > total testosterone (27 minutes) > free testosterone (18 minutes) > albumin-bound testosterone (18 minutes) > bioavailable testosterone (14 minutes) [2]. These findings indicate that protein binding substantially prolongs testosterone residence time in circulation, with high-affinity binding to SHBG having the most significant impact on kinetics.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling of testosterone cypionate following long-term administration reveals linear one-compartment model characteristics with population mean estimates of 2.6 kL/day for clearance and 14.4 kL for volume of distribution [3]. Covariate analysis identified body weight, albumin levels, and their changes from baseline as significant predictors of testosterone pharmacokinetics [3]. This modeling approach enables prediction of individual exposure responses and supports the optimization of dosing regimens based on patient characteristics.

Diagram 1: Testosterone Ester Release and Activation Pathway

Advanced Carrier Systems for Sustained Release

Oil-Based Carriers and Release Modulation

Traditional testosterone ester formulations rely on vegetable oil vehicles (sesame, castor, or cottonseed oil) to create depots at injection sites that slowly release compounds into systemic circulation. The hydrophobic physicochemical partitioning of the androgen ester between the oil vehicle and aqueous extracellular fluid represents the rate-limiting step in this process [1]. Both the viscosity of the oil and the injection volume influence release kinetics, with larger volumes creating larger depots that may prolong absorption. The site of injection also affects absorption rate due to variations in blood flow and tissue characteristics at different anatomical locations [1].

Innovative approaches to extending testosterone release include the development of aqueous suspensions of insoluble testosterone esters like testosterone buciclate. The steric hindrance provided by the buciclate ester side chain slows hydrolysis, maintaining testosterone in the low-normal physiologic range for up to 4 months after a single injection [1]. Although this product has not progressed to widespread clinical use, it demonstrates the potential for molecular engineering to create ultra-long-acting testosterone formulations that could improve adherence in testosterone replacement therapy.

Zero-Order Release Carrier Technologies

Emerging carrier technologies aim to achieve zero-order release kinetics that maintain constant plasma drug levels, thereby maximizing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing side effects. Hydrogen-bonded layer-by-layer (LBL) films of PEGylated peptides and polyphenols represent one promising platform for zero-order release [4]. Using PEGylated salmon calcitonin (PEG-sCT) and tannic acid (TA) as a model system, research demonstrates that these films release the therapeutic peptide via gradual disintegration driven by the dynamic nature of hydrogen bonds, following perfect zero-order kinetics without initial burst release [4].

The release rate from these advanced systems can be tuned via external stimuli such as pH and temperature. In vivo testing in rats confirms that LBL films maintain constant plasma levels of PEG-sCT over extended periods, with corresponding stable reduction in serum calcium levels [4]. This technology demonstrates the potential for innovative carrier systems to overcome the "fast-then-slow" release patterns that plague conventional delivery systems, although application to testosterone delivery remains exploratory.

Table 2: Comparison of Testosterone Formulation Technologies

Formulation Type	Release Kinetics	Administration Route	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Oil-Based Injections	First-order, declining rate	Intramuscular	Established safety, cost-effective	Fluctuating serum levels
Aqueous Suspensions	Extended, multi-month	Intramuscular	Ultra-long duration	Limited commercial availability
Oral Undecanoate	Rapid, multiple daily doses	Oral (with fat)	Non-invasive	Low/variable bioavailability
Transdermal Gels	Continuous, steady-state	Topical	Mimics physiological rhythm	Transfer risk, skin irritation
Layer-by-Layer Films	Zero-order, constant rate	Implantable	No peak-trough fluctuation	Early development stage

Research Reagent Solutions for Experimental Characterization

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Testosterone Ester Kinetics Studies

Reagent/Chemical	Function in Experimental Protocols	Research Application Examples
Ketoconazole	CYP11A inhibitor for endogenous steroidogenesis blockade	Creating hormone clamp conditions [2]
Dexamethasone	Glucocorticoid replacement during steroidogenesis inhibition	Maintaining basal cortisol function [2]
Crystalline Testosterone	Reference standard for infusion studies	Pulse injection kinetics assessment [2]
SHBG Immunoassay Kits	Quantification of sex hormone-binding globulin	Protein binding studies [2]
Esterase Enzymes	In vitro hydrolysis studies	Ester cleavage rate determination [1]
Testosterone Antibodies	Immunoassay development for concentration monitoring	Serum level measurements [3]
LC-MS/MS Standards	Reference for mass spectrometry quantification	High-precision hormone assessment [2]
Oil Vehicles (various)	Formulation medium for depot injections	Release rate comparison studies [1]

Experimental Protocols for Kinetic Analysis

Hormone Clamp Methodology with Testosterone Pulses

The hormone clamp technique with testosterone pulses represents a sophisticated approach to determining testosterone kinetics without confounding from endogenous secretion. The protocol begins with admission of healthy male volunteers to a clinical research unit, where indwelling intravenous catheters are inserted in both forearms [2]. At 2400 hr, a constant intravenous infusion of testosterone (1.7 µmol/hr) begins and continues for 18.5 hours to establish stable baseline conditions [2].

Testosterone pulses are administered starting at 0800 hr the next morning, with one of three dose levels (0.46, 1.4, or 4.2 µmol/bolus) delivered intravenously over 30 minutes every 90 minutes for a total of 7 pulses [2]. This schedule emulates the inferred pattern of endogenous testosterone secretion. Blood sampling occurs every 10 minutes for 13.5 hours, with samples analyzed for total testosterone using immunochemiluminescence technology or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for superior sensitivity and specificity [2]. Additional measurements include SHBG, albumin, free testosterone by equilibrium dialysis, and calculated bioavailable testosterone fractions using established equation systems [2].

Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial design enables population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of testosterone cypionate effects. In one published protocol, 31 healthy men received 14 weekly injections of testosterone cypionate at doses of 100, 250, or 500 mg/week [3]. Blood samples were collected between 7 am and 9 am, with intensive sampling after the last injection (immediately post-dose, after 8 hours, then daily for 26 consecutive days) to characterize the elimination phase [3].

Biweekly luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) stimulation tests performed 7 days after the last injection assess pituitary gonadotropin secretion, with venous blood samples obtained before and 30, 60, and 120 minutes after intravenous infusion of 100 mcg LHRH [3]. Semen samples collected at baseline, weeks 2, 16, 21, 28, and week 40 in some subjects evaluate the impact on spermatogenesis [3]. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling using software such as NONMEM sequentially fits the pharmacokinetic model for total testosterone first, then the pharmacodynamic models for suppression of luteinizing hormone synthesis and spermatogenesis conditional on fixed individual pharmacokinetic parameters [3].

Diagram 2: Pharmacodynamic Impact of Exogenous Testosterone

Metabolic and Clinical Implications of Formulation Differences

Time Course of Testosterone Effects Across Formulations

The timing of physiological effects following testosterone administration varies significantly according to formulation pharmacokinetics. Sexual interest typically appears after 3 weeks of treatment, plateauing at 6 weeks with no further increments expected beyond this point [5]. Changes in erections and ejaculations may require up to 6 months to fully manifest, while effects on quality of life emerge within 3-4 weeks, though maximum benefits take longer to develop [5]. These timelines reflect the complex genomic and non-genomic mechanisms through which testosterone exerts its effects.

Metabolic parameters demonstrate distinct response patterns to testosterone therapy. Erythropoietic effects become evident at 3 months, peaking at 9-12 months, while prostate-specific antigen and volume rise marginally, plateauing at 12 months [5]. Lipid changes appear after 4 weeks, becoming maximal after 6-12 months, and insulin sensitivity may improve within few days, though effects on glycemic control become evident only after 3-12 months [5]. Changes in body composition including fat mass, lean body mass, and muscle strength occur within 12-16 weeks, stabilize at 6-12 months, but can continue to improve marginally over years of continued therapy [5].

Metabolic Syndrome Implications

Testosterone replacement therapy demonstrates potentially beneficial effects on components of metabolic syndrome. Meta-analysis evidence indicates that testosterone therapy leads to improvement in several metabolic parameters, with significant reductions observed in waist circumference and triglycerides [6]. These findings support the potential therapeutic benefits of testosterone treatment in managing metabolic syndrome, particularly in hypogonadal men.

The relationship between testosterone formulations and metabolic outcomes appears influenced by the stability of serum testosterone levels achieved. Longer-acting esters like testosterone undecanoate that provide more consistent levels without significant peaks and troughs may offer advantages for metabolic parameters by minimizing fluctuations that could impact insulin sensitivity and lipid metabolism [6]. This highlights the importance of considering kinetic profiles when selecting testosterone formulations for patients with concurrent hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome.

The chemical foundation of testosterone esters through 17β-esterification with various fatty acids represents a cornerstone pharmaceutical strategy for modifying testosterone release kinetics. From rapid-onset propionate to extended-duration undecanoate, these chemical modifications enable tailored therapeutic approaches for diverse clinical needs. Advanced carrier systems including oil vehicles and emerging technologies like layer-by-layer films further refine release profiles, with zero-order kinetics representing the ideal for maintaining constant therapeutic levels.

Experimental characterization through hormone clamp methodologies, population pharmacokinetic modeling, and sophisticated analytical techniques continues to reveal the complex interplay between ester structure, carrier systems, and in vivo release kinetics. The metabolic implications of different formulations underscore the clinical relevance of these chemical foundations, particularly for patients with concurrent hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome. Future research directions include developing novel ester compounds with optimized release characteristics, advanced carrier technologies for zero-order release, and personalized dosing approaches based on population pharmacokinetic models that account for individual patient factors.

The androgen receptor (AR) is a ligand-activated nuclear transcription factor and a member of the steroid hormone receptor superfamily, playing a pivotal role in male physiology and pathophysiology [7]. Located on the X chromosome (q11-12), the AR gene codes for a protein of 919 amino acids with a mass of 110 kDa, consisting of four structurally and functionally distinct domains: an N-terminal domain (NTD), a DNA-binding domain (DBD), a hinge region, and a ligand-binding domain (LBD) [7]. Beyond its classical functions in male sexual development and reproductive system maintenance, AR signaling has emerged as a critical regulator of cellular metabolism, influencing diverse pathways including glucose metabolism, lipid homeostasis, and energy production [8]. This intricate relationship between AR signaling and metabolic reprogramming is particularly relevant in the context of prostate cancer, where the AR axis drives disease progression and therapeutic resistance [7] [8] [9].

The metabolic fate of androgens themselves involves complex interconversion pathways. Testosterone, the primary circulating androgen, can be converted to the more potent dihydrotestosterone (DHT) by the enzyme 5α-reductase, or can be aromatized to estradiol in peripheral tissues [7]. These transformations significantly influence the activation of androgen and estrogen signaling pathways, creating a complex endocrine network that regulates physiological and pathological processes [10]. Understanding these metabolic pathways and their regulation by different testosterone formulations provides crucial insights for optimizing hormonal therapies and developing novel treatment strategies for androgen-related pathologies.

Androgen Receptor Structure and Signaling Mechanisms

Structural Domains and Their Functions

The androgen receptor exhibits a modular structure with specialized functional domains that coordinate its transcriptional activity [7]:

• N-terminal domain (NTD): This domain (amino acids 1-537) is constitutively active and contains transcriptional activation function (AF)-1, which encompasses two transcriptional activation units (TAU-1 and TAU-5). The TAU-5 region, mediated through the core sequence 435WHTLF439, accounts for approximately 50% of aberrant AR activity in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) cells [7].
• DNA-binding domain (DBD): Comprising 68 amino acids with two zinc finger motifs, the DBD facilitates sequence-specific DNA binding to androgen response elements (AREs) in target gene regulatory regions [7].
• Hinge region: This approximately 50-amino-acid segment separates the LBD from the DBD and contains part of a bipartite ligand-dependent nuclear localization signal (NLS). The cytoskeletal protein Filamin-A (FlnA) interacts with this region, facilitating AR nuclear translocation [7].
• Ligand-binding domain (LBD): Located at the carboxy-terminus (amino acids 669-919), this domain binds testosterone and dihydrotestosterone, inducing conformational changes that enable receptor activation [7].

Classical AR Signaling Pathway

The canonical AR signaling pathway involves a coordinated sequence of molecular events [7]:

• Ligand binding: Testosterone or the more potent DHT binds to the LBD, inducing conformational changes that promote AR nuclear translocation.
• Nuclear translocation: The ligand-bound AR dissociates from heat shock proteins (HSPs) and, facilitated by Filamin-A, translocates to the nucleus.
• DNA binding and dimerization: AR homodimers bind to specific DNA sequences known as androgen response elements (AREs) in promoter and enhancer regions of target genes.
• Transcriptional regulation: The AR transcriptional complex recruits coregulators (approximately 200 identified) to either enhance (coactivators) or repress (corepressors) gene expression, ultimately modulating cellular processes including metabolism, growth, and differentiation [7].

Table 1: Androgen Receptor Domains and Their Functions

Domain	Amino Acids	Primary Functions	Key Structural Features
N-terminal Domain (NTD)	1-537	Transcriptional activation, contains AF-1 with TAU-1 and TAU-5	435WHTLF439 motif critical for CRPC activity
DNA-binding Domain (DBD)	538-605	Sequence-specific DNA binding, receptor dimerization	Two zinc finger motifs, P-box and D-box
Hinge Region	626-669	Nuclear localization, protein interactions	Contains bipartite NLS, Filamin-A binding site
Ligand-binding Domain (LBD)	670-919	Ligand binding, nuclear translocation, coactivator recruitment	AF-2 surface, binding pocket for FxxLF motifs

Metabolic Pathways Regulated by Androgen Receptor Signaling

Glucose Metabolism Reprogramming

AR signaling exerts profound effects on cellular glucose metabolism, with distinct patterns observed in different prostate cancer stages [8]. In normal prostate epithelial cells, high zinc levels inhibit mitochondrial aconitase, resulting in truncated tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and impaired citrate oxidation—a metabolic configuration that supports specialized secretory functions but generates only approximately 14 ATP/glucose compared to ~38 ATP/glucose in typical cells [8]. During malignant transformation, zinc depletion relieves this inhibition, establishing a complete TCA cycle [8].

AR directly regulates key glycolytic components through transcriptional mechanisms [8]:

• GLUT1: Glucose transporter facilitating cellular glucose uptake
• HK1 and HK2: Hexokinases catalyzing the first step of glycolysis
• PFK2/PFKFB: Regulators of phosphofructokinase activity, controlling glycolytic flux
• LDHA: Lactate dehydrogenase A, converting pyruvate to lactate
• G6PD: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, directing flux into pentose phosphate pathway

The metabolic consequences of AR activation differ significantly between full-length AR and constitutively active splice variants such as AR-V7, which lacks the ligand-binding domain [11]. While both isoforms stimulate glycolysis, as evidenced by increased extracellular acidification rates (ECAR), they differentially regulate TCA cycle metabolites. Full-length AR increases citrate levels, whereas AR-V7 dramatically reduces citrate, mirroring metabolic shifts observed in CRPC patients [11].

Lipid Metabolism Regulation

AR serves as a master regulator of lipid homeostasis through several mechanisms [8]:

• Coordination with SREBP: AR and sterol regulatory-element binding protein (SREBP) engage in positive feedback regulation, co-targeting lipogenic enzymes including fatty acid synthase (FASN) and acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC).
• Fatty acid synthesis: AR activation accelerates de novo lipogenesis, particularly mono-unsaturated and saturated fatty acids.
• Fatty acid oxidation (FAO): Both fatty acid synthesis and oxidation are simultaneously enhanced in AR-driven prostate cancer, representing an apparently contradictory metabolic state where catabolism and anabolism co-exist.

Table 2: Metabolic Pathways Regulated by AR Signaling

Metabolic Pathway	Key AR-Regulated Genes/Enzymes	Metabolic Consequences	Differential Regulation by AR vs. AR-V7
Glycolysis	GLUT1, HK1, HK2, PFK2, LDHA	Increased glucose uptake and lactate production	Similar stimulation of extracellular acidification
TCA Cycle	Mitochondrial aconitase, citrate synthase	Complete TCA cycle in PCa vs. truncated in normal prostate	AR increases citrate; AR-V7 decreases citrate
Lipid Metabolism	FASN, ACC, ELOV6, SCD1	Enhanced lipogenesis and fatty acid oxidation	Similar regulation of lipogenic genes
Glutaminolysis	Glutamine transporters, glutaminase	Increased glutamine utilization for anaplerosis	AR-V7 shows enhanced dependence on reductive carboxylation
Pentose Phosphate Pathway	G6PD	Increased NADPH production and nucleotide precursors	Similar upregulation observed

Comparative Analysis of Testosterone Formulations and Metabolic Implications

Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Testosterone Formulations

Various testosterone formulations approved by the FDA exhibit distinct pharmacokinetic properties that influence their metabolic effects and clinical applications [12]:

• Buccal administration: Testosterone tablets (Striant) applied to the gums deliver 30 mg every 12 hours, achieving peak serum levels within 10-12 hours and mimicking physiological circadian rhythm. This route bypasses first-pass metabolism, with serum testosterone levels dropping 2-4 hours after product removal [12].
• Transdermal gels: Formulations including AndroGel, Fortesta, Testim, and Vogelxo provide sustained testosterone delivery, with peak levels occurring 16-24 hours after application and continuous absorption over 24 hours [12].
• Intramuscular injections: Testosterone cypionate and enanthate require administration every 2-4 weeks (50-400 mg), producing supratherapeutic levels 1-5 days post-injection with subsequent decline to subtherapeutic ranges. Testosterone undecanoate offers extended dosing intervals (750 mg every 10 weeks after loading doses) [12].
• Subdermal pellets: Testopel implants (150-450 mg) provide sustained testosterone release over 3-6 months, reaching peak levels at approximately one month with a half-life of 2.5 months [12].

Metabolic Considerations in Formulation Selection

The route of testosterone administration significantly influences its metabolic conversion and tissue-specific effects [12] [13]:

• First-pass metabolism avoidance: Transdermal, buccal, nasal, and intramuscular routes bypass hepatic first-pass metabolism, reducing strain on liver metabolic pathways.
• DHT conversion: Topical applications may result in higher conversion to DHT via skin 5α-reductase activity compared to parenteral routes.
• Estradiol generation: Fluctuations in testosterone levels from longer-acting formulations may influence aromatase-mediated conversion to estradiol, potentially affecting lipid metabolism and cardiovascular risk profiles.
• Tissue-specific metabolism: Different formulations produce varying androgen concentrations in specific tissues, potentially activating distinct metabolic programs in liver, muscle, adipose tissue, and prostate.

Table 3: Comparison of Testosterone Formulations and Metabolic Parameters

Formulation	Dosing Regimen	Peak Concentration	Half-Life	Metabolic Considerations
Buccal (Striant)	30 mg every 12 hours	10-12 hours	Not specified	Mimics circadian rhythm, rapid clearance
Transdermal Gel (AndroGel)	50 mg once daily	16-22 hours	1.3 hours	Stable levels, skin metabolism to DHT
IM Cypionate	50-400 mg every 2-4 weeks	4-5 days post-injection	Not specified	Significant peak-trough fluctuations
IM Undecanoate (Aveed)	750 mg every 10 weeks	7 days post-injection	2.5 months	Stable levels, reduced metabolic fluctuation
Subdermal Pellet (Testopel)	150-450 mg every 3-6 months	~1 month	2.5 months	Most consistent delivery, surgical insertion

Experimental Approaches for Studying Androgen Metabolic Pathways

Methodologies for Metabolic Pathway Analysis

Research into androgen receptor signaling and metabolic regulation employs sophisticated experimental approaches [11]:

• Metabolomic profiling: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) enables quantification of approximately 100 metabolites including glycolytic intermediates, TCA cycle components, amino acids, and nucleotides, providing comprehensive snapshots of metabolic states.
• Metabolic flux analysis: Stable isotope tracing with [U-13C]-glucose or [U-13C]-glutamine allows dynamic assessment of pathway utilization, distinguishing between synthetic and consumptive metabolic processes.
• Seahorse extracellular flux analysis: Simultaneous real-time measurement of extracellular acidification rate (ECAR, indicating glycolysis) and oxygen consumption rate (OCR, indicating mitochondrial respiration) in live cells.
• Transcriptomic and cistromic analyses: RNA sequencing and AR chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-seq) identify direct transcriptional targets of AR signaling, revealing networks of metabolic gene regulation.

