A 51-participant study linked estrogen plus testosterone to higher spine-density scores. See how the finding fits menopause guidance and sexual health.
In October 2026, The Menopause Society announced findings from a study of 51 postmenopausal women presented at its annual meeting in San Diego. The meeting took place from October 20 to 24, 2026. Researchers examined bone-density measurements during estrogen-only treatment and treatment combining estrogen with testosterone.
The Society reported an increase in lumbar-spine bone-density scores during the combined treatment period. For readers following discussions about hormones after menopause, the finding brings bone health into a conversation often focused on sexual wellbeing.
The useful question is how much weight this particular finding deserves alongside existing guidance. Understanding the study's design helps keep that question separate from decisions about an individual's care.
According to The Menopause Society, participants received both regimens: estrogen alone and estrogen plus testosterone. Each treatment period lasted at least a year. This was a comparison of treatment periods in people who had received both approaches, not simply a comparison of unrelated groups.
The Society reported mean treatment durations of 3.5 years for estrogen and 3.1 years for the combination. Average follow-up was 4.1 years. These describe the study population's reported treatment exposure and follow-up, not a recommended treatment schedule.
Researchers used DEXA scans to assess bone mineral density. They compared baseline measurements with measurements after at least a year on each regimen.
The scan results covered three locations:
That site-by-site approach is important to the meaning of the report. A change at one measured location should be described at that location rather than turned into a claim about the whole skeleton.
The study's lead author was Sona Davis of the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. In the Society's announcement, she called for further research into safe and effective use in individualized menopause care.
The main finding was specific. The Menopause Society reported a significant increase in lumbar-spine T-scores during estrogen-plus-testosterone treatment.
Its summary described the findings as follows:
T-scores were the bone-density scores reported in the announcement. The distinction between an increase and a stable result matters: the report did not describe the same pattern at every location.
For an accurate summary, both parts of the result belong together. There was a reported spine-density increase during combination therapy, while the other measured sites remained stable. Describing only a general “bone benefit” would lose the most useful detail.
Several limits need to be considered together before moving from a finding to its practical meaning.
The study included 51 participants. That small sample limits how confidently the findings can be extended to the wider postmenopausal population.
ScienceAlert's October 26 report, published by Yahoo, said the study had not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed paper. Readers were therefore seeing a conference finding rather than a peer-reviewed publication. Statistical significance also does not, by itself, tell a reader the size or practical importance of a change.
The public descriptions do not identify the study as a randomized controlled trial. The results should therefore be read as an association between a treatment period and a measurement change, not proof that adding testosterone caused the difference.
Other influences during the different treatment periods could have contributed. The public account does not establish how those influences were handled. This is a reason to seek stronger evidence, not a reason to assume the finding is wrong.
Bone mineral density was a surrogate outcome in this report: a measurement used to investigate a possible health benefit. The study did not establish that the observed spine-density change prevented fractures.
The reports identify larger and longer studies as important next steps. Fracture outcomes would help answer the practical question that a scan change alone leaves open: whether the treatment reduces injuries that matter in everyday life.
The Menopause Society's October 2026 release says there is insufficient evidence to recommend testosterone for bone mass. The meeting presentation sits alongside that position rather than replacing it. The research question has gained another observation, not a new treatment standard.
The Society also lists hormone therapy among approaches that can help protect bone health. That wider context matters when interpreting the absence of a significant increase during estrogen-only treatment in this sample. One study's result does not erase the place of hormone therapy in the Society's broader discussion.
There is a separate regulatory point. In another October 2026 announcement, The Menopause Society said there are no FDA-approved testosterone products for women in the United States. A report of a possible additional benefit should not be mistaken for a newly approved use.
These distinctions are useful when weighing menopause hormone evidence. A study finding, an established recommendation and a product's approval status answer different questions. None should be used as a shortcut for the others.
For sexual wellness discussions, the same discipline means keeping the reason for considering a hormone clear. A question about distressing changes in desire is different from a question about bone protection. Combining them under the label “menopause symptoms” can obscure what someone actually wants help understanding.
The practical value of this research is a more focused conversation, not an instruction to start or change treatment. Decisions about hormone therapy belong with qualified care that considers the individual's circumstances.
A useful clinical question is how fracture risk should be assessed and which established approaches fit the person's situation. The Menopause Society identifies weight-bearing and resistance exercise among bone-protection approaches. Its list also includes adequate calcium and vitamin D as well as hormone therapy.
These are topics for a discussion rather than interchangeable choices. The announcement does not provide a personal plan, and a reader does not need to interpret the new study as one.
If the concern is a distressing change in sexual desire, the discussion can stay centered on that change and its effect on wellbeing. A bone-density headline does not need to become the explanation for a sexual-health concern.
Questions about the specific role of testosterone in desire belong in that separate conversation. Keeping the purpose clear gives a clinician a better starting point than asking whether a hormone is broadly “good for menopause.”
There is also room for a wider view of sexual wellbeing after menopause. Sexual function and bone health can both matter without being treated as the same outcome or requiring the same response.
A helpful way to read this update is to separate the research result from the reason someone is seeking care. The first concerns a measured change in a study. The second concerns a person's priorities, symptoms and overall health.
Today, write down the main reason you want to discuss hormones: bone health, a distressing change in desire or another concern.
After a bone-density headline comes the task of preparing for a broader conversation about hormones; Sexential supports that stage with mature sexual wellbeing education. Its writing helps adults aged 35 to 65 understand possible influences on sexual function by linking biology to everyday experiences without treating uncertainty as a diagnosis or providing personalised treatment advice.
Follow Sexential for thoughtful guidance on desire, sexual function, hormones, confidence, relationships and intimacy. Explore new articles and evidence-aware resources for sexual wellbeing across adulthood.
A study found no significant total gray-matter decline in its menopause transition group. Read the finding, its limits and its relevance to midlife.
A study of 105 women linked vaginal microbiome patterns with motivation-related scores, not libido. Read the findings and their limits.
A relationship guide puts satisfaction before sexual frequency, with context on shared communication, midlife changes and when professional support matters.
Explore practical resources on desire, function, hormones, confidence, intimacy and sexual wellbeing.
Read the Blog