Research Reagent Solutions for Androgen Signaling Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Androgen Metabolic Pathway Studies

Reagent/Cell Line	Application	Key Features
LNCaP cells	Prostate cancer model	AR-positive, PSA-producing, responsive to androgens
LNCaP-AR-V7-pHage	Splice variant studies	Doxycycline-inducible AR-V7 expression
[U-13C]-glucose	Metabolic flux analysis	Tracks glucose utilization through glycolytic and TCA pathways
R1881 (synthetic androgen)	AR activation studies	Non-metabolizable androgen analog for controlled experiments
Seahorse XF Analyzer	Bioenergetic profiling	Simultaneous real-time measurement of ECAR and OCR
Anti-AR antibodies	Immunodetection	Western blot, immunohistochemistry, ChIP applications
Enzalutamide/Abiraterone	AR pathway inhibition	Study of resistance mechanisms and adaptive metabolism

Visualization of Androgen Receptor Signaling and Metabolic Integration

Classical AR Signaling Pathway

Figure 1: Classical Androgen Receptor Signaling Pathway. Androgen binding induces AR conformational change, nuclear translocation, dimerization, DNA binding to androgen response elements (AREs), and transcriptional regulation of metabolic genes.

Metabolic Pathway Regulation by AR Signaling

Figure 2: Metabolic Pathways Regulated by AR Signaling. AR activation stimulates glucose uptake, glycolysis, TCA cycle function, lipogenesis, and glutamine utilization, creating an anabolic metabolic state supporting cell growth and proliferation.

Clinical Implications and Therapeutic Perspectives

The metabolic consequences of AR signaling extend beyond prostate cancer to various physiological and pathological conditions. In hypogonadal men, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) improves body composition, insulin sensitivity, and lipid profiles, though these effects vary among formulations [12] [10]. The relationship between testosterone and depression illustrates the complex interplay between hormonal signaling and metabolic states, with low testosterone levels associated with increased depressive symptoms in some populations [10].

Emerging therapeutic strategies target metabolic vulnerabilities in AR-driven diseases [8] [9] [11]:

• Metabolic pathway inhibitors: Drugs targeting glycolysis, glutaminolysis, or lipogenesis may enhance efficacy of conventional AR-directed therapies.
• Formulation-specific approaches: Leveraging pharmacokinetic properties of different testosterone preparations to optimize metabolic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects.
• AR variant-specific strategies: Developing interventions that specifically target the unique metabolic programs activated by AR splice variants like AR-V7.

Future research directions should focus on elucidating the tissue-specific metabolic effects of different androgen formulations, understanding the long-term metabolic consequences of AR-directed therapies, and developing personalized approaches based on individual metabolic profiles and genetic determinants of AR sensitivity [10]. The integration of metabolic imaging with genomic and metabolomic profiling will advance our understanding of androgen-mediated metabolic reprogramming across physiological and disease contexts.

Understanding baseline patient characteristics is crucial for predicting therapeutic responses and personalizing treatment strategies in endocrine pharmacology. This guide examines the roles of Body Mass Index (BMI), vitamin D status, and comorbidities as determinants of response, with a specific focus on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and its metabolic effects. The complex interplay between obesity, vitamin D metabolism, and testosterone signaling creates a physiological context that significantly influences treatment outcomes. Researchers and drug development professionals must consider these factors when designing clinical trials, interpreting results, and developing personalized treatment approaches for metabolic syndrome and hypogonadism.

The Obesity-Vitamin D Interface: Implications for Hormonal Therapies

Mechanistic Insights: How Adiposity Modifies Vitamin D Metabolism and Response

Obesity significantly influences vitamin D metabolism through multiple physiological mechanisms, creating a complex interface that may modify response to hormonal therapies. The association between higher BMI and lower vitamin D levels is consistently observed across epidemiological studies, with several hypotheses proposed to explain this relationship [14] [15] [16].

The volumetric dilution hypothesis suggests that vitamin D, being fat-soluble, becomes distributed within larger adipose tissue volumes in obese individuals, reducing its circulating concentration [16]. Research indicates that nearly three-quarters of native cholecalciferol is stored in fat, while 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) distributes more evenly throughout body tissues (approximately 20% in muscle, 30% in serum, 35% in fat, and 15% in other tissues) [16]. This sequestration mechanism may explain the inverse correlation between BMI and serum 25(OH)D concentrations.

Additional mechanisms include reduced bioavailability due to adipose tissue sequestration of vitamin D3, potentially limiting its availability from both cutaneous synthesis and dietary sources [15]. Some evidence also suggests that obesity may suppress the hepatic enzyme 25-hydroxylase (CYP2R1), impairing conversion of vitamin D to its active metabolites [14]. Furthermore, hormonal pathways may be inhibited in obesity; for instance, leptin from adipocytes might suppress synthesis pathways of active vitamin D metabolites [15].

The clinical significance of these mechanisms is substantial, as evidenced by the VITAL trial, which demonstrated that vitamin D supplementation (2000 IU/d) increased serum 25(OH)D levels less effectively in participants with higher BMI categories [14]. This blunted response may partially explain why vitamin D supplementation showed reduced efficacy for cancer prevention and other health outcomes among individuals with elevated BMI [14].

Analytical Considerations for Vitamin D Assessment in Obesity Research

Accurate measurement of vitamin D metabolites presents methodological challenges that are particularly relevant in obesity research. Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has emerged as the gold standard technique, offering advantages over immunoassays in specificity, sensitivity, and ability to differentiate between vitamin D2 and D3 forms [15].

A critical analytical consideration is the separation of 3-epi-25-hydroxyvitamin-D3 from 25(OH)D3, as failure to do so can lead to overestimation of vitamin D status [15]. Additional isobaric interferences include 7-α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (an endogenous bile acid precursor) and 1α-hydroxyvitamin D3 (an exogenous pharmaceutical compound) [15]. These analytical challenges necessitate sophisticated separation techniques, particularly when assessing vitamin D status in obese populations where accurate quantification is essential for understanding metabolic relationships.

Table 1: Vitamin D Metabolites and Analytical Challenges in Obesity Research

Vitamin D Metabolite	Significance	Analytical Considerations
25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3)	Major circulating form, indicator of status	Must be differentiated from 25(OH)D2; affected by epimer interference
25-hydroxyvitamin D2 (25(OH)D2)	Form from plant sources/fortification	Must be differentiated from 25(OH)D3
3-epi-25-hydroxyvitamin D3	Epimer with uncertain biological activity	Can cause overestimation if not separated from 25(OH)D3
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D)	Biologically active form	Low concentration requires high sensitivity for detection
Free and bioavailable vitamin D	Physiologically active fractions	Calculated based on VDBP and albumin concentrations

BMI as a Determinant of Therapeutic Response

Evidence from Vitamin D Supplementation Trials

The VITAL trial subanalysis provides compelling evidence that BMI significantly modifies response to vitamin D supplementation [14] [17]. Before randomization, serum total 25(OH)D levels demonstrated an inverse relationship with BMI category (adjusted mean: underweight 32.3 ng/mL; normal weight 32.3 ng/mL; overweight 30.5 ng/mL; obesity class I 29.0 ng/mL; obesity class II 28.0 ng/mL; P<.001 for linear trend) [14].

More importantly, after 2 years of supplementation with 2000 IU/d vitamin D3, increases in total 25(OH)D, 25(OH)D3, free vitamin D, and bioavailable vitamin D were "significantly lower at higher BMI categories" (all treatment effect interactions P<.001) [14]. This demonstrates that individuals with obesity require higher doses to achieve similar serum 25(OH)D concentrations as lean individuals, suggesting that weight-based dosing regimens may be necessary for optimal supplementation.

Table 2: BMI-Modified Response to Vitamin D Supplementation in the VITAL Trial

BMI Category	Baseline 25(OH)D (ng/mL)	Post-Supplementation 25(OH)D (ng/mL)	Increase from Baseline
Normal weight (<25 kg/m²)	32.3	45.9	13.6
Overweight (25-30 kg/m²)	30.5	41.4	10.9
Obesity Class I (30-35 kg/m²)	29.0	38.8	9.8
Obesity Class II (>35 kg/m²)	28.0	Not reported	Significantly lower

Implications for Testosterone Therapy and Metabolic Syndrome

The modifying effect of BMI extends to testosterone therapeutics, particularly in the context of metabolic syndrome. Testosterone replacement therapy has demonstrated beneficial effects on several components of metabolic syndrome, with a systematic review and meta-analysis showing significant reductions in waist circumference and triglyceride levels [18]. These effects are particularly relevant for obese individuals with hypogonadism, as TRT may address both hormonal deficiency and metabolic complications.

However, a recent retrospective cohort study raised concerns about long-term testosterone therapy, finding an association with increased major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after adjustment for age, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidities (HR: 1.55; 95% CI, 1.19-2.01) [19]. This highlights the complex risk-benefit profile of TRT in obese populations, where both metabolic benefits and potential cardiovascular risks must be carefully balanced.

The relationship between obesity and testosterone is bidirectional. Weight gain is associated with proportional decreases in both testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), while weight loss correlates with increases in these parameters [18]. This creates a potential feedback loop where obesity contributes to hypogonadism, which in turn may exacerbate metabolic dysfunction.

Metabolic Comorbidities and Medication Effects

Antipsychotic Medications and Metabolic Dysregulation

Second-generation antipsychotic medications represent a clinically important model of iatrogenic metabolic dysregulation. Both risperidone and its active metabolite paliperidone demonstrate notable metabolic side effects that are dose-dependent, including increased fasting glucose, glucose intolerance, and insulin resistance [20].

Preclinical models using female Sprague-Dawley rats have shown that acute treatment with these agents causes rapid metabolic changes, with all but the lowest doses of risperidone increasing fasting glucose, and the three highest doses of both drugs decreasing glucose tolerance [20]. The hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp technique, considered the gold standard for assessing insulin resistance, confirmed that both compounds produce "pronounced insulin resistance" in a dose-dependent manner [20].

These findings have significant clinical implications for patients requiring antipsychotic therapy, particularly those with preexisting obesity or metabolic syndrome. The metabolic effects differ somewhat between drugs, with paliperidone showing somewhat milder effects on fasting glucose compared to risperidone at lower doses [20]. This suggests that even structurally related compounds may have meaningfully different metabolic liabilities, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of individual patient risk factors when selecting pharmacotherapy.

Methodological Considerations for Metabolic Assessment

Standardized methodologies are essential for reliable assessment of metabolic parameters in preclinical and clinical research. Glucose tolerance tests (GTT) and insulin tolerance tests (ITT) represent fundamental tools for evaluating carbohydrate metabolism, but significant methodological heterogeneity exists across studies [21].

Key considerations include fasting duration, with evidence suggesting that overnight fasting (14-18 hours) promotes major weight loss, lean mass loss, and liver glycogen depletion, potentially impairing proper glucose counter-regulatory responses [21]. Shorter fasting periods (2-6 hours) during the light phase may provide more physiologically relevant assessments while minimizing catabolic states [21].

Genetic background of animal models also significantly influences metabolic traits, with different mouse strains showing varying susceptibility to diet-induced metabolic dysfunction [21]. For instance, C57BL/6J mice develop more pronounced insulin resistance and obesity on high-fat diets compared to 129/Sv mice, while FVB/N mice appear most faithful in recapitulating human NASH pathophysiology with associated metabolic comorbidities [21].

Figure 1: Complex Interplay Between Obesity, Vitamin D, and Metabolic Pathways. This diagram illustrates the bidirectional relationships between obesity, vitamin D status, metabolic syndrome, and hormonal therapies that collectively influence therapeutic outcomes.

Experimental Protocols and Research Toolkit

Key Methodologies for Assessing Metabolic Parameters

Intraperitoneal Glucose Tolerance Test (IPGTT) Protocol: Animals are fasted overnight (16±2 hours) and randomly assigned to treatment groups. Baseline blood glucose is measured via saphenous venous blood draw before drug administration. Treatments are administered subcutaneously, followed by another blood draw after 30 minutes to assess effects on fasting glucose. Animals then receive a glucose challenge (1 g/kg/ml, i.p.), with repeated blood sampling every 15 minutes for two hours. Glucose levels are measured using a handheld glucometer [20].

Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp (HIEC) Protocol: Animals are prepared with cannulations of the carotid artery and jugular veins under anesthesia. The arterial cannula allows for continuous blood glucose monitoring, while venous cannulae enable infusion of insulin and dextrose. Insulin is infused at a constant rate to raise and maintain plasma insulin at a predetermined level, while variable dextrose infusion maintains euglycemia. The glucose infusion rate required to maintain euglycemia serves as an index of insulin sensitivity [20].

Vitamin D Metabolite Assessment via UHPLC-MS/MS: Serum samples are processed using protein precipitation with acetonitrile. The supernatant is injected into an UHPLC system equipped with a C18 column maintained at 50°C. Mobile phases typically consist of aqueous ammonium formate and methanol or acetonitrile. Mass spectrometry detection employs electrospray ionization in positive mode with multiple reaction monitoring for specific vitamin D metabolites [15].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Metabolic and Vitamin D Studies

Reagent/Material	Application	Key Considerations
Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)	Quantification of vitamin D metabolites	Enables separation of epimers and isobars; high specificity and sensitivity
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)	Measurement of insulin, adipokines	Commercial kits available for specific analytes; requires validation
Handheld Glucometer	Rapid glucose measurement during tolerance tests	Point-of-care capability; less invasive than laboratory analyzers
Testosterone Formulations (transdermal, injectable)	Hormone replacement studies	Different pharmacokinetic profiles; formulation affects metabolic outcomes
Second-Generation Antipsychotics (risperidone, paliperidone)	Modeling medication-induced metabolic dysfunction	Dose-dependent effects; differences between related compounds
Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) Systems	Separation of complex biological samples	Superior resolution and speed compared to conventional HPLC

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Assessing Determinants of Therapeutic Response. This diagram outlines a systematic approach for investigating how baseline characteristics influence treatment outcomes, highlighting key assessment points and methodological considerations.

Baseline determinants including BMI, vitamin D status, and metabolic comorbidities significantly influence responses to endocrine therapies. The demonstrated blunted response to vitamin D supplementation in individuals with elevated BMI underscores the principle that obesity modifies drug metabolism and response pathways. Similarly, the metabolic effects of testosterone therapy and the metabolic consequences of antipsychotic medications vary substantially based on individual patient characteristics. These findings emphasize the critical importance of considering baseline phenotypes in both clinical practice and research design. Future studies should focus on developing personalized dosing regimens that account for these determinants, particularly for patients with obesity and metabolic syndrome who represent a growing segment of the population requiring endocrine therapies.

Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) has been a widely accepted treatment for men with hypogonadism for over 70 years, yet its long-term cardiovascular safety profile has been the subject of intense scientific debate and conflicting evidence [22]. This controversy emerged prominently in the past decade when several studies suggested an increased risk of cardiovascular events among TRT users, leading to nationwide media coverage and regulatory scrutiny [22]. In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated that manufacturers of testosterone products conduct clinical trials to definitively evaluate whether their products are associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular events [23]. This review analyzes the evolving evidence landscape, focusing on findings from major clinical trials and meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive assessment of the cardiovascular safety profile of TRT when used as indicated in middle-aged and older men with documented hypogonadism.

The clinical significance of resolving this controversy is substantial, given the prevalence of testosterone deficiency. Studies estimate that approximately 2.4 million men in the US between ages 40-69 have testosterone deficiency, a figure projected to increase to 6.5 million by 2025 among men aged 30-80 [22]. The economic impact is similarly significant, with research suggesting that low serum testosterone levels may be directly responsible for approximately $190 to $525 billion in inflation-adjusted US health care expenditures over a 20-year period due to its cardiometabolic sequelae [22].

Key Clinical Evidence: Trial Designs and Methodologies

The TRAVERSE Trial: An FDA-Mandated Safety Study

The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men (TRAVERSE) study was a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial designed specifically to address the cardiovascular safety questions surrounding TRT [23]. The study enrolled 5,204 men aged 45 to 80 years with preexisting cardiovascular disease or high risk of cardiovascular disease and documented hypogonadism (two separate fasting serum testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL) accompanied by symptoms such as reduced libido, decreased spontaneous erections, fatigue, or low mood [23].

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or matching placebo gel. The study implemented rigorous monitoring protocols, with testosterone levels checked at 2, 4, 12, and 26 weeks, and then at 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months. Doses were titrated to maintain testosterone levels between 350-750 ng/dL and hematocrit ≤54%, with sham titrations performed in the placebo arm to maintain blinding [23]. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, with demonstration of noninferiority requiring an upper limit of less than 1.5 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio [23].

Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

A comprehensive meta-analysis published in 2025 systematically evaluated data from 23 randomized controlled trials comprising 9,280 men with testosterone deficiency, of whom 4,800 (51.7%) were randomized to TRT [24]. The mean age of participants was 64.6 years, with baseline total testosterone of 9.17 nmol/L. Researchers searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs comparing TRT versus placebo for men aged ≥40 years with hypogonadism or low to low-normal testosterone levels (≤14 nmol/L) and at least 12 months of follow-up [24]. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using random-effects models, with statistical analyses performed using R version 4.3.1 [24].

Another meta-analysis focused specifically on metabolic parameters searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases without date limits, using keywords including "testosterone therapy", "metabolic syndrome" and "men" [6]. This analysis included studies examining the effects of TRT in male patients with metabolic syndrome while excluding individuals where type 2 diabetes constituted the only diagnosis. The meta-analysis was performed using PQStat v1.8.6 software, with the overall effect size (mean difference) calculated using a random effects model [6].

Table 1: Key Cardiovascular Outcomes from Major Clinical Studies

Outcome Measure	TRAVERSE Trial Results	2025 Meta-Analysis (23 RCTs)	Evidence Certainty
All-Cause Mortality	Not Reported	RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.60-1.19; p=0.33)	Moderate
Cardiovascular Mortality	Similar between groups	RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.65-1.12; p=0.25)	Moderate
Myocardial Infarction	Similar between groups	RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.69-1.28; p=0.70)	High
Stroke	Similar between groups	RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.67-1.50; p=0.99)	High
Cardiac Arrhythmias	Atrial Fibrillation: 3.5% vs 2.4% (Testosterone vs Placebo)	RR 1.53 (95% CI 1.20-1.97; p<0.01)	High
Pulmonary Embolism	0.9% vs 0.5% (Testosterone vs Placebo)	Not Reported	Moderate

Comparative Analysis of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Outcomes

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE)

The TRAVERSE study, representing the largest and most definitive trial to date, found no significant increase in major adverse cardiovascular events among men receiving testosterone therapy compared to placebo [23]. The primary endpoint occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.78-1.17; P < 0.001 for noninferiority) [23]. These findings provide robust evidence that testosterone therapy does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events in middle-aged and older men with documented hypogonadism and preexisting cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk.

Supporting these findings, the 2025 meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials similarly found no significant differences between testosterone and placebo groups in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65-1.12; p = 0.25), stroke (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.67-1.50; p = 0.99), or myocardial infarction (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.69-1.28; p = 0.70) [24]. The consistency between the large TRAVERSE trial and this comprehensive meta-analysis provides compelling evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of TRT when used as indicated.

Specific Cardiovascular Safety Signals

Despite the reassuring findings regarding major cardiovascular events, both the TRAVERSE trial and meta-analyses identified specific cardiovascular safety signals that warrant clinical attention. The 2025 meta-analysis found a statistically significant 53% increase in the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias (RR 1.53; 95% CI 1.20-1.97; p < 0.01) [24]. This finding was corroborated by the TRAVERSE trial, which reported a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation in the testosterone group (3.5%) compared to the placebo group (2.4%) [23].

Additionally, the TRAVERSE trial identified other adverse events occurring at significantly higher incidence with testosterone relative to placebo, including acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%, respectively) and pulmonary embolism (0.9% vs. 0.5%, respectively) [23]. These findings support current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events [23].

Metabolic Parameter Outcomes

Beyond cardiovascular safety, testosterone therapy demonstrates potentially beneficial effects on metabolic parameters relevant to cardiovascular health. A 2024 meta-analysis investigating the effects of TRT on components of metabolic syndrome found significant reductions in waist circumference (95% CI: -0.709 to 0.094; p = 0.011) and triglycerides (95% CI: -0.474 to 0.120; p = 0.039) [6]. These metabolic improvements may contribute to long-term cardiovascular risk reduction, though their clinical significance requires further investigation through dedicated outcomes trials.

Table 2: Metabolic Effects of Testosterone Replacement Therapy

Metabolic Parameter	Effect of Testosterone Therapy	Magnitude of Effect	Statistical Significance
Waist Circumference	Reduction	SMD: -0.307 (95% CI: -0.709 to 0.094)	p = 0.011
Triglycerides	Reduction	SMD: -0.177 (95% CI: -0.474 to 0.120)	p = 0.039
Fasting Glucose	Non-significant decrease	SMD: -0.197 mM (95% CI: -0.428 to 0.331)	p = 0.093
Total Cholesterol	Non-significant decrease	SMD: -0.110 mM (95% CI: -0.341 to 0.120)	p = 0.346
HDL Cholesterol	Non-significant increase	SMD: 0.103 mM (95% CI: -0.269 to 0.475)	p = 0.587

Regulatory Evolution and Current Safety Labeling

The accumulating evidence from rigorous clinical trials has prompted significant regulatory evolution regarding testosterone product labeling. In February 2025, the FDA issued class-wide labeling changes for testosterone products based primarily on the TRAVERSE trial results and findings from required postmarket ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) studies [25]. These changes include adding the results of the TRAVERSE trial to all testosterone products, retaining "Limitation of Use" language for age-related hypogonadism, and removing language from the Boxed Warning related to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes for all testosterone products [25].

Concurrently, based on results from ABPM studies, the FDA is requiring new warnings about increased blood pressure for testosterone products [25]. These consistent results from premarket and postmarket ABPM studies confirmed an increase in blood pressure with use of all testosterone products, class-wide [25]. This regulatory action represents a significant milestone in the cardiovascular safety debate, removing the boxed warning for cardiovascular risk while adding specific precautions regarding blood pressure monitoring.

Research Reagent Solutions and Methodological Tools

Table 3: Essential Research Materials and Methodological Tools

Research Tool	Specific Application	Research Context
R version 4.3.1	Statistical analysis for meta-analysis	Risk ratio pooling with random-effects models [24]
PQStat v1.8.6	Meta-analysis of metabolic parameters	Calculation of overall effect size using random effects model [6]
Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis	Comparison of multiple testosterone formulations	Evaluation of different administration routes on prostate parameters [26]
RoB2 (Cochrane Tool)	Quality assessment of randomized trials	Risk of bias evaluation in RCTs included in meta-analyses [26]
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale	Quality assessment of cohort studies	Evaluation of non-randomized studies in systematic reviews [26]
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring	Postmarket safety studies	Detection of class-wide blood pressure increases [25]

The current evidence from large randomized controlled trials and comprehensive meta-analyses provides substantial reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy when used as indicated in middle-aged and older men with documented hypogonadism. The TRAVERSE study, representing the most definitive trial to date, demonstrated noninferiority of testosterone compared to placebo for major adverse cardiovascular events in high-risk men [23]. These findings are supported by the 2025 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs showing no significant increase in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke [24].

However, specific safety signals have been consistently identified, including increased risks of cardiac arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, and elevated blood pressure [24] [23] [25]. These findings emphasize the importance of appropriate patient selection, regular monitoring, and cautious use in men with specific risk factors such as history of thromboembolic events or atrial fibrillation.

Future research should focus on long-term effects beyond the typical 2-3 year study period, comparative effectiveness of different testosterone formulations, and personalized approaches to identify individuals who may derive the greatest benefit with the lowest risk. The evolving regulatory landscape, including the recent FDA removal of the cardiovascular boxed warning, reflects this more nuanced understanding of testosterone therapy's risk-benefit profile [25]. As research continues to refine our understanding, clinicians must balance these evidence-based insights with individualized clinical judgment when considering testosterone therapy for men with documented hypogonadism.

Research Methodologies for Assessing Long-Term Metabolic Impact

Choosing an appropriate study design is a critical first step in clinical research, as it directly shapes the validity, applicability, and interpretability of the findings. Within the specific context of investigating the long-term metabolic effects of different testosterone formulations, researchers must navigate a complex landscape of methodological options, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent the traditional gold standard for establishing efficacy, while observational studies, particularly retrospective cohort designs, provide valuable insights into effectiveness in real-world settings. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses sit at the top of the evidence hierarchy, synthesizing all available data to provide more precise effect estimates.

The comparative long-term metabolic effects of testosterone formulations—such as transdermal gels, injectable esters, and buccal systems—present a compelling case study for examining these methodologies. Research questions in this domain often involve outcomes that develop over extended periods (e.g., insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, lipid profile changes), creating practical and ethical challenges for experimental designs. This guide objectively compares the three primary study design paradigms, providing researchers with a framework for selecting the most appropriate methodology for their specific investigative goals related to testosterone therapeutics.

Defining the Study Designs

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are experimental studies in which investigators actively assign eligible participants to different intervention groups using a random process. The fundamental principle underpinning RCTs is that random allocation, when properly executed, creates groups that are comparable in both known and unknown prognostic factors at baseline, thereby minimizing selection bias and confounding [27]. This design is particularly well-suited for establishing the efficacy of an intervention—that is, its effect under ideal and controlled conditions.

In the context of testosterone research, a typical RCT might involve recruiting hypogonadal men and randomly assigning them to receive either a novel testosterone formulation, an established formulation, or a placebo. Participants would be followed prospectively according to a pre-specified protocol with standardized outcome assessments. The recent TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men) trial is a prime example of a large, RCT designed primarily to assess the cardiovascular safety of testosterone therapy [19].

Retrospective Cohort Studies

A Retrospective Cohort Study is an observational design in which the investigator identifies a cohort that was assembled in the past, collects data on exposure (e.g., testosterone formulation) from existing records, and ascertains outcome events that have already occurred or are prospectively collected from a defined point onwards [28]. Unlike RCTs, there is no active intervention by the researcher; the assignment to "exposed" or "unexposed" groups is based on treatment decisions made in routine clinical practice.

For example, a researcher might use linked electronic health records to identify all men aged 50 and older who were prescribed a testosterone formulation (e.g., transdermal gel or injectable undecanoate) between 2012 and 2015. Using existing data, the researcher would then "follow" these groups forward in time to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) up to 2022, adjusting for baseline differences in age, comorbidities, and other cardiovascular risk factors [19]. The key advantage of this design is its efficiency for studying long-term outcomes, as the follow-up time has already elapsed.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

A Systematic Review is a formal research study that collects and critically appraises all available evidence on a specific, focused research question. A Meta-Analysis is the statistical component that quantitatively combines the results of multiple independent studies that are considered sufficiently similar [29]. When conducted rigorously, this methodology provides the most precise estimate of an intervention's effect and is considered the highest level of evidence in the research pyramid.

A systematic review on the comparative metabolic effects of testosterone formulations would involve a comprehensive, pre-planned search of multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central) to identify all relevant RCTs and observational studies. The included studies would be assessed for risk of bias, and their results might be statistically pooled in a meta-analysis to provide a summary measure of the effect of, for instance, transdermal versus injectable testosterone on hemoglobin A1c or LDL-cholesterol levels [30].

Comparative Analysis of Methodologies

Table 1: Core Characteristics and Applications of Study Designs

Feature	Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)	Retrospective Cohort Study	Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review
Core Design	Experimental, Prospective	Observational, Retrospective	Synthesis of existing research
Key Principle	Random allocation to groups	Observation of naturalistic exposures	Systematic and reproducible search & appraisal
Primary Strength	High internal validity; controls for known and unknown confounding	High external validity (real-world); efficient for long-term/rare outcomes; can use large existing datasets [28] [31]	Highest level of evidence; provides most precise effect estimate [29]
Primary Limitation	May lack generalizability; expensive and time-consuming; can be unethical for some questions [27]	Susceptible to confounding and biases (e.g., selection, information) [28]	Susceptible to biases in primary studies and publication bias; "garbage in, garbage out" [32]
Ideal Application in Testosterone Research	Establishing causal efficacy and short-to-medium-term safety of a new formulation (e.g., TRAVERSE trial) [19]	Studying long-term real-world effectiveness and safety of established formulations (e.g., CV risk over 5+ years) [19]	Answering a specific clinical question by summarizing all available evidence (e.g., effect of testosterone on insulin sensitivity)

Table 2: Comparison of Practical Research Considerations

Consideration	Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)	Retrospective Cohort Study	Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review
Time & Cost	Very high	Relatively low cost and faster, as data already exists [28]	Variable (can be moderate to high)
Control Over Data	High (protocol-driven)	Low (dependent on pre-existing data quality and completeness) [28]	None (dependent on primary studies)
Risk of Bias & Confounding	Low at baseline, but subject to post-randomization biases (e.g., drop-out)	High risk of residual confounding by indication and other unmeasured factors [33]	Risk of publication bias and selective reporting within included studies [29]
Ethical Approval	Always required	Often required, but regulations vary internationally; may be exempt if using fully anonymized data [34]	Not required for the synthesis itself, but relies on ethically conducted primary studies
Outcome	Can prespecify and standardize outcome measurement	Outcome measurement may be inconsistent or incomplete across the dataset [28]	Dependent on how outcomes were defined and measured in primary studies

Experimental Protocols in Testosterone Research

Protocol for an RCT: The TRAVERSE Trial Design

The TRAVERSE trial serves as a benchmark for a high-quality RCT in testosterone therapy. Its primary objective was to determine the effect of testosterone-replacement therapy on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in hypogonadal men aged 45-80 with pre-existing or high risk of cardiovascular disease [19].

• Population & Recruitment: The study enrolled about 6,000 men with unequivocally low testosterone levels and prevalent cardiovascular disease. Participants were recruited from numerous clinical sites, ensuring a diverse sample.
• Randomization & Blinding: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either topical testosterone gel (1%) or a matching placebo gel. This was a double-blind study, meaning neither the participants nor the investigators knew the group assignments, which is critical for minimizing performance and detection bias.
• Intervention & Follow-up: The intervention was applied daily, and adherence was monitored. Participants were followed for a median of 33 months for the primary outcome. The long follow-up was essential to accrue enough MACE endpoints for a robust analysis.
• Outcomes: The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. Numerous secondary outcomes were also pre-specified, including mortality from any cause, fractures, and progression of prostate cancer.
• Analysis: The analysis was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle, which analyzes participants in the groups to which they were randomized, regardless of adherence. This preserves the benefit of randomization in creating comparable groups.

Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study

A recent study investigating the association between long-term testosterone therapy and MACE exemplifies a robust retrospective cohort design [19].

• Data Source & Cohort Definition: The study used linked, pseudonymized health data from the National Health Service (NHS) Greater Glasgow and Clyde population. The source population was all men aged 51 and older as of January 1, 2012.
• Exposure Definition: The "exposed" group consisted of men who had received at least two testosterone prescriptions separated by a minimum of two years during a 5-year exposure window (2012-2016). This definition aimed to identify sustained users rather than those on transient therapy. The "unexposed" group were men with no recorded testosterone prescriptions in the same period.
• Follow-up and Outcome Ascertainment: Follow-up for both groups started on January 1, 2017, and continued until the first MACE, non-cardiovascular death, or the end of the study (December 31, 2022). MACE was a composite outcome defined using validated International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes from hospital admissions and mortality records.
• Statistical Analysis & Confounding Control: The association was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. A major strength was the adjustment for a wide range of potential confounders extracted from the health records, including age, socioeconomic status, diabetes, hypertension, and other comorbidities. The study also conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test the robustness of the findings.

Visualizing Research Design Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical structure and workflow of each study design, highlighting key decision points and potential biases.

Diagram 1: RCT workflow with randomization ensuring group comparability.

Diagram 2: Retrospective cohort workflow showing classification by past exposure.

Diagram 3: Systematic review and meta-analysis workflow emphasizing systematic methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Testosterone Research

Reagent / Material	Primary Function	Application Example
Testosterone Formulations	The investigative intervention or exposure in a study. Different formulations have distinct pharmacokinetics.	Comparing the metabolic effects of transdermal gels vs. long-acting injectable esters (e.g., testosterone undecanoate).
LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry)	The gold-standard method for accurately quantifying serum testosterone levels. Essential for confirming hypogonadism and monitoring therapy.	Measuring free and total testosterone levels at baseline and during follow-up in an RCT to ensure protocol adherence and physiologic response.
ELISA/Kits (e.g., for HbA1c, LDL, PSA)	To quantify biomarkers and metabolic outcomes of interest in serum/plasma samples.	Measuring changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a marker of glycemic control or LDL-cholesterol as part of a lipid panel in long-term safety studies.
Validated Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures	To quantitatively assess symptoms and quality of life, which are crucial endpoints for testosterone therapy.	Using the Aging Males' Symptoms (AMS) scale or the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) in clinical trials to measure symptomatic improvement.
Electronic Health Record (EHR) Systems with Data Linkage	Serve as the data source for retrospective cohort studies, containing records on prescriptions, diagnoses, and outcomes.	Identifying a cohort of testosterone users and extracting data on co-morbidities and incident MACE for a long-term safety study [19].

The body of evidence regarding the long-term metabolic effects of testosterone formulations is best built through the complementary use of RCTs, retrospective cohort studies, and meta-analyses. The recent TRAVERSE RCT provides high-quality reassurance about the medium-term cardiovascular safety of testosterone therapy, directly addressing concerns raised by earlier observational studies [19]. Meanwhile, well-conducted retrospective cohort studies continue to provide unique insights into real-world prescribing patterns, long-term adherence, and outcomes in populations often excluded from RCTs.

A meta-epidemiological study comparing bodies of evidence from RCTs and cohort studies found that on average, their pooled effect estimates did not differ significantly, though statistical heterogeneity was often high and driven by differences in populations, interventions, and outcomes [30]. This underscores that while RCTs are unparalleled for establishing internal validity, observational studies are not inherently invalid; rather, their quality depends on the rigor of their design and analysis, including the use of advanced methods to control for confounding [31].

For the clinical researcher, the choice is not about finding a single "best" design, but about selecting the most appropriate and feasible methodology to answer a specific research question. Triangulation of evidence—where consistent findings emerge from different study designs, each with different underlying assumptions and biases—provides the strongest foundation for clinical decision-making [31]. In the evolving landscape of testosterone research, embracing this multi-faceted methodological approach is key to generating the robust evidence needed to guide safe and effective patient care.

Within the evolving landscape of androgen research, a critical thesis is emerging: different testosterone formulations exert distinct long-term metabolic effects. Understanding these nuances is paramount for developing targeted therapies for hypogonadal men, particularly those with co-existing metabolic syndrome. This guide provides a systematic comparison of the metabolic performance of key testosterone formulations—specifically testosterone undecanoate, enanthate, and cypionate—by synthesizing experimental data on their effects on body composition, insulin sensitivity, and lipid parameters. The evidence presented serves the research community in making informed decisions for both clinical trial design and therapeutic development.

Comparative Metabolic Performance of Testosterone Formulations

Table 1: Comparative Effects of Testosterone Formulations on Key Metabolic Parameters

Metabolic Endpoint	Testosterone Undecanoate	Testosterone Enanthate	Testosterone Cypionate	References
Body Composition
⋄ Lean Body Mass Increase	+++ (∼3.2 kg after 9 months)	+ (Data varies by study)	++ (Significant in multiple trials)	[35] [36]
⋄ Fat Mass Reduction	++ (Truncal fat decreased significantly)	+ (Moderate reduction)	++ (Consistent reduction observed)	[35] [37]
⋄ Waist Circumference	+++ (∼4.7 cm decrease)	+/– (Inconsistent reports)	+ (Mild to moderate decrease)	[35] [18]
Insulin Sensitivity
⋄ HOMA-IR	+++ (Marked improvement)	+/– (No significant change in some studies)	+ (Improvement noted)	[35] [37]
⋄ HOMA-%S	+++ (Substantial increase)	Not fully established	Not fully established	[35]
⋄ Fasting C-peptide	+++ (Significant decrease)	Data limited	Data limited	[35]
Lipidomics & Cardiometabolic Markers
⋄ Triglycerides	++ (Significant decrease)	+/– (Neutral effect)	+ (Mild decrease)	[18]
⋄ HDL-C	+/– (Non-significant change)	+/– (Neutral effect)	– (Decrease observed in some studies)	[37] [18]
⋄ LDL-C	Neutral	Data limited	Data limited	[18]

Key to Interpretation

• +++: Strong, consistent evidence of benefit.
• ++: Moderate evidence of benefit.
• +: Mild or variable evidence of benefit.
• +/–: Neutral or conflicting evidence.
• –: Potential for adverse effect.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To critically appraise the data in Table 1, understanding the underlying experimental designs is crucial. The following section details the key methodologies used to generate the comparative evidence.

Protocol 1: Longitudinal Body Composition and Metabolic Syndrome Assessment

This protocol is characteristic of studies investigating the long-acting injectable testosterone undecanoate [35].

• Objective: To evaluate the effects of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MS), insulin resistance (IR), and whole-body composition in patients with congenital hypogonadism.
• Population: 33 hypogonadal males (age 20-39) compared with age- and BMI-matched healthy controls. A subset of 21 previously untreated patients underwent prospective intervention.
• Intervention: Intramuscular injection of testosterone undecanoate (1,000 mg). The initial two doses were administered 6 weeks apart, followed by subsequent injections every 12 weeks for a total study duration of 9 months.
• Key Assessments:
  • Body Composition: Measured using Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) at baseline and 9 months to determine lean body mass, total fat mass, and truncal fat percentage.
  • Metabolic Syndrome Parameters: Waist circumference, blood pressure, fasting lipids, and glucose were assessed according to NCEP-ATP III criteria.
  • Insulin Resistance/Sensitivity: Calculated using the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA-IR and HOMA-%S). Additional beta-cell function markers like fasting C-peptide and proinsulin were also measured.
• Analysis: A pre-post design within the intervention group compared outcomes at baseline and 9 months.

Protocol 2: Randomized Controlled Trial on Insulin Sensitivity and Substrate Metabolism

This protocol represents a high-standard, placebo-controlled design, often used with transdermal or shorter-acting esters to assess mechanistic endpoints [37].

• Objective: To investigate the effect of testosterone therapy on insulin sensitivity, substrate metabolism, body composition, and lipids in aging men with low-normal bioavailable testosterone.
• Population: 38 men, aged 60-78, with bioavailable testosterone <7.3 nmol/L and waist circumference >94 cm.
• Intervention: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. The active group received testosterone gel (50-100 mg daily) for 6 months.
• Key Assessments:
  • Insulin Sensitivity: The gold-standard method for this review. Assessed via a euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp combined with a primed-constant [3-3H]-glucose infusion to measure insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (Rd).
  • Substrate Oxidation: Measured using indirect calorimetry during the clamp to determine basal lipid and glucose oxidation rates.
  • Body Composition: Measured by DXA to quantify changes in lean body mass (LBM) and total fat mass (TFM).
• Analysis: Placebo-controlled mean effects of the intervention were calculated.

Protocol 3: Meta-Analysis of Metabolic Syndrome Components

This methodology synthesizes data across multiple studies and formulations to provide a broader perspective [18].

• Objective: To determine the direct impact of testosterone therapy on the components of metabolic syndrome in men through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
• Data Sources: Systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases without date limits.
• Study Selection: Focused on studies involving men with metabolic syndrome, excluding those where type 2 diabetes was the sole diagnosis. Included studies utilized various TRT formulations (intramuscular, transdermal).
• Analysis: A meta-analysis was performed using statistical software (PQStat) to calculate the overall effect size (standardized mean difference) for components like waist circumference, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol, using a random effects model.

Metabolic Pathway and Experimental Workflow

The following diagram synthesizes the primary metabolic pathways affected by testosterone replacement therapy, based on the findings from the cited experimental data. It illustrates the mechanistic link between TRT, the key metabolic endpoints of body composition, insulin sensitivity, and lipidomics, and the resulting physiological outcomes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for Metabolic Studies of Testosterone Formulations

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Specific Examples & Notes
Testosterone Formulations	Investigational products for intervention.	Testosterone Undecanoate: Long-acting injectable (e.g., Nebido). Testosterone Enanthate/Cypionate: Shorter-acting injectables. Testosterone Gel: Transdermal delivery (e.g., Testim, Androgel) [35] [37] [38].
Hormone Assay Kits	Quantifying serum total testosterone, SHBG, LH, FSH.	Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS): Gold standard for total testosterone [37]. Immunoassays: For SHBG, LH, FSH (e.g., autoDELFIA assay). Calculated bioavailable testosterone is common [37].
Body Composition Analysis	Precise measurement of lean mass, fat mass, and regional fat.	Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA): Core technology for whole-body composition (e.g., Hologic Discovery device) [35] [37].
Insulin Sensitivity Assessment	Defining glucose metabolism and insulin action.	Euglycemic-Hyperinsulinemic Clamp: Gold-standard method for measuring insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (Rd) [37]. HOMA Modeling: Calculated from fasting glucose and insulin to estimate IR (HOMA-IR) and sensitivity (HOMA-%S) [35].
Substrate Oxidation Measurement	Assessing metabolic fuel utilization.	Indirect Calorimetry: Performed during clamps to measure basal lipid and glucose oxidation rates [37].
Lipid Profile Assays	Standardized measurement of cardiometabolic risk markers.	Automated Clinical Chemistry Analyzers: For fasting triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C (e.g., RX Imola autoanalyzer) [35] [18].

The comparative data reveals a compelling narrative: testosterone undecanoate demonstrates a robust and consistent profile across all three metabolic endpoints—body composition, insulin sensitivity, and key lipid parameters. Shorter-acting esters like enanthate and cypionate show pronounced benefits on lean body mass but present a more variable, and at times neutral, impact on insulin sensitivity and lipidomics, particularly HDL-C. These differential effects are likely influenced by pharmacokinetics, with stable levels from long-acting or frequently administered regimens potentially offering superior metabolic outcomes. This analysis underscores the necessity for future comparative trials to control for formulation, dosing frequency, and population characteristics to fully elucidate the long-term metabolic destinies of these therapeutic agents.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Monitoring in Chronic Dosing Regimens

The long-term management of chronic conditions with testosterone replacement therapy (TTh) necessitates a deep understanding of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) principles. PK describes the time course of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME), while PD examines the biochemical and physiological effects of the drug and its mechanism of action [39]. The interplay between these disciplines enables researchers and clinicians to optimize dosing regimens, maximize therapeutic efficacy, and minimize adverse effects for chronic treatments. In the context of testosterone formulations, which exhibit significantly different PK/PD profiles based on their route of administration, systematic monitoring is particularly crucial for assessing long-term metabolic outcomes and cardiovascular safety [12] [40]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of testosterone formulations, detailing experimental methodologies for PK/PD monitoring and exploring their implications for chronic use.

Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Testosterone Formulations

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Approved Formulations

Testosterone formulations approved by the FDA encompass buccal, nasal, subdermal, transdermal, and intramuscular routes of delivery [12]. Each exhibits a distinct PK profile, characterized by variations in peak concentration (C~max~), time to peak (T~max~), and trough concentration (C~min~), which critically influence their suitability for chronic dosing.

Table 1: Comparative Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Testosterone Formulations

Formulation	Dosing Frequency	Mean C~max~ (ng/dL)	Time to C~max~	Mean C~min~ (ng/dL)	Key PK Characteristics
Buccal (Striant)	Every 12 hours	580-700 [12]	10-12 hours [12]	N/A	Levels drop 2-4 hrs after removal; mimics circadian rhythm [12]
Nasal (Natesto)	3 times daily	N/A	~40 minutes [12]	N/A	Very short half-life (10-100 min) [12]
Subdermal Pellet	Every 3-6 months	Peaks at ~1 month [12]	1 month [12]	N/A	Long half-life (~2.5 months) [12]
Transdermal Gel (AndroGel)	Once daily	Peak at 16-22 hrs [12]	16-22 hours [12]	N/A	Continuous absorption over 24 hrs [12]
Transdermal Solution (Axiron)	Once daily	N/A	2-4 hours [12]	N/A	Remains in range through 24-hr period [12]
IM Cypionate/Enanthate	Every 2-4 weeks	Supra-therapeutic at 36-48 hrs [12]	36-48 hours [12]	Sub-therapeutic by day 14 [12]	Large peak-to-trough fluctuations [12]
SC Testosterone Enanthate	Once weekly	789.8 ± 215.4 [40]	Median 11.9 hrs [40]	435.6 ± 109.2 [40]	Low peak-to-trough ratio (1.8); stable weekly profile [40]

The PK profiles of these formulations directly impact their PD effects and monitoring requirements. Intramuscular injections (e.g., testosterone cypionate) produce large fluctuations in serum testosterone levels, leading to supra-physiological peaks shortly after injection and sub-physiological troughs before the next dose [12]. These swings can correlate with fluctuations in mood, energy, and libido [12]. In contrast, transdermal gels and subcutaneous injections provide more stable serum concentrations, with SC testosterone enanthate demonstrating a low peak-to-trough ratio of 1.8, minimizing intra-patient variability [40]. The objective of TTh is to restore and maintain serum testosterone levels within the physiologic range (typically 400-700 ng/dL), and the chosen formulation's PK dictates the monitoring strategy [12] [41].

Monitoring Protocols and Timing

Appropriate timing for monitoring serum testosterone levels is critical for accurate interpretation and depends entirely on the PK properties of the formulation.

• Transdermal Gels (AndroGel, Fortesta, Vogelxo): Serum levels should be monitored 14 days after initiation or dose adjustment. For AndroGel and Vogelxo, the level should be checked prior to the morning dose, while for Fortesta, it is measured 2 hours after application [12] [41].
• Transdermal Solution (Axiron): Monitoring is recommended 14 days after initiation, 2-8 hours after the morning application [12] [41].
• Nasal Gel (Natesto): Serum testosterone should be assessed periodically, as soon as 1 month after therapy initiation [12].
• Buccal System (Striant): Levels should be checked between 4-12 weeks after initiation, immediately before or after a dose is applied [12].
• Intramuscular Injections (Cypionate/Enanthate): The trough level should be measured approximately 1 week after the injection [12].
• Subcutaneous Auto-injector (XYOSTED): Dosing is guided by trough concentration, with levels checked to ensure they remain within the physiologic range [40].
• Subdermal Pellets: Testosterone levels are monitored at the end of the dosing interval (e.g., 3-6 months) [12].

The following workflow outlines the standard protocol for initiating and monitoring a chronic testosterone therapy regimen.

Diagram 1: TRT Initiation and Monitoring Workflow. This chart outlines the standard clinical protocol for initiating testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and conducting pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) monitoring.

Pharmacodynamic Monitoring and Long-Term Metabolic Effects

Relationship Between Testosterone Deficiency and Metabolic Syndrome

Testosterone is not only a sexual hormone but also a crucial metabolic and vascular regulator [42]. A strong bidirectional relationship exists between testosterone deficiency (TD) and metabolic syndrome (MetS), a cluster of conditions that increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes [43] [42]. TD promotes adipogenesis, particularly visceral fat accumulation, which in turn creates a state of inflammation and releases biochemical factors that further suppress testosterone biosynthesis [42]. Cross-sectional studies show that men with TD have a significantly increased risk of MetS, with odds ratios of 1.58 (95% CI: 1.31–1.94) for middle-aged men and 2.32 (95% CI: 1.71–3.13) for elderly men [43]. The cut-off value of total testosterone for predicting MetS was found to be 4.2 ng/mL in middle-aged men and 3.9 ng/mL in older men [43].

Effects of Testosterone Therapy on Metabolic Parameters

Long-term testosterone therapy can positively impact the components of MetS. The therapeutic effects of TTh on metabolic health are mediated through a multi-organ signaling pathway.

Diagram 2: Testosterone Therapy Metabolic Effects Pathway. This diagram illustrates the primary pharmacodynamic pathways through which testosterone therapy exerts its positive effects on metabolic parameters.

Table 2: Long-Term Metabolic Effects of Testosterone Therapy

Metabolic Parameter	Reported Change with TTh	Supporting Evidence
Fat Mass & Visceral Obesity	Significant decrease	-1.05 ± 0.22 kg in one study; reduced WC [42]
Lean Body Mass	Significant increase	+2.74 ± 0.28 kg [42]
Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR)	Marked improvement	Reduction of -1.73 ± 0.67 [42]
Glycemic Control	Improvement	Reduction in HbA1c (-0.44% ± 0.17%) and fasting glucose (-0.85 ± 0.24 mmol/L) [42]
Lipid Profile	Mixed effects	Reduction in total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL-C; possible reduction in HDL-C [42]
Blood Pressure	Improvement	Reduction in systolic and diastolic BP reported [42]

The magnitude and timing of these PD effects vary. Initial changes in body composition and insulin sensitivity may be observed within 3-6 months, while maximum effects on certain parameters may take 1 year or more [12] [40]. This underscores the necessity of long-term PD monitoring in chronic dosing regimens.

Experimental Data and Cardiovascular Safety Considerations

Comparative Clinical Data and Formulation-Specific Outcomes

Clinical trials provide critical data for comparing the performance of different TTh formulations. A phase III trial of buccal testosterone in 82 men over 12 weeks sustained mean serum testosterone levels between 580–700 ng/dL throughout the treatment period, with 80% of subjects maintaining levels above the lower normal limit for the majority of a 24-hour period [12]. For subcutaneous auto-injectors, a 52-week phase III study demonstrated that 92.7% of patients achieved trough-guided testosterone levels within the physiologic range (300–1100 ng/dL), with a mean peak-to-trough ratio of 1.8, indicating stable exposure [40].

The primary formulation-specific adverse effects are related to the route of administration: gum disorders for buccal, nasal discomfort for nasal, skin reactions for transdermal, and pain/inflammation at the injection site for IM and SC routes [12]. A serious class-wide adverse effect is polycythemia (elevated hematocrit), which requires regular monitoring, especially during the first year of treatment [12].

Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk Data

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of long-term testosterone therapy remains a key area of research. Recent randomized trials like the TRAVERSE study have provided reassurance regarding the short- to medium-term CV safety of TTh, reporting no significant increase in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [19]. However, a recent large retrospective cohort study with extended follow-up presented contrasting findings. This 2025 study of men aged 51 and older reported that long-term testosterone exposure (defined as at least a 2-year interval between first and last prescription) was associated with a 54% increased risk of MACE in unadjusted analysis (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.18–2.00) and a 55% increased risk after adjustment for covariates (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.19–2.01) [19]. This highlights the need for more long-term data and careful CV risk assessment in patients on chronic TTh, as study outcomes may vary based on population, follow-up duration, and TTh formulation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for PK/PD Studies

Item/Solution	Function in PK/PD Research
Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)	Gold-standard analytical method for accurate quantification of drug (testosterone) and metabolite concentrations in biological samples (serum, plasma) [39].
Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA)	Widely used clinical method for measuring total testosterone levels in serum; essential for therapeutic drug monitoring [44].
Specific Antibody Kits	Used in ELISA or other immunoassays to quantify biomarkers of PD effects (e.g., PSA, LH, FSH, HbA1c) [44] [42].
Pre-Validated Animal Models	Preclinical models (e.g., rodents) for assessing bioavailability, toxicity, and initial PK/PD relationships before human trials [39].
PK/PD Modeling Software	Software platforms (e.g., R, NONMEM, Phoenix) for performing population PK analysis, non-compartmental analysis, and modeling exposure-response relationships [19] [39].
International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) Codes	Essential for retrospective cohort studies using linked health data to identify patient populations and outcomes like MACE [19].

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic monitoring of chronic testosterone dosing regimens is a complex but essential component of endocrine research and clinical practice. The significant differences in PK profiles between formulations—from the rapid fluctuations of intramuscular injections to the steady-state levels achieved by transdermal and subcutaneous routes—directly influence monitoring protocols, dose titration strategies, and potentially, long-term PD outcomes. While accumulating evidence suggests that stable testosterone restoration can improve body composition and components of metabolic syndrome, the long-term cardiovascular safety profile requires further rigorous, prospective study. Future research should focus on head-to-head comparisons of different formulations, the development of optimized monitoring protocols that integrate PK and PD biomarkers, and the continued investigation into the mechanisms linking testosterone therapy to metabolic and cardiovascular health.

Standardizing Biomarker Assessment for Cross-Study Comparisons

The comparison of biomarker data across different clinical studies is fundamental to advancing medical research, particularly in areas like male hypogonadism and metabolic syndrome. However, the lack of standardized assessment methods presents a significant challenge for researchers attempting to synthesize evidence or compare therapeutic outcomes. Biomarker measurements are often unique to specific analytes, assays, and individual studies, creating substantial barriers to meaningful cross-study comparison and meta-analysis [45]. This methodological inconsistency is especially problematic when evaluating the long-term metabolic effects of different testosterone formulations, where standardized biomarkers are essential for determining comparative efficacy and safety profiles.

The field of testosterone therapy (TT) research exemplifies these challenges, particularly when assessing prostate safety parameters and metabolic outcomes across different administration routes. Without standardized approaches, comparing results from studies utilizing intramuscular injections, transdermal applications, oral formulations, and patches becomes methodologically problematic [26]. This standardization gap impedes consensus-building and complicates clinical decision-making for healthcare providers seeking to optimize TT regimens based on robust comparative evidence.

Recent initiatives in other therapeutic areas demonstrate the transformative potential of standardized biomarker frameworks. In Alzheimer's disease research, the introduction of the CentiMarker approach has enabled quantitative comparisons across diverse biomarkers by establishing a common scale from normal (0) to nearly maximum abnormal (100) ranges [45]. Similarly, emerging fields like vocal biomarker development are recognizing the necessity of master protocols to reduce variability and advance clinical precision [46]. These developments offer valuable methodological templates for standardizing biomarker assessment in testosterone therapy research.

Established Standardization Frameworks and Their Methodologies

The CentiMarker Framework for Quantitative Standardization

The CentiMarker approach represents a sophisticated methodological framework for standardizing biomarker measurements, originally developed for Alzheimer's disease research but with broad applicability across therapeutic areas. This system transforms raw biomarker values onto a standardized scale between 0 (representing normal ranges) and 100 (representing nearly maximum abnormal ranges for the specific disease state) [45]. The methodology involves three critical steps that can be adapted for testosterone therapy research:

• Identification of CentiMarker-0 (CM-0) Dataset: Establishment of a reference dataset representing normal biomarker values, typically derived from appropriate control groups. In the original implementation, researchers utilized data from asymptomatic non-mutation carriers, with statistical outlier removal procedures applied to refine the reference population [45].

• Identification of CentiMarker-100 (CM-100) Dataset: Selection of a dataset representing severely abnormal biomarker values, often from populations with advanced disease states or maximum pathological burden.

• CentiMarker Calculation: Application of a standardized transformation formula to convert raw biomarker values to the unified 0-100 scale, enabling direct comparison across different biomarkers, assays, and study populations [45].

This approach facilitates more comparable assessment of treatment effects across various biomarkers than when using original measurement scales, making it particularly valuable for evaluating the multidimensional effects of different testosterone formulations.

Master Protocols for Methodological Standardization

The development of master protocols represents another strategic approach to standardizing biomarker assessment across studies. These predefined, standardized frameworks guide the design and execution of multiple related clinical studies within a single overarching protocol, enabling harmonized data collection, consistent methodologies, and improved comparability across studies [46]. While initially conceptualized for digital and vocal biomarker development, the core principles are directly applicable to testosterone therapy research:

Master protocols address multiple sources of methodological variability that compromise cross-study comparisons, including:

• Data collection procedures and timing
• Sample processing and storage conditions
• Analytical techniques and platforms
• Feature extraction algorithms
• Statistical analysis approaches

The implementation of such frameworks in testosterone therapy research would specifically enhance the comparability of long-term metabolic effects across different formulation studies by ensuring consistent measurement of key parameters such as lipid profiles, insulin sensitivity, body composition, and prostate safety markers.

Standardized Assessment of Testosterone Formulations: Current Evidence

Quantitative Comparison of Testosterone Formulations

Table 1: Comparative Metabolic Effects of Different Testosterone Therapy Formulations

Therapeutic Formulation	Waist Circumference Reduction	Triglycerides Reduction	HDL Cholesterol Impact	Prostate Safety Profile
Intramuscular Injection	Significant reduction [6]	Significant reduction [6]	Non-significant increase [6]	Lowest prostate cancer risk among formulations [26]
Transdermal Gel	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Intermediate prostate safety risk [26]
Oral Formulations	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Higher prostate safety risk [26]
Patches	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available	Data not specifically available

Table 2: Standardized Biomarker Assessment in Metabolic Syndrome Parameters

Metabolic Parameter	Standardized Assessment Method	Clinical Thresholds	Testosterone Therapy Impact
Waist Circumference	Direct anatomical measurement	M: ≥94 cm; F: ≥80 cm [6]	Significant improvement [6]
Triglycerides	Standardized laboratory assay	≥150 mg/dL [6]	Significant reduction [6]
HDL Cholesterol	Standardized laboratory assay	M: <40 mg/dL; F: <50 mg/dL [6]	Non-significant improvement [6]
Fasting Glucose	Standardized laboratory assay	≥100 mg/dL [6]	Non-significant reduction [6]
Blood Pressure	Automated or manual sphygmomanometer	Systolic ≥130 or Diastolic ≥85 mmHg [6]	Data not specifically available

The quantitative evidence summarized in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrates the current state of comparative effectiveness research for different testosterone formulations. Intramuscular injection emerges as a particularly favorable formulation based on available evidence, showing significant improvements in key metabolic parameters including waist circumference and triglycerides, along with the most favorable prostate safety profile among administration routes [6] [26]. This formulation also demonstrated a superior profile in minimizing prostate cancer cases and resulting in fewer prostate biopsy cases compared to transdermal formulations [26].

Notably, the overall evidence base remains fragmented due to methodological variability across studies, particularly for transdermal, oral, and patch formulations where specific quantitative data for many metabolic parameters were not available in the analyzed literature. This evidence gap highlights the critical need for standardized biomarker assessment protocols that would enable more comprehensive and reliable comparisons across all testosterone formulation types.

Experimental Protocols for Biomarker Standardization

CentiMarker Calculation Protocol

The implementation of standardized biomarker assessment requires rigorous methodological protocols. The following detailed methodology for CentiMarker calculation can be adapted for testosterone therapy research:

Sample Preparation and Data Collection:

• Establish standardized inclusion criteria for reference populations (e.g., healthy controls for CM-0 anchor)
• Define standardized sampling procedures, including timing relative to drug administration
• Implement uniform sample processing and storage protocols across study sites
• Utilize certified reference materials where available to ensure assay standardization [45]

Statistical Analysis and Transformation:

• Calculate interquartile range (IQR) of reference population data
• Exclude statistical outliers falling outside Q1 - 1.5×IQR or Q3 + 1.5×IQR ranges
• Establish CM-0 anchor value (μCM-0) based on refined reference population
• Establish CM-100 anchor value (μCM-100) from severely abnormal population
• Apply linear transformation to convert raw biomarker values to CentiMarker scale: CM = (raw value - μCM-0) / (μCM-100 - μCM-0) × 100 [45]

Validation Procedures:

• Assess scale performance across different disease stages
• Validate transformation against clinical outcomes
• Verify comparability of treatment effect sizes across biomarkers

Master Protocol Implementation for Testosterone Studies

Standardized Data Collection Framework:

• Define core biomarker panel including metabolic, prostate safety, and cardiovascular parameters
• Establish standardized sampling timelines relative to treatment initiation
• Implement uniform laboratory methodologies across participating centers
• Utilize centralized testing facilities for key biomarkers when feasible

Quality Assurance Procedures:

• Implement standardized pre-analytical sample handling protocols
• Establish proficiency testing programs across participating laboratories
• Define minimum data quality standards for inclusion in analyses
• Implement automated quality control procedures, similar to those used in retinal imaging studies [47]

Data Integration and Analysis:

• Develop standardized data transformation procedures for cross-assay comparisons
• Implement consistent statistical models for analyzing treatment effects
• Establish predefined criteria for biomarker performance evaluation
• Utilize harmonized endpoints for efficacy and safety assessment

Visualization of Standardization Workflows

CentiMarker Standardization Pipeline

CentiMarker Standardization Workflow

Biomarker Validation Framework

Biomarker Validation Framework

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Standardized Assessment

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Standardized Biomarker Assessment

Research Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Applications	Standardization Function
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)	CSF Aβ42 CRMs [45]	Assay calibration and harmonization	Establish metrological traceability to SI units through reference measurement procedures
Standardized Laboratory Assays	Automated chromogranin A assay [48]	Disease monitoring in neuroendocrine tumors	Enable consistent biomarker measurement across different laboratory settings
Quality Control Materials	Inter-laboratory proficiency testing samples	Method validation and quality assurance	Monitor and maintain measurement precision and accuracy across sites
Biomarker Stabilization Reagents	Specific protease inhibitors, stabilizers	Pre-analytical sample preservation	Minimize pre-analytical variability in biomarker measurements
DNA Methylation Analysis Kits	Horvath and GrimAge DNA methylation clocks [49]	Epigenetic age assessment	Provide standardized approaches for biological age estimation

The research reagents detailed in Table 3 represent critical tools for implementing standardized biomarker assessment across multiple study sites. Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) are particularly important for establishing metrological traceability, as demonstrated by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry's work on CSF Aβ42 standardization [45]. These materials enable harmonization of commercial immunoassays and facilitate direct comparison of results across different analytical platforms.

Standardized laboratory assays, such as the automated chromogranin A test validated in the CASPAR study, provide specifically configured solutions for consistent biomarker measurement [48]. When combined with appropriate quality control materials for inter-laboratory proficiency testing, these tools form a comprehensive system for maintaining measurement precision and accuracy across multiple research sites—a fundamental requirement for valid cross-study comparisons.

Emerging technologies for biological age assessment, including DNA methylation analysis kits based on established epigenetic clocks like Horvath and GrimAge, offer additional standardization opportunities [49]. These tools enable researchers to quantify biological aging processes consistently, providing valuable complementary data to chronological age in long-term studies of testosterone therapy effects.

The standardization of biomarker assessment represents a methodological imperative for advancing comparative effectiveness research on testosterone formulations. Frameworks like the CentiMarker approach and master protocol development offer robust methodologies for transforming fragmented biomarker data into comparable evidence across studies. The current evidence, while limited by existing methodological variability, suggests potential differential effects between testosterone formulations—particularly the favorable metabolic and safety profile associated with intramuscular administration [6] [26].

Future research priorities should include the development of formulation-specific standardized biomarker panels for testosterone therapy studies, validation of adapted CentiMarker approaches for key metabolic and safety parameters, and implementation of master protocols across multi-center trials. Additionally, the integration of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence for biomarker analysis [50] and advanced biological age assessment methods [49] [47] could further enhance the precision and comprehensiveness of comparative assessments.

As biomarker science continues to evolve, the adoption of rigorous standardization methodologies will be essential for generating reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making in testosterone therapy. Only through standardized approaches can researchers and clinicians make valid comparisons between formulation-specific effects and optimize treatment strategies for individual patient profiles.

Mitigating Risks and Personalizing Therapy for Optimal Metabolic Outcomes

Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a cornerstone treatment for male hypogonadism, with various ester formulations available, primarily testosterone enanthate and testosterone cypionate. While effective at restoring physiological testosterone levels and alleviating hypogonadal symptoms, these therapies are associated with distinct adverse effect profiles concerning cardiovascular risk, hematological parameters, and metabolic shifts. Understanding these differential effects is crucial for clinicians and researchers optimizing therapeutic strategies for specific patient populations. This review synthesizes current evidence on the management of polycythemia, lipid changes, and cardiovascular risks associated with long-term testosterone therapy, providing a comparative analysis of different formulation effects supported by experimental data and mechanistic insights.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Formulations

The pharmacological profile of testosterone esters significantly influences their clinical application and adverse effect patterns. The two most commonly prescribed long-acting injectable formulations—testosterone enanthate and testosterone cypionate—share similar molecular structures but exhibit subtle pharmacokinetic differences that may impact their safety profiles.

Table 1: Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Formulations

Parameter	Testosterone Enanthate	Testosterone Cypionate
Ester Structure	Enanthate ester	Cypionate ester
Half-Life	8-10 days [51]	8-12 days [51]
Injection Frequency	Every 7-10 days [51]	Every 7-10 days [51]
Carrier Oil	Typically sesame oil [51]	Typically cottonseed oil [51]
Metabolic Clearance	Slightly faster due to shorter ester	Slightly slower due to longer ester
Peak-Trough Fluctuation	Potentially greater fluctuations	Potentially more stable levels

The cypionate ester's slightly longer hydrocarbon chain contributes to its extended half-life compared to enanthate, potentially allowing for more sustained release and stable serum concentrations [51]. This pharmacokinetic profile may influence not only therapeutic efficacy but also the frequency and severity of adverse effects. Individual patient factors including age, body composition, and genetic metabolic variations further modulate these responses, necessitating personalized treatment approaches.

Adverse Effect Profiles and Management Strategies

Polycythemia and Hematological Effects

Testosterone therapy stimulates erythropoiesis by enhancing erythropoietin production and direct bone marrow stimulation, potentially leading to polycythemia (hematocrit >52%), which increases thrombotic risk [51]. Clinical evidence demonstrates this concern transcends specific formulations, representing a class effect of TRT.

The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE (TRAVERSE) study, a landmark randomized controlled trial, found no overall increased cardiovascular risk with transdermal testosterone gel versus placebo in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism [52]. However, hematological parameters were significantly affected, necessitating monitoring. Clinical management strategies include:

• Routine monitoring: Hematocrit levels should be checked at 3-4 month intervals during the first year of therapy, then annually if stable [51].
• Dose adjustment: Reducing testosterone dosage typically resolves erythrocytosis.
• Therapeutic phlebotomy: Recommended for hematocrit levels exceeding 54%.
• Formulation consideration: Although all TRT formulations stimulate erythropoiesis, individual patient responses may vary between products.

Lipid Metabolism and Cardiovascular Risk Shifts

Testosterone formulations exert complex effects on lipid metabolism, generally producing modest reductions in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and triglycerides, but potentially decreasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol—a potentially adverse effect that may increase cardiovascular risk [53] [51].

Table 2: Lipid Profile Changes with Testosterone Therapy

Lipid Parameter	Reported Change	Magnitude of Effect	Clinical Significance
HDL Cholesterol	Decrease [51]	Variable	Potentially adverse for CV risk
LDL Cholesterol	Decrease [54]	-6.4% at 6 months [54]	Potentially beneficial
Triglycerides	Decrease [6]	-0.243 mM [6]	Beneficial for metabolic health
Total Cholesterol	Mild decrease	-0.110 mM [6]	Modest beneficial effect

A 2024 meta-analysis demonstrated that testosterone therapy significantly reduces triglycerides, with a standardized mean difference of -0.243 mM (95% CI: -0.474 to 0.127; p = 0.039) [6]. This effect likely contributes to the improved cardiometabolic profile observed in some studies of TRT. The same analysis found non-significant reductions in fasting glucose and total cholesterol, suggesting multifaceted metabolic benefits [6].

Long-term observational data presents a complex picture of testosterone's cardiovascular effects. A prospective registry study with median 7-year follow-up reported significantly lower cardiovascular mortality in testosterone-treated men (0.0092 per 10 patient-years) compared to untreated controls (0.1145 per 10 patient-years), with an estimated mortality reduction between 66% and 92% [55]. Notably, this study utilized testosterone undecanoate injections and reported no nonfatal myocardial infarctions or strokes in the treatment group versus 30 nonfatal strokes and 26 nonfatal myocardial infarctions in controls [55].

Cardiovascular Safety Profile

The cardiovascular safety profile of testosterone therapy remains nuanced, with evidence supporting both potential benefits and risks depending on patient population, formulation, and pre-existing conditions.

The TRAVERSE study specifically addressed cardiovascular safety in middle-aged and older men (45-80 years) with pre-existing or high cardiovascular risk. The primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death) occurred in 7.0% of the testosterone group versus 7.3% in the placebo group, demonstrating non-inferiority for overall major adverse cardiovascular events [52]. However, the testosterone group showed higher incidences of atrial fibrillation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35), pulmonary embolism (adjusted hazard ratio 2.30), and acute kidney injury [52].

These findings suggest that while testosterone therapy does not increase overall major cardiovascular event rates, it may elevate risks for specific cardiovascular conditions, particularly in susceptible individuals. This underscores the importance of patient selection and monitoring, especially for those with prior thromboembolic events, atrial fibrillation, or renal impairment [52].

Experimental Data and Methodological Approaches

Key Clinical Studies and Their Designs

Substantial evidence regarding TRT safety derives from well-designed clinical trials employing rigorous methodologies. The following studies provide critical insights into adverse effect management:

TRAVERSE Study (2023) [52]:

• Design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial
• Participants: 5,246 men aged 45-80 with hypogonadism (testosterone <300 ng/dL) and pre-existing CVD or high risk
• Intervention: Testosterone gel (1%) or placebo gel
• Primary Endpoint: First occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke
• Monitoring Protocol: Regular assessment of hematocrit, lipid profiles, and cardiovascular events
• Follow-up: Mean 33 months

Prospective Registry Study (2017) [55]:

• Design: Observational, prospective, cumulative registry study
• Participants: 656 men (mean age 60.7±7.2 years) with total testosterone ≤12.1 nmol/L
• Intervention Group: 360 men receiving testosterone undecanoate 1000 mg/12 weeks
• Control Group: 296 untreated men with hypogonadism
• Follow-up: Median 7 years, with 8-year data analyzed
• Statistical Analysis: Mixed-effects model for repeated measures, adjusted for baseline covariates

Metabolic Syndrome Meta-Analysis (2024) [6]:

• Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis
• Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases without date limits
• Inclusion Criteria: Studies on TRT effects in male patients with metabolic syndrome
• Analysis Method: Random effects model using PQStat v1.8.6 software
• Outcomes: Changes in waist circumference, triglycerides, HDL, fasting glucose

Molecular Pathways in Testosterone-Induced Metabolic Effects

Testosterone influences cardiovascular risk parameters through multiple molecular mechanisms, with the following pathways particularly relevant to adverse effect management:

The interplay between these pathways explains the complex metabolic effects observed with TRT. Androgen receptor activation in various tissues mediates both beneficial and adverse effects, with individual genetic factors, baseline metabolic status, and testosterone formulation characteristics influencing the net clinical outcome.

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies for TRT Adverse Effects Studies

Reagent/Methodology	Application	Research Significance
Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS)	Precise measurement of testosterone and estradiol levels [54]	Gold standard for hormone level quantification; essential for pharmacokinetic studies
Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA)	Body composition analysis (fat mass, lean mass) [54]	Objective assessment of TRT effects on body composition parameters
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)	Quantification of bone turnover markers (CTX, osteocalcin), adiponectin, leptin [54]	Evaluation of metabolic and bone effects of different TRT formulations
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)	Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) [54]	Assessment of long-term glycemic control in TRT metabolic studies
Complete Blood Count (CBC) with Hematocrit	Monitoring erythrocytosis and polycythemia risk [51]	Essential safety parameter for detecting TRT-induced polycythemia
Standard Lipid Panels	Quantification of HDL, LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol [6]	Critical for assessing TRT effects on cardiovascular risk factors
Electrocardiogram (ECG) and Cardiac Monitoring	Detection of atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias [52]	Important for cardiovascular safety assessment, particularly in higher-risk populations

The management of adverse effects associated with testosterone therapy requires careful consideration of formulation-specific properties, patient characteristics, and monitoring protocols. Polycythemia represents a consistent class effect across formulations, necessitating regular hematological monitoring. Lipid shifts following TRT demonstrate a mixed profile, with potentially beneficial reductions in triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, but concerning decreases in HDL cholesterol. Cardiovascular safety data from the TRAVERSE trial provides reassurance regarding major adverse cardiovascular events while highlighting increased risks for atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, and acute kidney injury that require vigilance.

Future research should focus on direct comparative studies between formulations, identification of genetic factors influencing adverse effect susceptibility, and development of personalized dosing strategies that maximize therapeutic benefits while minimizing risks. The evolving landscape of testosterone therapeutics will continue to refine our approach to managing these complex adverse effect profiles across diverse patient populations.

The Impact of Formulation and Dosing Frequency on Metabolic Stability

Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) is a critical intervention for hypogonadal men, and its long-term efficacy and safety are intrinsically linked to metabolic stability. Achieving stable serum testosterone levels is paramount to mimicking natural physiology, optimizing therapeutic outcomes, and minimizing adverse effects [56]. This stability is not a function of the hormone itself but is predominantly governed by the pharmaceutical formulation of testosterone esters and their associated dosing protocols. Different esterified testosterone compounds exhibit vastly different pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles, leading to significant variations in peak-to-trough fluctuations, time to reach steady state, and consequent metabolic impacts [57] [58] [56]. Within the context of comparative long-term metabolic effects, this guide provides an objective analysis of how formulation and dosing frequency influence hormonal and metabolic stability for researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Formulations

The core principle underlying the sustained release of injectable testosterone is the esterification of the testosterone molecule. The attachment of a carboxylic acid ester chain increases the compound's lipophilicity, allowing it to form a depot at the injection site from which it is slowly released into the systemic circulation [58]. The rate of release is inversely proportional to the length of the ester chain; longer chains result in slower release and longer half-lives [56]. Once in the bloodstream, esterases enzymatically cleave the ester bond, releasing active, unesterified testosterone [58].

Table 1: Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Common Testosterone Esters

Testosterone Ester	Average Half-Life	Typical Dosing Frequency	Time to Steady State (Approx. 5 half-lives)	Key Metabolic & Stability Considerations
Propionate [59] [56]	~2 days [59]	Every 2-3 days [59]	~10-17.5 days [56]	Rapid absorption; large peak-to-trough fluctuations; requires frequent injections for stability.
Enanthate [57] [56]	~5-9 days [57] [56]	Every 7-14 days (IM) [57]	~35-45 days [56]	Moderate half-life; standard bi-weekly dosing can cause significant peaks and troughs [56].
Cypionate [57] [58] [56]	~8 days [58]	Every 7-14 days (IM) [58]	~35-45 days [56]	PK profile very similar to Enanthate; a preferred ester for frequent SC injection protocols [56].
Undecanoate [57] [56]	~20-90 days [57] [56]	Every 10-14 weeks (IM) [60] [61]	~450 days [56]	Ultralong-acting; reduces injection frequency but takes over a year to achieve steady state; can exhibit significant inter-individual variability in levels [56].

The following diagram illustrates the metabolic pathway and key factors influencing stability from injection to cellular action.

The Critical Role of Dosing Frequency

While the ester defines the inherent release rate, the dosing frequency is the adjustable clinical variable that most directly impacts stability. Less frequent dosing than the half-life recommends leads to significant peaks and troughs, potentially causing fluctuations in energy, mood, and libido, and increasing the risk of erythrocytosis due to high peak levels [62] [58] [63]. Consequently, there is a strong clinical trend towards micro-dosing or frequent administration (e.g., daily or every other day) of shorter-acting esters like cypionate or enanthate via the subcutaneous (SC) route [62] [56]. SC administration results in a slower absorption rate compared to intramuscular (IM), further flattening the PK curve and reducing peak-to-trough differences [57] [56].

Experimental Data on Long-Term Metabolic Outcomes

Long-term, real-world data provides critical evidence for the differential metabolic effects of TRT formulations. A key differentiator is the impact on hematological parameters, particularly hematocrit.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Testosterone Cypionate vs. Undecanoate on Hematocrit

Parameter	Testosterone Cypionate	Testosterone Undecanoate	Study Details
Effect on Hematocrit (Hct)	Significant increases associated with peak levels; a common reason for dose spacing or therapeutic phlebotomy [62] [64].	Lower risk of inducing polycythemia; more stable Hct profile [62] [64].	Objective: Compare T formulations on Hct in transgender men with erythrocytosis [64].
Response to Therapy Discontinuation	Discontinuation for 3 months resulted in a greater decrease in Hct and total T levels [64].	Discontinuation for 3 months reduced Hct and Hb levels without a significant reduction in total T levels [64].	Design: Retrospective cohort study (2020-2023) [64].
Response to Dose Spacing	Dose spacing in fortnightly users was not effective in reducing Hct and hemoglobin [64].	Not applicable to the same extent due to inherent stability.	Conclusion: Formulation choice significantly impacts Hct management strategies [64].

Beyond hematological factors, long-term studies demonstrate significant metabolic benefits. An 11-year controlled registry study of hypogonadal men treated with testosterone undecanoate showed profound improvements compared to untreated controls. The T-treated group exhibited sustained, clinically meaningful reductions in body weight (-23.2 ± 0.3 kg in obese men), waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, and blood pressure. Crucially, the study reported a marked reduction in mortality (5.4% in the T-group vs. 19.5% in the untreated group) and major cardiovascular events, underscoring the potential long-term benefits of stable testosterone levels on metabolic health [61]. These findings were corroborated by a separate 5-year study using TU, which also showed significant improvements in waist circumference, glycemic control (HbA1c -1.6 ± 0.5%), lipid profile, and bone mineral density [60].

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Pharmacokinetic & Metabolic Studies

To generate comparative data on metabolic stability, robust and standardized experimental protocols are essential. The following methodology is synthesized from key studies.

Study Design and Population

• Design: Long-term, prospective, controlled registry study or randomized controlled trial (RCT) [60] [61].
• Participants: Hypogonadal men (total T ≤ 12.1 nmol/L) with and without comorbid conditions like metabolic syndrome or obesity [60] [61]. Participants can be stratified by baseline weight (normal, overweight, obese) [61].
• Groups: Intervention group(s) receiving specific testosterone formulations (e.g., TU 1000 mg IM) vs. an untreated control group followed for the same duration [61].

Dosing and Administration

• Formulation-Specific Protocols:
  • Testosterone Undecanoate: 1000 mg intramuscular injection. Initial interval of 6 weeks between first and second injection, followed by 12-week intervals for long-term maintenance [60] [61].
  • Testosterone Cypionate/Enanthate: 100-200 mg per week, typically via intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. Frequency may be split (e.g., 50-100 mg twice weekly) to enhance stability [65] [63] [56].
• Route: Intramuscular (gluteal) is traditional, but subcutaneous administration is increasingly used for self-administration and improved stability [57].

Data Collection and Monitoring

• Frequency: Anthropometric and laboratory parameters measured at baseline and at least twice yearly [61].
• Key Metrics:
  • Pharmacokinetic: Trough (Cmin) and peak (Cmax) serum total testosterone levels to calculate fluctuation index [56].
  • Hormonal Panel: Free testosterone, estradiol, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin (SHBG) [60] [56].
  • Metabolic Parameters: Body weight, waist circumference, BMI, fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, lipid profile (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides), blood pressure [60] [61].
  • Safety Parameters: Hematocrit and hemoglobin, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), liver enzymes [64] [60].
  • Clinical Outcomes: Incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality [61].

Statistical Analysis

Data are analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures, adjusting for confounding factors like age, baseline weight, WC, and blood pressure. Changes from baseline within and between treated and control groups are analyzed to establish treatment effects [61].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for TRT Metabolic Studies

Item	Function/Application in Research
Testosterone Esters (Cypionate, Enanthate, Undecanoate, Propionate)	The active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for formulating the oil-based injections used in preclinical and clinical studies [57] [58].
Sterile Oil Vehicle (e.g., Sesame, Castor, Cottonseed Oil)	The solvent for creating the injection depot. The viscosity of the oil can influence the release rate of the ester [57] [58].
Immunoassay Kits (CMIA, CLIA)	For quantitative measurement of total and free testosterone, estradiol, DHT, and SHBG in serum/plasma samples [60].
HPLC-MS/MS Systems	Gold-standard method for sensitive and specific quantification of testosterone and its metabolites in pharmacokinetic studies.
SHBG & Albumin Assays	Essential for calculating free and bioavailable testosterone levels, which are more clinically relevant than total testosterone [56].
Biochemical Assay Kits	For measuring metabolic markers like HbA1c, lipid panels, and liver enzymes in participant blood samples [60] [61].
Subcutaneous and Intramuscular Injection Supplies	Syringes and needles of appropriate gauge and length for accurate administration in animal models or clinical settings, accounting for SC vs. IM routes [57].

The evidence demonstrates that the formulation and dosing frequency of testosterone are non-interchangeable variables that directly dictate metabolic stability. Short-acting esters like cypionate and enanthate, when administered frequently via the subcutaneous route, offer the most physiological PK profile and the highest degree of stability, making them a "gold standard" for symptom control and minimizing side effects like erythrocytosis [56]. In contrast, long-acting esters like undecanoate provide convenience and reduced injection burden but at the cost of a prolonged time to steady state and significant inter-individual variability [56]. The choice of regimen must be informed by the therapeutic goal: optimized patient-centered outcomes favor frequent dosing of shorter esters, while adherence and convenience may drive the selection of longer-acting options. For drug development, the pursuit of ideal TRT should focus on delivery systems that can provide both the stability of micro-dosing and the infrequency of long-acting formulations.

Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a cornerstone treatment for male hypogonadism, a condition increasingly recognized for its association with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease [19]. The various testosterone formulations available—intramuscular (IM) injections, subcutaneous (SC) injections, transdermal gels, and others—differ not only in their routes of administration but also in their pharmacokinetic profiles and potential long-term metabolic effects. Understanding these differences is crucial for clinicians and researchers aiming to optimize therapeutic outcomes while minimizing risks. This review objectively compares the metabolic effects of different testosterone formulations, with a specific focus on how lifestyle and adjunctive therapies can amplify their benefits. We synthesize experimental data from clinical studies, registry data, and meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive evidence-based comparison for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Comparative Metabolic Outcomes of Testosterone Formulations

Long-Acting Injectable Formulations

Long-acting injectable testosterone esters, particularly testosterone undecanoate (TU), have been extensively studied for their metabolic effects. A landmark 11-year controlled registry study evaluated TU in 823 hypogonadal men, including subsets with normal weight, overweight, and obesity. The study demonstrated profound, sustained improvements in anthropometric and metabolic parameters across all weight categories [61].

Table 1: Metabolic Effects of Long-Term Testosterone Undecanoate Therapy (11-Year Data)

Parameter	Normal Weight (Treated)	Normal Weight (Untreated)	Overweight (Treated)	Overweight (Untreated)	Obese (Treated)	Obese (Untreated)
Weight Δ (kg)	-3.4 ± 1.2*	+6.1 ± 0.7*	-8.5 ± 0.4*	+6.0 ± 0.3*	-23.2 ± 0.3*	+4.2 ± 0.5*
Waist Circumference Δ (cm)	-3.4 ± 0.8*	+5.5 ± 0.5*	-9.8 ± 0.3*	+6.3 ± 0.2*	-16.5 ± 0.2*	+5.8 ± 0.3*
Fasting Glucose Δ (mmol/L)	-0.5 ± 0.1*	+0.4 ± 0.1*	-0.8 ± 0.1*	+0.3 ± 0.1*	-1.9 ± 0.1*	+0.5 ± 0.1*
HbA1c Δ (%)	-0.4 ± 0.1*	+0.3 ± 0.1*	-0.6 ± 0.1*	+0.2 ± 0.0*	-1.6 ± 0.1*	+0.4 ± 0.1*
Mortality (%)	5.4 (overall treated)	19.5 (overall untreated)	5.4 (overall treated)	19.5 (overall untreated)	5.4 (overall treated)	19.5 (overall untreated)

Statistical significance: p < 0.005

Another 5-year prospective study of hypogonadal men with metabolic syndrome found that TU injections (1000 mg every 12 weeks after initial loading) produced significant reductions in waist circumference (-9.6 ± 3.8 cm, P < 0.0001), body weight (-15 ± 2.8 kg, P < 0.0001), and glycosylated hemoglobin (-1.6 ± 0.5%, P < 0.0001) along with improvements in insulin sensitivity (HOMA-I; -2.8 ± 0.6, P < 0.0001) and lipid profile [60]. These changes occurred alongside improvements in bone mineral density and hormonal parameters including vitamin D, growth hormone, and IGF-1 levels.

Transdermal and Shorter-Acting Formulations

Transdermal testosterone formulations (gels, patches) and shorter-acting injectable esters (cypionate, enanthate) offer alternative administration routes with different metabolic implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis focused on testosterone's effects on metabolic syndrome components found significant improvements in waist circumference and triglycerides across multiple formulations [6].

Table 2: Meta-Analysis of Testosterone Therapy on Metabolic Syndrome Components

Parameter	Standardized Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval	P-value
Waist Circumference	-0.307	-0.709 to 0.094	0.011
Triglycerides	-0.243	-0.474 to 0.120	0.039
Fasting Glycemia	-0.197	-0.428 to 0.331	0.093
Cholesterol	-0.110	-0.341 to 0.120	0.346
HDL	+0.103	-0.269 to 0.475	0.587

Testosterone cypionate, when administered intramuscularly, demonstrates distinct pharmacokinetics with serum testosterone levels increasing to approximately 400% of baseline within 24 hours and remaining elevated for 3-5 days [66]. This fluctuation pattern may influence metabolic parameters differently than the more stable levels achieved with long-acting formulations or transdermal delivery. Emerging delivery systems including surfactant-modified ethosomes show promise for enhanced transdermal bioavailability with an increased transdermal flux of 37.85 ± 2.8 μg/cm²/hour and reduced lag time of 0.18 hours in mouse models [67].

Administration Route: Intramuscular vs. Subcutaneous

The route of administration itself may influence the metabolic effects of testosterone therapy. Recent evidence suggests that subcutaneous administration of testosterone esters results in pharmacokinetics and serum testosterone concentrations comparable to intramuscular injection but with potential advantages [57].

Table 3: Intramuscular vs. Subcutaneous Testosterone Administration

Characteristic	Intramuscular (IM)	Subcutaneous (SC)
Absorption Rate	Faster absorption due to rich muscle blood supply	Slower, more gradual absorption from fatty tissue
Peak-Trough Fluctuations	Significant fluctuations with longer intervals	More stable, consistent hormone levels
Pain and Discomfort	More painful, deeper penetration required	Generally less painful, smaller needles
Self-Administration	Challenging, especially for gluteal injections	Easier for self-administration
Injection Site Issues	Risk of bruising, muscle damage, painful lumps	Reduced risk of muscle damage; potential for small lumps or redness
Research Evidence	Decades of established use and studies	Growing evidence, though less long-term data

Studies directly comparing the safety of SC vs IM administration are still needed, but available evidence suggests that SC administration produces comparable serum testosterone levels with potentially improved stability and fewer fluctuations in mood and energy levels [57] [68]. This stability may indirectly influence metabolic outcomes by supporting consistent adherence to therapy and enabling more stable metabolic parameters.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Long-Term Registry Study Design

The 11-year controlled registry study that provided substantial evidence for long-term metabolic effects employed a specific methodological approach [61]. The study included 823 hypogonadal men with total testosterone ≤ 12.1 nmol/L, categorized by BMI into normal weight (n=63), overweight (n=286), and obese (n=474) groups. Of these, 428 received testosterone undecanoate injections (1000 mg every 12 weeks after an initial 6-week interval), while 395 opted against therapy and served as controls.

Key Methodological Elements:

• Assessment Schedule: Anthropometric and metabolic parameters were measured at least twice annually
• Statistical Adjustment: Changes were adjusted for age, weight, WC, fasting glucose, blood pressure, lipid levels, and Aging Males' Symptoms scale to account for baseline differences
• Analysis Approach: Mixed model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline parameters as covariates
• Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes included weight, waist circumference, BMI, glucose metabolism, lipid profiles, blood pressure, and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality

This robust methodology allowed for meaningful comparison between treated and untreated groups over an extended period, providing valuable insights into the long-term metabolic effects of testosterone therapy.

Randomized Trials and Meta-Analyses

The meta-analysis investigating testosterone's effects on metabolic syndrome components employed systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases without date limits using keywords including "testosterone therapy", "metabolic syndrome" and "men" [6]. Studies were included if they focused on TRT effects in male patients with metabolic syndrome, while excluding those where type 2 diabetes constituted the only diagnosis.

Analytical Protocol:

• Effect Size Calculation: Overall effect size (mean difference) calculated using random effects model
• Heterogeneity Assessment: I² statistic used to quantify heterogeneity between studies
• Publication Bias: Egger's test employed to assess potential publication bias
• Software: Meta-analysis performed using PQStat v1.8.6 software

This rigorous methodology ensured a comprehensive synthesis of available evidence regarding testosterone's effects on specific metabolic syndrome components across multiple studies and formulations.

Signaling Pathways and Metabolic Mechanisms

Testosterone influences metabolic parameters through multiple interconnected signaling pathways. The diagram below illustrates the primary mechanisms through which testosterone therapy exerts its metabolic effects.

Figure 1: Metabolic Signaling Pathways of Testosterone Therapy

The metabolic benefits of testosterone are mediated through complex endocrine pathways that integrate with lifestyle factors. The diagram below illustrates how testosterone therapy interacts with nutritional status, physical activity, and metabolic function.

Figure 2: Integration of Testosterone Therapy with Lifestyle Factors

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for Testosterone Formulation Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example Use in Research
Testosterone Esters	Active pharmaceutical ingredients with varying release kinetics	Comparing pharmacokinetics of enanthate, cypionate, and undecanoate esters [57] [66]
Chromatography Systems	Quantification of testosterone and metabolites in biological samples	HPLC analysis of testosterone propionate in ethosomal formulations [67]
Animal Models	Preclinical assessment of formulation efficacy and safety	Transdermal penetration studies in mouse skin models [67]
Liposomal/Ethosomal Carriers	Enhanced transdermal delivery systems	Formulation of surfactant-modified ethosomes for improved skin permeation [67]
Dynamic Light Scattering	Characterization of particle size and distribution	Measuring polydispersity index of ethosomal systems (0.100 ± 0.015) [67]
Differential Scanning Calorimetry	Thermal analysis of formulation stability	Determining phase transition temperatures of lipid-based carriers [67]
Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy	Visualization of skin penetration depth	Assessing rhodamine red-loaded formulation penetration (260 μm for ethosomes) [67]
Safe Haven Database Systems	Real-world evidence generation from linked health data	Retrospective cohort studies on cardiovascular outcomes [19]

The comparative analysis of testosterone formulations reveals distinct metabolic effect profiles across administration routes and ester types. Long-acting injectable testosterone undecanoate demonstrates substantial and sustained benefits on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid metabolism over extended periods, alongside potential mortality benefits [61]. Transdermal formulations and shorter-acting esters offer alternative pharmacokinetic profiles with demonstrated efficacy on specific metabolic syndrome components, particularly waist circumference and triglycerides [6]. The emerging evidence for subcutaneous administration suggests comparable efficacy to traditional intramuscular injection with potential advantages in patient tolerability and adherence [57]. These findings underscore the importance of individualizing testosterone formulation selection based on patient-specific metabolic profiles and treatment goals. Future research should focus on direct comparative studies between formulations and administration routes, with particular attention to long-term cardiovascular safety and the synergistic effects of combining TRT with targeted lifestyle interventions.

For decades, body mass index has served as the primary metric for classifying obesity, defining morbid obesity as a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m² [69]. This BMI-centric framework has guided clinical decision-making and patient stratification in both research and therapeutic contexts. However, significant limitations in BMI as a standalone measure have emerged, including its inability to distinguish between lean muscle and fat mass, assess body fat distribution, or evaluate metabolic health and adiposity-related organ dysfunction [70].

Recognizing these limitations, the field has evolved toward multidimensional assessment systems that incorporate functional and metabolic parameters. The Edmonton Obesity Staging System exemplifies this approach by categorizing obesity into five stages based on the presence and severity of obesity-related physical limitations, clinical symptoms, and mental health conditions [70]. Concurrently, research has revealed the critical importance of nutritional status as a stratification variable, particularly given the poor alignment of dietary intake with national guidelines among morbidly obese individuals and the prognostic significance of nutritional biomarkers in chronic disease outcomes [69] [71].

This guide compares these stratification approaches, examining their applications, methodological requirements, and implications for evaluating long-term metabolic effects of therapeutic interventions, including testosterone formulations.

Comparative Analysis of Stratification Approaches

Table 1: Comparison of Patient Stratification Methods in Obesity and Metabolic Research

Stratification Method	Key Parameters Measured	Data Collection Methods	Strengths	Limitations
BMI Cut-offs	Weight, height	Direct anthropometric measurement	Simple, rapid, low-cost [70]	Cannot distinguish fat from muscle mass; misses metabolic heterogeneity [70]
Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS)	Physical limitations, comorbidities, mental health	Clinical examination, patient history [70]	Strong mortality prediction; guides treatment intensity [70]	Subjective elements in intermediate stages [70]
Nutrient Intake Analysis	Macro/micronutrient consumption	24-hour dietary recall, food frequency questionnaires [69]	Identifies dietary deficiencies; modifiable risk factor [69]	Self-reporting inaccuracies; complex analysis [69]
Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI)	Serum albumin, lymphocyte count	Blood sampling, complete blood count [71]	Objective; prognostic in cancer/cachexia [71]	Limited to nutritional-inflammatory status

Table 2: Association Between Dietary Patterns and Healthy Aging Outcomes (30-Year Follow-Up)

Dietary Pattern	Odds Ratio for Healthy Aging	Cognitive Health	Physical Function	Mental Health	Freedom from Chronic Disease
Alternative Healthy Eating Index	1.86 [1.71-2.01] [72]	1.57 [1.48-1.66] [72]	2.30 [2.16-2.44] [72]	2.03 [1.92-2.15] [72]	1.65 [1.55-1.76] [72]
Mediterranean Diet	1.74 [1.61-1.88] [72]	1.58 [1.49-1.67] [72]	2.10 [1.98-2.23] [72]	1.84 [1.74-1.95] [72]	1.59 [1.50-1.69] [72]
DASH Diet	1.80 [1.66-1.95] [72]	1.59 [1.50-1.68] [72]	2.22 [2.09-2.36] [72]	1.93 [1.82-2.04] [72]	1.64 [1.54-1.74] [72]
Healthful Plant-Based	1.45 [1.35-1.57] [72]	1.22 [1.15-1.28] [72]	1.68 [1.58-1.78] [72]	1.37 [1.30-1.45] [72]	1.32 [1.25-1.40] [72]

Methodological Protocols for Advanced Stratification

Edmonton Obesity Staging System Assessment

The EOSS classification requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation protocol. Stage 0 includes individuals with no apparent obesity-related risk factors, physical symptoms, or psychopathology. Stage 1 encompasses those with subclinical risk factors or mild physical symptoms. Stage 2 includes established obesity-related chronic diseases. Stage 3 involves significant end-organ damage, and Stage 4 represents severe disabilities from obesity [70].

Implementation requires systematic assessment across multiple domains: metabolic (dyslipidemia, insulin resistance), mechanical (osteoarthritis, sleep apnea), and mental health (depression, body image dissatisfaction) [70]. This protocol necessitates trained clinical staff, standardized patient history forms, physical examination documentation, and appropriate diagnostic testing to confirm suspected comorbidities.

Nutritional Status Assessment Protocols

Dietary Intake Assessment follows the NHANES dietary interview methodology, employing computerized 24-hour single dietary recall conducted by trained interviewers to estimate energy and nutrient intakes [69]. The protocol includes quality control measures for reliable dietary status assessment, with special consideration for extreme energy intake values (<800 kcal/d or >5000 kcal/d) to capture both restrictive and excessive consumption patterns [69].

Prognostic Nutritional Index Calculation utilizes the formula: PNI = 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (/mm³) [71]. Blood samples must be collected under standardized conditions, with serum albumin measured via bromocresol green method and lymphocyte count determined through complete blood count with differential. The established cutoff of 49.98 stratifies patients into high and low PNI groups via receiver operating characteristic analysis [71].

Dietary Pattern Adherence Scoring

The Alternative Healthy Eating Index quantifies adherence to dietary patterns rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, nuts, legumes, and low-fat dairy, while minimizing trans fats, sodium, sugary beverages, and red/processed meats [72]. Scoring is based on food frequency questionnaires administered repeatedly over long-term follow-up (up to 30 years in cohort studies), with points allocated for consumption levels of recommended versus discouraged food groups [72].

Diagram: Pathways Linking Dietary Patterns to Health Outcomes

Applications in Metabolic Research and Therapeutic Development

Stratification in Testosterone Therapy Research

In testosterone therapy studies, baseline stratification by nutritional and metabolic parameters reveals differential treatment responses. Research indicates that long-term testosterone therapy (≥2 years) associates with a 55% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events after adjustment for age, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidities [19]. However, systematic review evidence demonstrates testosterone therapy significantly improves components of metabolic syndrome, particularly reducing waist circumference and triglyceride levels [18].

These apparently contradictory findings highlight the necessity of sophisticated patient stratification beyond BMI alone. The cardiovascular risk profile of testosterone-treated patients varies substantially based on underlying metabolic health, comorbidity burden, and potentially nutritional status, though specific studies examining nutritional status as an effect modifier in testosterone therapy remain limited.

Nutritional Status as Prognostic Biomarker

The Prognostic Nutritional Index demonstrates significant predictive value in chronic disease populations. In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, patients with PNI >49.98 showed significantly longer median overall survival compared to those with lower PNI values (36.6 months versus 30.0 months) [71]. Multivariate analysis identified high PNI as an independent predictor of improved survival along with ECOG performance status and absence of visceral metastasis [71].

Diagram: Comprehensive Patient Stratification Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions for Metabolic Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Metabolic Status Assessment

Reagent/Instrument	Primary Application	Specific Function	Representative Methodology
DEXA Scanner	Body composition analysis	Quantifies fat/muscle mass, bone density [70]	Direct adiposity measurement per Lancet Commission [70]
Dietary Recall Software	Nutritional epidemiology	Standardized 24-hour food intake assessment [69]	NHANES dietary interview protocol [69]
Biochemical Analyzers	Albumin, lipid profiling	Measures serum albumin for PNI calculation [71]	Bromocresol green method [71]
Hematology Analyzers	Complete blood count	Quantifies lymphocyte count for PNI [71]	Automated flow cytometry [71]
Food Frequency Questionnaires	Dietary pattern assessment	Evaluates adherence to dietary patterns [72]	Alternative Healthy Eating Index scoring [72]
Anthropometric Measurement Kit	Body dimension assessment	Measures waist circumference, height, weight [70]	Standardized tape measures, stadiometers [70]

The evolution from BMI-based classification to multidimensional stratification incorporating functional staging systems like EOSS and nutritional status assessment represents significant progress in obesity and metabolic research. Each stratification method offers distinct advantages: BMI provides simple screening, EOSS enhances prognostic accuracy and treatment guidance, while nutritional status assessment identifies modifiable risk factors with profound implications for long-term health outcomes [69] [70] [72].

Integration of these complementary approaches enables more precise patient characterization in therapeutic studies, potentially explaining differential treatment responses observed with interventions like testosterone therapy [19] [18]. Future research should establish standardized protocols for combining these stratification methods and explore their collective utility in personalizing metabolic therapies to optimize efficacy and safety outcomes across diverse patient populations.

Comparative Efficacy and Evidence Validation Across Formulations

The therapeutic application of testosterone is a critical intervention for conditions such as male hypogonadism, gender-affirming care, and, investigatively, in postmenopausal women. The efficacy, safety, and physiological impact of testosterone therapy are profoundly influenced by its formulation and delivery method. This guide provides a systematic, data-driven comparison of the three primary delivery systems—injectables, transdermals, and subdermal implants—focusing on their pharmacokinetics, metabolic effects, and cardiovascular safety profiles. Understanding these differences is paramount for researchers and drug development professionals designing next-generation hormone therapies and evaluating their long-term metabolic consequences.

The formulation of testosterone dictates its release kinetics, patient compliance, and ultimately, its therapeutic profile. The following table summarizes the core attributes of each major delivery system.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Testosterone Formulations

Formulation Type	Specific Examples	Typical Dosing Frequency	Key Pharmacokinetic Traits
Injectables [73] [74]	Testosterone Cypionate, Testosterone Enanthate, Testosterone Undecanoate [73]	Every 1-4 weeks [74]	Rapid absorption; produces supraphysiological peaks and troughs, especially with shorter-acting esters [75]
Transdermals [74]	Gels, Creams, Patches [74]	Daily (Gels/Patches) [74]	Provides more stable, sustained physiological testosterone levels [75]
Subdermal Implants [76] [77]	Silastic implants, Bioabsorbable pellets [76]	3-6 months [76]	Zero-order release kinetics; most consistent and stable serum levels over an extended duration [76] [77]

Comparative Analysis of Release Dynamics and Pharmacokinetics

Experimental Protocol: Pharmacokinetic Comparison in a Preclinical Model

A critical preclinical study directly compared the pharmacokinetics of different subcutaneous testosterone delivery systems in a female mouse model relevant to transgender health [77].

• Objective: To compare the release dynamics of three subcutaneous delivery methods of testosterone enanthate over a 6-week period.
• Methodology:
  • Subjects: Postpubertal C57BL/6N female mice.
  • Interventions:
    • Injections: Testosterone enanthate (0.45 mg) administered twice per week (cumulative dose: 5.4 mg) [77].
    • Pellets: Commercially available 5 mg, 60-day release pellets [77].
    • Silastic Implants: Silastic tubing packed with 5 mg of testosterone enanthate [77].
  • Measurements: Serum testosterone levels were monitored throughout the 6-week treatment period and after cessation to determine the time for levels to return to baseline [77].
• Key Findings: The study concluded that the body's overall exposure to testosterone (integrated area under the curve) was similar across administration methods when the cumulative dosage was comparable. However, the release profiles differed significantly. Injections caused more pronounced fluctuations, while pellets and silastic implants provided more sustained release [77].

Pharmacokinetic and Safety Outcomes

The distinct release profiles of each formulation directly influence their clinical safety and monitoring requirements.

Table 2: Pharmacokinetic, Safety, and Metabolic Profile Comparison

Parameter	Injectables	Transdermals	Subdermal Implants
Release Profile	Peaks and troughs [75]	Stable, sustained release [75]	Zero-order, most consistent release [76] [77]
Cardiovascular Risk	Higher risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, hospitalization vs. topicals [75]	Lower risk profile compared to injections [75]	Long-term safety data demonstrates a high safety profile with complication rates <1% [76]
Impact on Metabolic Syndrome Components Significant reduction in triglycerides (TG) and waist circumference (WC) [6]	Data limited; effects likely linked to stable hormone levels	Not specifically reported for implants in the available literature
Effect on HDL Cholesterol	Can blunt the positive HDL increase from lifestyle intervention [78]	Not specifically reported	Not specifically reported
Return to Baseline	Relatively rapid upon cessation [77]	Rapid upon cessation	Reversibility of physiological changes demonstrated in animal models post-removal [77]

Metabolic and Clinical Effects in Specific Populations

Metabolic Syndrome

A meta-analysis investigated the direct impact of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) on the components of metabolic syndrome (MS) in men. The analysis found that TRT in general led to significant improvements in certain MS components, notably a reduction in waist circumference and triglycerides. The formulations contributing most significantly to these findings were injectables like testosterone undecanoate and enanthate, which were commonly used in the analyzed studies [6].

Older Men with Obesity and Hypogonadism

A randomized controlled trial examined whether adding testosterone to an intensive lifestyle intervention (LT) provided further metabolic benefit to older men with obesity and hypogonadism [78].

• Experimental Protocol:
  • Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
  • Participants: 83 men aged ≥65 with obesity and low testosterone.
  • Intervention: LT (weight management and exercise) plus either testosterone (LT+TRT) or placebo (LT+Pbo) for 6 months.
  • Primary Outcome: Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).
• Results: HbA1c decreased similarly in both groups. The LT+TRT group showed no synergistic benefit over LT alone for most secondary outcomes. Notably, testosterone therapy eliminated the augmentative effect of lifestyle intervention on HDL cholesterol concentration and adiponectin levels, suggesting it may blunt some metabolic benefits of lifestyle therapy in this specific population [78].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

The Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal (HPG) Axis

Testosterone therapy exerts its effects by influencing the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. The following diagram illustrates this feedback mechanism, which is crucial for understanding the endocrine physiology underlying testosterone replacement.

Preclinical PK Study Workflow

The methodology for direct pharmacokinetic comparison of formulations in preclinical models involves a standardized workflow, as exemplified by the mouse model study [77].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following reagents, models, and assays are critical for conducting rigorous research in testosterone formulation pharmacology.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Experimental Materials

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Specific Examples / Notes
Testosterone Esters	Active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) with different release profiles.	Testosterone Cypionate, Enanthate (shorter-acting); Testosterone Undecanoate (long-acting) [73].
Animal Models	Preclinical PK/PD and safety testing.	Female C57BL/6N mice for transgender medicine models [77]; Other rodent and non-rodent species for general toxicology.
Silastic Tubing	Used to create custom subcutaneous implants with zero-order release kinetics.	Medical-grade tubing; release rate is proportional to surface area [77].
Time-Release Pellets	Commercial slow-release subcutaneous formulations for preclinical studies.	60-day or 90-day release pellets; useful for sustained dosing [77].
Chromatography Assays	Gold standard for accurate quantification of serum testosterone levels.	Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for high sensitivity and specificity [76].
Radioimmunoassay (RIA)	Conventional method for hormone level measurement.	Can lack precision for low female testosterone levels; requires careful validation [76].

Testosterone (T) is not only a sexual hormone but also a crucial metabolic and vascular hormone that regulates lipid, carbohydrate, and protein metabolism in multiple tissues [42]. A bidirectional relationship exists between testosterone deficiency (TD) and metabolic dysfunction: TD promotes adipogenesis and lean mass loss, while obesity and metabolic syndrome suppress testosterone production through inflammatory cytokines and aromatase activity that converts testosterone to estradiol [42]. This vicious cycle establishes TD as both a cause and consequence of metabolic disease, making testosterone therapy (TTh) a potential intervention for breaking this pathophysiological loop.

The metabolic syndrome (MetS), defined by clusters of risk factors including central obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and hyperglycemia, represents a significant public health threat with increased cardiovascular disease risk [42]. Current research indicates that 6%-12% of men in their 40s have biochemically confirmed low testosterone levels, often associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome, and sleep apnea [79]. This review systematically evaluates the comparative effects of different therapeutic approaches on core metabolic parameters—waist circumference, triglycerides, and HbA1c—within the context of a broader thesis on long-term metabolic effects of androgen restoration strategies.

Metabolic Parameter Improvements: Comparative Quantitative Analysis

Key Metabolic Parameters Across Therapeutic Approaches

Table 1: Comparative effects on waist circumference, triglycerides, and HbA1c across interventions

Intervention	Waist Circumference Reduction	Triglyceride Reduction	HbA1c Reduction	Study Duration
Testosterone Therapy (Overall)	-4.1 to -6.7 cm [80]	-0.36 to -0.42 mmol/L [42]	-0.24% to -1.1% [80] [42]	3-11 years
Long-acting IM Testosterone	Similar to other formulations	Similar to other formulations	Similar to other formulations	3-8 years
Transdermal Testosterone	Similar to other formulations	Similar to other formulations	Similar to other formulations	3-8 years
Tirzepatide (GLP-1 agonist)	-12.3 cm [81]	Data not specific	Data not specific	2 months
Lifestyle Intervention Only	Moderate reduction	Moderate reduction	Moderate reduction	2 months

Table 2: Formulation-specific considerations and monitoring parameters

Formulation Type	Metabolic Efficacy	Safety Considerations	Monitoring Recommendations
Long-acting IM Injections	Significant improvements in WC, triglycerides, HbA1c [80] [42]	Highest risk of hematocrit elevation [79]	Regular hematocrit checks, dose adjustment if needed
Transdermal Gels/Patches	Significant improvements in WC, triglycerides, HbA1c [80] [42]	Lower hematocrit effects, skin reactions	Regular hematocrit checks, skin application site rotation
Oral Testosterone	Limited data on long-term metabolic effects	Liver toxicity concerns	Liver function monitoring

Novel Metabolic Composite Indices as Outcome Measures

Beyond individual parameters, composite indices that integrate multiple metabolic measures have emerged as valuable tools for assessing intervention efficacy:

• TyG-WC Index: Calculated as ln[(fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) × fasting glucose (mg/dL))/2] × waist circumference (cm) [82] [83] [84]
• TyG-WWI Index: Derived from TyG × (waist circumference/√weight) [85]
• Cumulative TyG-WC: (TyG-WC measurement 1 + TyG-WC measurement 2)/2 × time (years) [82]

These indices have demonstrated superior predictive capability for cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk compared to individual parameters alone, with research showing participants with high-stable TyG-WC trajectories had 1.64-fold higher CVD risk (95% CI: 1.27-2.12) than those with low-stable trajectories [82]. The TyG-WC index also outperformed both TyG index alone and standard waist circumference measurements in predicting diabetes onset in large Japanese cohorts [83].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols

Patient Selection and Diagnostic Criteria

Current guidelines recommend diagnosing testosterone deficiency (TD) in patients with consistent clinical symptoms and biochemically confirmed low testosterone levels, typically defined as total testosterone below 300 ng/dL (ranging between 280-350 ng/dL depending on guidelines) on at least two early-morning measurements [79]. The Endocrine Society, American Urological Association, and European Association of Urology all emphasize using validated, high-precision assay techniques such as liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) when available, alongside assessment of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels to calculate free testosterone, particularly in men with obesity or metabolic syndrome where SHBG concentrations may be reduced [79].

Study Designs and Monitoring Protocols

Randomized Controlled Trials:

• The TRAVERSE trial (5,246 men aged 45-80 years) represents the largest RCT, with median follow-up of 33 months, examining cardiovascular safety and metabolic efficacy [79]
• Double-blind, placebo-controlled designs with standardized testosterone formulations and doses
• Regular monitoring of hematological, metabolic, and prostate safety parameters

Registry Studies and Long-term Observational Data:

• Prospective, open-label, long-term registries with follow-up extending to 11 years [80] [42]
• Standardized metabolic assessments at baseline, 3-6 months initially, then annually
• Body composition analysis via DEXA, anthropometric measurements, comprehensive lipid and glycemic panels

Novel Intervention Protocols

Anti-obesity Medications Protocol

Recent research presented at ENDO 2025 demonstrates that anti-obesity medications (semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide) significantly impact testosterone levels and metabolic parameters in men with obesity or type 2 diabetes [86] [81]:

Inclusion Criteria:

• Adult men with obesity (BMI ≥30) or type 2 diabetes
• No current testosterone or hormonal therapy
• For tirzepatide study: functional hypogonadism with low SHBG and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR >2.5)

Exclusion Criteria:

• Previous use of GLP-1 receptor agonists
• Medications for comorbid diseases 6 months before enrollment
• Hyperprolactinemia or use of anti-androgenic drugs

Dosing Regimen:

• Tirzepatide: 2.5mg weekly first month, 5mg weekly second month
• Lifestyle intervention: hypocaloric diet and 20-minute daily walk

Assessment Timeline:

• Baseline, 2 months (short-term hormonal and metabolic changes)
• Ongoing studies examining long-term durability beyond 2 months

Signaling Pathways and Metabolic Mechanisms

Testosterone Metabolic Pathways Diagram

The diagram above illustrates the complex bidirectional relationship between testosterone deficiency and metabolic dysfunction, along with the multifaceted mechanisms through which testosterone therapy exerts its metabolic benefits. Testosterone regulates body composition by promoting lean mass accretion and inhibiting adipogenic differentiation, thereby increasing muscle insulin sensitivity and fat oxidation capacity [42]. The improvement in body composition directly impacts key metabolic parameters, with reductions in visceral fat leading to decreased waist circumference, enhanced lipid metabolism lowering triglycerides, and improved insulin sensitivity reducing HbA1c levels.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential research reagents and assessment tools for metabolic studies

Category	Specific Tools/Assays	Research Application
Hormonal Assays	LC-MS/MS for total testosterone, Free testosterone by equilibrium dialysis, SHBG immunoassays	Gold-standard biochemical confirmation of hypogonadism and treatment efficacy
Metabolic Panels	HbA1c (HPLC method), Fasting lipids, OGTT, HOMA-IR calculations	Assessment of glycemic control, lipid metabolism, and insulin resistance
Body Composition	DEXA scans, Waist circumference measures, Bioelectrical impedance analysis	Quantification of fat mass, lean mass, and central adiposity changes
Novel Composite Indices	TyG-WC, TyG-WWI, Cumulative TyG-WC calculations	Enhanced predictive capability for cardiometabolic risk assessment
Safety Monitoring	Hematocrit, PSA, Liver function tests, Cardiovascular event adjudication	Comprehensive safety profiling across different formulations

The validated metabolic benefits of testosterone therapy on waist circumference, triglycerides, and HbA1c represent significant opportunities for drug development targeting men with hypogonadism and concurrent metabolic disease. Different testosterone formulations demonstrate generally comparable metabolic efficacy, though with distinct safety profiles requiring consideration in individualizing treatment. The emergence of novel composite indices like TyG-WC provides enhanced tools for assessing intervention effects on integrated metabolic health.

Future research should focus on direct comparative studies between formulations, long-term durability of metabolic benefits, and potential synergistic approaches combining testosterone therapy with emerging metabolic medications like GLP-1 receptor agonists. The mechanistic insights into testosterone's effects on body composition and insulin sensitivity continue to support its potential role as a multifaceted therapeutic intervention in appropriately selected hypogonadal men with metabolic disease.

Critical Appraisal of Long-Term Safety Data and Real-World Evidence

The long-term safety of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), particularly concerning metabolic and cardiovascular health, remains a central focus of clinical andrology and drug development. As the therapeutic landscape expands to include various ester formulations and delivery mechanisms, understanding their comparative safety profiles becomes paramount for researchers and clinicians. This review synthesizes long-term safety data and real-world evidence for different testosterone formulations, focusing on their distinct pharmacokinetic properties and metabolic implications. The critical evaluation encompasses traditional injectable esters, emerging oral agents, and transdermal delivery systems, providing a foundation for evidence-based decision-making in therapeutic development and clinical practice.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Testosterone Formulations

Cardiovascular Safety Across Dosage Forms

Table 1: Cardiovascular Event Risk by Testosterone Formulation Based on Real-World Evidence

Dosage Form	Cardiovascular Event HR* (95% CI)	All-Cause Hospitalization HR* (95% CI)	Mortality HR* (95% CI)	Venous Thromboembolism HR* (95% CI)
Injection	1.26 (1.18-1.35)	1.16 (1.13-1.18)	1.34 (1.15-1.56)	0.92 (0.76-1.11)
Patch	1.10 (0.94-1.29)	1.04 (1.00-1.08)	1.02 (0.77-1.33)	1.08 (0.79-1.47)
Gel	Reference (1.00)	Reference (1.00)	Reference (1.00)	Reference (1.00)

*HR: Hazard Ratio compared to gel formulation; adjusted for covariates [87]

A landmark retrospective cohort study analyzing 431,687 testosterone initiators across United States and United Kingdom databases revealed significant differences in cardiovascular safety profiles between dosage forms [87]. Testosterone injections demonstrated a 26% increased hazard of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or stroke) compared to gels, along with significantly higher risks of all-cause hospitalization (16% increase) and mortality (34% increase). Transdermal patches showed no statistically significant increase in cardiovascular risk compared to gels. The researchers hypothesized that the pharmacokinetic profile of injections—characterized by supraphysiological spikes followed by gradual declines—may contribute to these adverse cardiovascular outcomes, whereas gels and patches maintain more stable physiological concentrations [87].

Metabolic Parameter Changes Across Formulations

Table 2: Long-Term Effects on Metabolic Parameters by Formulation Type

Parameter	Testosterone Cypionate/Enanthate	Testosterone Undecanoate (Oral)	Testosterone Undecanoate (Injectable)	Transdermal Systems
HbA1c (%)	No significant change reported [88]	Not reported	No significant change reported [88]	No significant change reported [88]
Fasting Insulin	No significant change [88]	Not reported	No significant change [88]	No significant change [88]
Total Cholesterol	Not reported	Minimal effect on LDL; lowers HDL [89]	Decreases in non-statin users [88]	Not reported
Triglycerides	Not reported	Not reported	Significant decrease in statin users [88]	Not reported
Liver Function	No evidence of toxicity [90]	No evidence of liver toxicity [89]	No evidence of toxicity [90]	No evidence of toxicity [90]

Extended testosterone supplementation demonstrates generally favorable effects on metabolic parameters according to a retrospective survey of patients treated for at least two years [88]. The only statistically significant effect on glucose metabolism was a minor increase in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients receiving growth hormone alone or in combination with testosterone, though values remained within normal limits. Notably, insulin levels showed no significant changes regardless of concomitant oral hypoglycemic use. Lipid metabolism improvements were observed, with significant decreases in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in patients receiving combined testosterone and growth hormone without statins [88].

Oral testosterone undecanoate demonstrates a distinct metabolic profile, with minimal effects on LDL cholesterol but reductions in HDL cholesterol, a pattern consistent with other testosterone formulations [89]. Crucially, this oral agent shows no evidence of liver toxicity, addressing a primary safety concern associated with earlier oral androgen formulations like methyltestosterone [89].

Prostate Safety and Other Long-Term Considerations

Long-term safety data extending up to six years of continuous therapy with oral testosterone undecanoate demonstrates no adverse effects on liver function parameters [90]. Additionally, no cases of gynecomastia were reported during therapy, and men aged 50-62 years showed no decrease in urine flow or other signs of benign prostatic hypertrophy over 72 months of treatment [90].

The overall incidence of adverse clinical outcomes—including prostate disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer—was remarkably low (1.3%) among 531 patients treated with testosterone and/or growth hormone for at least one year [88]. This finding suggests that extended hormonal supplementation, when properly monitored, does not significantly increase the risk of these conditions.

Experimental Models and Methodologies in Testosterone Safety Research

Animal Models for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) Research

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Testosterone Safety Research

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Testosterone Undecanoate	Long-acting testosterone ester for BPH induction	Extended half-life; stable concentration maintenance; reduced injection frequency [91]
Testosterone Propionate	Short-acting testosterone ester for BPH induction	Requires daily administration; fluctuating hormone levels [91]
Testosterone Cypionate	Intermediate-acting ester for metabolic studies	7-8 day elimination half-life; widely used in US [92]
5-alpha Reductase Assays	Quantification of key enzymatic activity	Measures conversion of testosterone to DHT; critical for prostate research [91]
Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) ELISA	Measurement of potent androgen metabolite	2-3 times more sensitive to androgen receptors than testosterone [91]

Recent methodological advances in BPH research utilize testosterone undecanoate as a superior agent for inducing benign prostatic hyperplasia in animal models compared to traditional testosterone propionate [91]. The extended half-life of testosterone undecanoate enables stable maintenance of elevated androgen levels with significantly fewer injections—every 3-4 weeks versus daily injections required with testosterone propionate. This approach minimizes handling stress in experimental animals and better mimics chronic exposure conditions relevant to human TRT [91].

The experimental protocol involves subcutaneous administration of testosterone undecanoate to castrated male Wistar Hannover rats at varying doses (125-1000 mg/kg body weight) and injection intervals (1-4 weeks). Efficacy endpoints include prostate weight and volume measurements, histological analysis of epithelial thickness, and serum measurements of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, and 5-alpha reductase levels [91]. This model provides a more physiologically relevant system for evaluating the long-term prostate effects of testosterone formulations.

Metabolic Study Designs

Human studies examining the metabolic effects of testosterone formulations typically employ randomized controlled trials or retrospective cohort designs with follow-up periods ranging from several months to multiple years [88] [6]. Key methodological elements include regular monitoring of glycemic parameters (fasting glucose, insulin, HbA1c), lipid profiles, liver function tests, and cardiovascular outcomes. The incorporation of concomitant medication analysis—such as stratifying results by statin or oral hypoglycemic use—provides additional insight into real-world metabolic effects [88].

Metabolic Pathways and Experimental Framework

Metabolic Pathways and Safety Assessment

The diagram illustrates two critical frameworks in testosterone safety research: (1) the metabolic pathway relationships demonstrating how low testosterone levels contribute to metabolic syndrome development through multiple interconnected mechanisms including insulin resistance, increased adipose tissue, and altered aromatase activity; and (2) the comprehensive experimental safety assessment framework used to evaluate TRT formulations across metabolic, cardiovascular, prostate, and hepatic parameters [93].

The critical appraisal of long-term safety data reveals distinct risk-benefit profiles among testosterone formulations. Transdermal systems, particularly gels, demonstrate superior cardiovascular safety compared to injectable esters in real-world evidence, likely attributable to their more stable pharmacokinetic profile. Injectable testosterone cypionate and enanthate show associations with increased cardiovascular risk despite favorable effects on metabolic parameters. The novel oral testosterone undecanoate addresses historical hepatotoxicity concerns while maintaining efficacy, though it shares the characteristic HDL cholesterol reduction observed with other formulations.

Methodologically, advances in experimental models—particularly the use of long-acting esters like testosterone undecanoate in BPH research—provide more physiologically relevant systems for safety assessment. Future research directions should include prospective studies directly comparing contemporary formulations, refined risk stratification protocols for vulnerable populations, and continued innovation in delivery systems that optimize both efficacy and long-term safety profiles.

Guideline-Based Recommendations and Consensus on Metabolic Management

The long-term management of metabolic parameters is a critical consideration in testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). The choice between different testosterone formulations—intramuscular injections, transdermal gels, patches, and subcutaneous pellets—can significantly influence therapeutic outcomes and safety profiles. Current research indicates that while all approved formulations are effective in restoring testosterone to physiological levels, they exhibit distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that directly impact metabolic syndrome components, including lipid profiles, insulin sensitivity, and body composition [12]. Understanding these differences is essential for clinicians and researchers developing personalized treatment strategies for hypogonadal patients, particularly those with pre-existing metabolic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular risk factors.

This comparative analysis synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and pharmacokinetic studies to provide guideline-based recommendations on the metabolic management of patients undergoing testosterone therapy. By examining direct comparative data across formulations, we aim to establish a consensus on optimizing testosterone regimens for improved metabolic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects.

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Formulations

The metabolic effects of testosterone preparations are intrinsically linked to their pharmacokinetic profiles, which vary significantly across administration routes. These differences influence not only testosterone steady-state levels but also the formation of active metabolites such as dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and estradiol, which play crucial roles in metabolic processes.

Table 1: Pharmacokinetic Properties of Testosterone Formulations

Formulation	Time to Peak (Hours)	Half-Life	DHT/T Ratio	Dosing Frequency	Key Characteristics
Transdermal Gel	16-24 [94]	Continuous absorption [94]	Higher [94]	Once daily [12]	Mimics circadian rhythm; risk of transference [12]
Transdermal Patch	8.2 [94]	1.3 hours [94]	Lower [94]	Every 24 hours [12]	Skin irritation common; circadian mimicry [12]
IM Cypionate/Enanthate	36-48 [12]	Days [12]	Variable	Every 2-4 weeks [12]	Significant peak-trough fluctuations [12]
IM Undecanoate	By day 7 [12]	Extended [12]	Variable	Every 10-14 weeks [12]	Most stable IM option; requires loading dose [12]
Buccal System	10-12 [12]	Drops rapidly after removal [12]	Information missing	Every 12 hours [12]	Quick reversal; gum irritation [12]

A direct crossover comparison of transdermal systems revealed that while the patch and gel provide bioequivalent testosterone levels when averaged over 24 hours, the gel produces significantly higher DHT levels and DHT/T ratios [94]. This is clinically relevant as DHT has greater potency at androgen receptors and cannot be aromatized to estrogen, potentially influencing lipid metabolism and body composition. Intramuscular injections, particularly the shorter-acting cypionate and enanthate esters, produce supratherapeutic testosterone levels 4-5 days post-injection, declining to subtherapeutic ranges by day 14, creating significant metabolic fluctuations [12]. In contrast, the long-acting testosterone undecanoate injection maintains therapeutic levels for up to 10 weeks after the third dose, providing more stable exposure [12].

Metabolic Effects Across Formulations

Lipid Profile Modifications

Testosterone therapy consistently influences lipid metabolism, though the direction and magnitude of effects vary by formulation and patient characteristics. A 2024 meta-analysis of TRT in men with metabolic syndrome demonstrated significant reductions in triglycerides (standardized mean difference -0.243 mM, 95% CI: -0.474 to 0.127; p=0.039) and waist circumference (95% CI: -0.709 to 0.094; p=0.011) across formulations [6]. Interestingly, a randomized controlled trial comparing three testosterone formulations in female-to-male transsexual persons reported that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels declined significantly while low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations increased significantly across all three groups (testoviron depot, testosterone gel, and testosterone undecanoate) after 54 weeks of treatment [95].

A retrospective study of 230 men receiving long-acting testosterone undecanoate injections showed significant reductions in total cholesterol (from 183.7±33.9 to 175.5±33.1, P=0.001) and triglycerides (from 147.2±84.1 to 131.2±62.7, P=0.009) after 6 months of therapy, with no significant changes in LDL or HDL cholesterol [96]. This formulation-specific response highlights the importance of considering both administration route and ester type when managing patients with dyslipidemia.

Table 2: Comparative Effects on Metabolic Parameters by Formulation

Formulation	Lipid Profile	Body Composition	Glycemic Control	Evidence Level
Transdermal Gel	HDL decline, LDL increase [95]	Lean body mass significantly increased; fat mass decreased [95]	No significant change in fasting insulin or insulin sensitivity [95]	RCT [95]
IM Injections	Reduced total cholesterol and triglycerides; stable LDL/HDL [96]	Lean body mass significantly increased; fat mass decreased [95]	Improved HbA1c in diabetic men [97]	RCT, Observational [95] [96] [97]
Transdermal Patch	Information missing	Information missing	Information missing	Information missing
All Formulations	HDL decline, LDL increase [95]; Reduced triglycerides [6]	Increased lean mass; decreased fat mass [95]; Reduced waist circumference [6]	Information missing	Meta-analysis, RCT [95] [6]

Body Composition and Insulin Sensitivity

All major testosterone formulations demonstrate beneficial effects on body composition. A randomized trial directly comparing three formulations found significantly increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass across all groups, with no differences between formulations [95]. Similarly, a meta-analysis confirmed significant reductions in waist circumference, a key component of metabolic syndrome [6].

The relationship between testosterone and glycemic control is particularly relevant for patients with type 2 diabetes. Research indicates that approximately one-third of men with type 2 diabetes have coexisting hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, creating a complex endocrine-metabolic interplay [98]. Studies with testosterone therapy demonstrate significant benefits in glycemic control, with improvements in HbA1c levels in diabetic men with hypogonadism [98] [97]. The mechanism appears to involve both direct effects on insulin sensitivity and indirect effects through alterations in body composition, particularly reduced visceral adiposity [98].

Experimental Protocols for Metabolic Assessment

Standardized Metabolic Parameter Assessment

To ensure consistent evaluation of metabolic effects across studies, researchers should implement standardized protocols:

• Body Composition Analysis: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans should be performed at baseline and following intervention (typically 6-12 months) to quantify changes in lean mass and fat mass distribution. Android and gynoid fat regions should be standardized, with android region defined from the first lumbar vertebra to the top of pelvis and gynoid region from the femoral head to the mid-thigh [99].

• Lipid Profiling: Fasting blood samples should be collected after a 12-hour fast, with direct measurement of total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. Assessments should be timed relative to formulation administration—for gel formulations, monitoring should occur 14-28 days after initiation, prior to the morning dose; for intramuscular injections, testing should occur immediately before the next dose to assess trough levels [12].

• Glucose Metabolism: Intravenous glucose tolerance tests (FSIVGTT) should be performed using the modified minimal model of Bergman. After baseline sampling at -20, -15, and -5 minutes, glucose (0.3 g/kg) should be injected intravenously at time 0, followed by regular insulin (0.03 units/kg) at 20 minutes, with subsequent sampling at 2, 4, 8, 19, 22, 30, 40, 50, 70, 90, and 180 minutes [99]. Mathematical modeling of glucose and insulin levels determines insulin sensitivity (Si), glucose effectiveness (Sg), acute insulin response to glucose (AIRg), and disposition index.

Hormonal Assay Methodology

Consistent hormone measurement is critical for valid comparisons. Current gold standard methodologies include:

• Testosterone and Androstenedione: Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) provides the most accurate quantification, with intra-assay coefficients of variation <7.1% for testosterone and <3.9% for androstenedione [99]. The testosterone-to-androstenedione (T/A4) ratio serves as a marker for AKR1C3 activity in subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue, which correlates with metabolic function [99].

• Free Testosterone Calculation: Calculated from concentrations of total testosterone, SHBG (measured via immunoassay), and albumin using validated equations [99].

• Estradiol and DHT Assessment: LC-MS/MS should be employed for these metabolites, with particular attention to the DHT/T ratio, which varies significantly between transdermal and parenteral formulations [94].

Metabolic Pathway Visualization

Figure 1: Metabolic Pathways of Testosterone and Influence on Body Composition. Testosterone undergoes tissue-specific metabolism via three primary enzymatic pathways: aromatization to estradiol, 5α-reduction to DHT, and reversible conversion from androstenedione via AKR1C3. These metabolites differentially regulate metabolic processes, with testosterone directly increasing lean mass and decreasing fat mass, while its metabolites influence lipid storage and distribution patterns. The AKR1C3-mediated conversion in subcutaneous adipose tissue promotes triglyceride storage, which may be protective against ectopic lipid accumulation [99] [94].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Testosterone Metabolic Studies

Reagent/Assay	Application	Technical Specifications	Research Utility
LC-MS/MS	Hormone quantification	Intra-assay CV: <7.1% for T, <3.9% for A4 [99]	Gold standard for testosterone, androstenedione, DHT, and estradiol measurement
DEXA Scanner	Body composition	Android/gynoid region standardization [99]	Quantifies lean mass, fat mass, and fat distribution changes
SHBG Immunoassay	Binding protein measurement	Inter-assay CV: <11% [99]	Enables free testosterone calculation
FSIVGTT Model	Insulin sensitivity	Modified Bergman minimal model [99]	Assesses insulin action, glucose effectiveness, and β-cell function
AKR1C3 Expression	Adipose metabolism	mRNA quantification via RT-PCR [99]	Evaluates adipose tissue-specific androgen activation

Consensus Recommendations for Metabolic Management

Based on comprehensive evidence synthesis, the following guideline recommendations are proposed for metabolic management in patients undergoing testosterone therapy:

• Formulation Selection: Consider transdermal formulations for patients requiring stable physiological hormone levels and minimal fluctuation in metabolic parameters. Intramuscular testosterone undecanoate may be preferred when less frequent dosing is necessary, while recognizing its distinct peak-trough profile [12].

• Lipid Monitoring: Assess fasting lipid profile at baseline, 3-6 months after initiation, and annually thereafter. Expect modest HDL decreases and LDL increases with all formulations, but significant triglyceride reductions, particularly with intramuscular preparations [95] [96].

• Body Composition Tracking: Implement DEXA scanning at baseline and 12-month intervals to quantify lean mass gains and fat mass reductions, which are consistent across formulations [95].

• Glycemic Monitoring: In diabetic patients, monitor HbA1c every 3 months initially, as TRT typically improves glycemic control within 3-6 months [98] [97].

• Prostate Safety: Regardless of formulation, monitor PSA levels following established guidelines. Current evidence suggests TRT does not increase prostate cancer risk and may potentially be protective [26].

The metabolic effects of testosterone formulations represent a complex interplay between pharmacokinetics, metabolic pathways, and individual patient factors. While all approved formulations improve body composition and certain metabolic parameters, their differential effects on lipid profiles, fluctuations in hormone levels, and long-term metabolic impacts warrant careful consideration in clinical decision-making. Further research directly comparing formulations in randomized trials with comprehensive metabolic phenotyping will refine these guideline recommendations.

Conclusion

The long-term metabolic effects of testosterone formulations are not uniform but are significantly influenced by their pharmacokinetic profiles, patient-specific factors, and concomitant conditions. Evidence indicates that while TRT can confer benefits on body composition, insulin sensitivity, and specific lipid parameters, these effects are most pronounced in patients with lower BMI and sufficient vitamin D status. Critical gaps remain in our understanding of the long-term cardiovascular safety, with recent real-world studies suggesting a need for cautious risk-benefit assessment. Future research must prioritize long-term, prospective comparative studies, the development of personalized dosing algorithms, and a deeper exploration of the molecular mechanisms linking androgen signaling to metabolic health. For drug development, these insights underscore the imperative to design next-generation formulations that maximize metabolic benefits while minimizing off-target risks.

References

• 1. Testosterone Ester - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/testosterone-ester]
• 2. Kinetics of Removal of Intravenous Testosterone Pulses in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2861557/]
• 3. Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5915615/]
• 4. A Drug Carrier for Sustained Zero-Order Release of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05898-6]
• 5. Onset of effects of testosterone treatment and time span ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3188848/]
• 6. Effects of Testosterone Replacement Therapy on Metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11594927/]
• 7. Androgen receptor signaling in prostate cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3162670/]
• 8. Androgen Receptor Signaling and Metabolic and Cellular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7581990/]
• 9. Targeting signaling pathways in prostate cancer [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01042-7]
• 10. The role of testosterone, the androgen receptor, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9789012/]
• 11. Differential regulation of metabolic pathways by androgen ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4741655/]
• 12. Pharmacology of testosterone replacement therapy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5182226/]
• 13. Pharmacology of testosterone replacement therapy ... [https://go.drugbank.com/articles/A31613]
• 14. Association of Body Weight With Response to Vitamin D ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9856931/]
• 15. Unraveling the complex interplay between obesity and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58154-z]
• 16. Linking the metabolic syndrome and obesity with vitamin D ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6701609/]
• 17. Higher body mass index may be associated with altered ... [http://www.2minutemedicine.com/higher-body-mass-index-may-be-associated-with-altered-vitamin-d-levels-and-metabolism/]
• 18. Effects of Testosterone Replacement Therapy on Metabolic ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/22/12221]
• 19. Association Between Long-Term Testosterone Exposure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12559020/]
• 20. A comparison of the metabolic side-effects of the second ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7842964/]
• 21. Revisited guidelines for metabolic tolerance tests in mice [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41684-024-01473-5]
• 22. Emerging Evidences in the Long Standing Controversy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5924961/]
• 23. TRAVERSE Study Supports Cardiovascular Safety of ... [https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/traverse-study-supports-cardiovascular-safety-of-testosterone-therapy-when-used-as-indicated]
• 24. A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40694252/]
• 25. FDA issues class-wide labeling changes for testosterone ... [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-issues-class-wide-labeling-changes-testosterone-products]
• 26. The effect of different administrations of testosterone ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1009900/full]
• 27. Strengths and Limitations of RCTs - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK584466/]
• 28. Retrospective Cohort Study - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/retrospective-cohort-study]
• 29. Strengths and Weaknesses of Systematic Reviews [https://www.distillersr.com/resources/systematic-literature-reviews/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-systematic-reviews]
• 30. Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9092682/]
• 31. Rethinking the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials ... [https://bmcproc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12919-023-00285-8]
• 32. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19417748/]
• 33. Review Compared to randomized studies, observational ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435620311525]
• 34. Retrospective observational studies: Lights and shadows for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9686178/]
• 35. Effect of testosterone replacement therapy on insulin ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8253336/]
• 36. Testosterone Replacement Therapy in Men Aged 50 and Above [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12535424/]
• 37. Testosterone therapy increased muscle mass and lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3260358/]
• 38. Which TRT Treatment Is Right | Sustanon | Nebido [https://omniya.co.uk/which-trt-is-right-for-me/]
• 39. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Drug ... [https://amsbiopharma.com/pk-pd-studies-drug-development-adme/]
• 40. Pharmacokinetics of testosterone therapies in relation to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9293229/]
• 41. A Review of Testosterone Therapy Options for Men [https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/a-review-of-testosterone-therapy-options-for-men]
• 42. Effects of testosterone deficiency and therapy on the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002962925011383]
• 43. The association between testosterone deficiency and ... [https://www.intandro.com/articles/10.22514/j.androl.2025.008]
• 44. Study of the predictive value of testosterone in androgen ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1630862/full]
• 45. Standardizing quantitative Alzheimer's disease fluid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12000244/]
• 46. Master protocols in vocal biomarker development to reduce ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1619183/full]
• 47. A cross population study of retinal aging biomarkers with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01751-7]
• 48. MD Anderson Research Highlights for January 9, 2025 [https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/molecular-insights-cancer-cell-progression-novel-predictive-biomarkers-multiple-cancer-types-strategies-improve-immunotherapy-treatments.h00-159773289.html]
• 49. Long-Term Obesity May Accelerate Aging in Young Adults [https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2025/07/16/11/34/long-term-obesity]
• 50. Experts Forecast Cancer Research and Treatment ... [https://www.aacr.org/blog/2025/01/10/experts-forecast-cancer-research-and-treatment-advances-in-2025/]
• 51. Testosterone Enanthate vs Cypionate: Which One is Right ... [https://swolverine.com/blogs/blog/testosterone-enanthate-vs-cypionate-which-one-is-right-for-you-a-comprehensive-guide?srsltid=AfmBOopz5l-BJl5PRGsFXkNangfr2jeh2k_Pa005LzvcoTwg8dG-NWFy]
• 52. Cardiovascular Safety of Testosterone-Replacement Therapy [https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Journal-Scans/2023/06/20/14/42/cardiovascular-safety-of-testosterone]
• 53. An update on testosterone, HDL and cardiovascular risk in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4527564/]
• 54. Baseline Testosterone Predicts Body Composition and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.915309/full]
• 55. Long-Term Testosterone Therapy Improves ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28421834/]
• 56. Gold Standard TRT [https://themenshealthclinic.co.uk/gold-standard-trt/]
• 57. Testosterone Therapy With Subcutaneous Injections: A Safe ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9006970/]
• 58. How Testosterone Cypionate is Metabolized into Active ... [https://revolutionhealth.org/blogs/news/testosterone-cypionate-metabolism]
• 59. Unlocking the Benefits of Testosterone Propionate [https://swolverine.com/blogs/blog/unlocking-the-benefits-of-testosterone-propionate-your-ultimate-guide-to-boosting-performance-and-wellness?srsltid=AfmBOop8kHPgJaoZ2ummtK6NylbhpX2U9FLVJYELBVYpLrnQ1Pm3BWy1]
• 60. Effects of Five-Year Treatment with Testosterone ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3945028/]
• 61. Differential effects of 11 years of long-term injectable ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-019-0517-7]
• 62. Emerging Trends in Testosterone Replacement Therapy ... [https://menmd.com/provider-newsletter/emerging-trends-in-testosterone-replacement-therapy-trt-in-2025/]
• 63. TRT Dosing: How Much Testosterone Is Too Much? [https://www.victorymenshealth.com/trt-dosing-how-much-is-too-much/]
• 64. Comparison of different testosterone formulations ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40673020/]
• 65. Finding Your Ideal TRT Dosage [https://gamedaymenshealth.com/blog/trt-dosage-guide/]
• 66. Testosterone cypionate: Uses, Interactions, Mechanism of ... [https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB13943]
• 67. Enhanced transdermal bioavailability of testosterone ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3748904/]
• 68. Intramuscular vs. Subcutaneous Testosterone Replacement ... [https://injectneedlefree.com/intramuscular-vs-subcutaneous-testosterone-replacement-therapy-trt-pros-and-cons/?srsltid=AfmBOop4tU3nu-ZlczV1K3FQj4f1JVo3YO5WFUogRfkb10ydAv5yvzyu]
• 69. Special Diets and Nutrient Intakes in Morbidly Obese US ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11889755/]
• 70. Putting Obesity Staging Systems Into the Spotlight [https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2025/25_0222.htm]
• 71. Prognostic Nutritional Index as a Biomarker in Metastatic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39972650/]
• 72. Optimal dietary patterns for healthy aging | Nature Medicine [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03570-5]
• 73. Testosterone Replacement Therapy Market Growth Analysis [https://www.technavio.com/report/testosterone-replacement-therapy-market-industry-analysis]
• 74. Testosterone Replacement Therapy Market Size [https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/testosterone-replacement-therapy-market]
• 75. Study finds testosterone injections carry greater risk ... [https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/study-finds-testosterone-injections-carry-greater-risk-of-adverse-effects-than-gels-patches/]
• 76. Cardiovascular Safety and Benefits of Testosterone Implant ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/16/4/619]
• 77. Pharmacokinetic comparison of three delivery systems for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016648022001150]
• 78. Metabolic Effects of Testosterone Added to Intensive Lifestyle ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38606934/]
• 79. Testosterone Therapy in Men in Their 40s: A Narrative Review ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12538667/]
• 80. Effects of testosterone deficiency and therapy on the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40763842/]
• 81. Tirzepatide Shown to Tackle Hypogonadism [https://www.medcentral.com/endocrinology/hormones/tirzepatide-shown-to-tackle-hypogonadism]
• 82. Triglyceride glucose-waist circumference dynamics and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12590792/]
• 83. Triglyceride glucose-waist circumference as a useful predictor ... [https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12902-025-01834-2]
• 84. TyG × waist circumference composite indicator and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1687289/full]
• 85. Association between triglyceride glucose weight adjusted ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-99618-0]
• 86. Anti-obesity medications can normalize testosterone levels ... [https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/endo-annual-meeting/endo-2025-press-releases/portillo-canales-press-release]
• 87. Comparative safety of testosterone dosage forms - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494981/]
• 88. Long-term Safety of Testosterone and Growth Hormone ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104655/]
• 89. Study finds oral testosterone therapy undecanoate is ... [https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/featured-science-from-endo-2021/study-finds-oral-testosterone-therapy-undecanoate-is-effective-with-no-liver-toxicity]
• 90. Long-term safety of the oral androgen testosterone ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2427455/]
• 91. Comparative application of testosterone undecanoate and/or ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9116659/]
• 92. Testosterone cypionate [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_cypionate]
• 93. Testosterone and the metabolic syndrome - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3474619/]
• 94. Comparison of the Steady‐State Pharmacokinetics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515311565]
• 95. Effects of three different testosterone formulations in female-to-male transsexual persons - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25250780/?dopt=Abstract]
• 96. AB173. Effect of testosterone replacement therapy on lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4708389/]
• 97. Influence of testosterone replacement therapy on metabolic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4213476/]
• 98. Type 2 Diabetes and Testosterone Therapy - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6305869/]
• 99. Serum Testosterone to Androstenedione Ratio Predicts ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8513761/]