Women reported energy, mood and sexual-interest gains during testosterone care. See the study’s limits and how its findings compare with current guidance.
On October 22, 2026, Medscape reported on a retrospective study presented at The Menopause Society’s 2026 Annual Meeting in San Diego. Investigators including Paul R. Reynolds examined women receiving individualized testosterone therapy through the Joi + Blokes telehealth platform.
Women reported improvements in several areas beyond sexual interest. Energy and mood stood out when participants identified the benefits they valued most. The findings bring attention to concerns that extend beyond the usual discussion of testosterone and low desire.
The central question is how to interpret those experiences. A report of feeling better deserves attention, but establishing a treatment benefit requires a different kind of evidence. This study is best understood as a starting point for research rather than a change in treatment guidance.
According to Medscape, the analysis included 332 women aged 27 to 78 years. Their mean age was 45.7 years. They received individualized, bloodwork-guided treatment as part of routine care rather than being assigned to treatment in a controlled trial.
The researchers looked back at experiences during that care. Treatment duration differed between participants, with the report describing women treated for one month and others treated for more than 12 months. This was not a study in which everyone followed the same treatment schedule for the same period.
Treatment also varied by dose and delivery method. Medscape described topical, oral and subcutaneous regimens. The analysis therefore concerned a group receiving different approaches to testosterone care rather than a single standardized treatment.
A structured survey asked women to rate changes in eight symptom areas. These included energy and fatigue, memory, concentration and irritability. The remaining areas were depression, anhedonia, sexual interest and relationship satisfaction.
That broad scope matters. The researchers were asking about several aspects of daily wellbeing, not only whether women noticed a change in sexual desire.
Medscape reported that women described improvement across all eight survey areas. The reported proportions were:
Relationship satisfaction was also among the areas in which women reported improvement. These figures describe participants’ survey responses after receiving care. They are not estimates of the proportion who improved because of testosterone compared with placebo.
The survey separately asked women to identify their top benefits. Participants selected energy at 64.2% and mood at 49.7%, compared with sexual desire at 41.3%. This ranking describes what respondents valued most rather than showing that testosterone works better for energy than for desire.
Medscape also reported that 89.7% of women described improved overall quality of life. Taken together, the answers suggest that respondents noticed changes across several parts of their lives rather than viewing their experience only through sexual interest.
That is the useful observation here: women’s priorities during care may be broader than the outcome usually emphasized in testosterone guidance. It gives researchers questions to test with more rigorous methods. It does not settle which reported changes were treatment effects.
The central limitation is the absence of a placebo or other comparison group. Without one, the researchers could not separate a testosterone effect from other explanations for reported change. The study was observational rather than an experiment designed to establish cause and effect.
The survey was also not a validated instrument. That limits how confidently its categories and ratings can be interpreted as dependable measures of symptom change. A structured questionnaire can organize responses without having been shown to measure an outcome reliably.
Selection may have influenced the findings as well. If women who remained on therapy were more likely to respond, their experiences could be overrepresented. The research packet identifies this as a possibility rather than a documented explanation for the results.
The wide age span and varied treatment approaches also limit generalization. Findings from this mixed group do not automatically describe every postmenopausal woman or every testosterone regimen. Medscape reported that the study was not sufficiently powered to assess the efficacy or safety of any single dose or delivery route.
Safety requires particular care in interpretation because adverse events were not systematically captured. Reports of improved wellbeing cannot substitute for organized collection of unwanted effects. The symptom survey therefore offers no sound basis for concluding that the treatment approaches were safe.
Financial and professional relationships are relevant context too. Medscape reported that Brigham Young University mentoring awards funded the study. Reynolds served as a scientific advisor to Joi + Blokes, whose patient data were analyzed. That relationship belongs alongside the methods when readers weigh the findings.
These limitations define the report’s role: it identifies experiences worth investigating. It does not provide a reliable estimate of treatment efficacy or establish a safety profile.
The broader symptom reports do not replace the narrower recommendations described in established guidance. According to Medscape, the 2019 Global Consensus Position Statement and the 2021 International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health guideline endorse testosterone for postmenopausal women only for hypoactive sexual desire disorder, or HSDD.
The Menopause Society’s October 2026 statement makes a similar distinction. It recognizes testosterone’s effectiveness for HSDD while saying evidence is insufficient for many other menopause symptoms, including fatigue and memory loss.
This distinction is about the evidence for a particular concern. Reported improvement in energy during testosterone care is not the same as established evidence supporting testosterone as a fatigue treatment. The same separation applies when discussing mood or memory.
Erin Duralde, a physician who was not involved in the study, described the findings to Medscape as “hypothesis generating.” She also noted that randomized trials examining some nonsexual outcomes had not found a significant advantage over placebo. In the energy findings she discussed, both testosterone and placebo groups improved without a significant difference between them.
That comparison explains why encouraging experiences and cautious guidance can coexist. Women may report meaningful changes while controlled research answers a different question: whether the treatment itself produces more benefit than a comparison condition.
Safety evidence at the meeting also warrants attention. MedPage Today reported on a separate retrospective cohort study involving postmenopausal women. Five-year cardiovascular-event rates were 3.8% among testosterone-exposed women and 0.5% among matched controls.
That was a different study from the symptom survey. Its observational design likewise cannot establish that testosterone caused the cardiovascular events. The two reports should not be combined into a simple verdict that testosterone is broadly beneficial or broadly harmful.
The appropriate framework remains specific to the concern being addressed. That is why a full assessment before discussing hormones matters more than treating a broad list of symptoms as a single treatment target.
For readers, the practical value is a clearer way to frame a conversation about symptoms. Persistent distressing low desire is a different concern from fatigue or difficulty concentrating. Identifying the main concern helps keep a discussion focused on evidence that actually addresses it.
The percentages in this survey should not become a personal forecast. A more useful question is whether the proposed approach has been studied for the specific problem someone wants help with. That question leaves room for the person’s experience without assuming a hormonal explanation in advance.
A conversation with a qualified clinician can address several points:
These are discussion questions rather than a care protocol tested by this study. They help distinguish a treatment goal from a general hope of feeling better.
For anyone whose confidence has been affected by sexual changes, the distinction can be reassuring. A research headline is not a personal assessment. There is room to describe what has changed without deciding in advance that testosterone is the answer.
Readers wanting more context can also consider how to judge testosterone evidence in menopause care. The aim is not to dismiss reported improvement, but to understand what kind of evidence would make a treatment claim more dependable.
Medscape reported that the team was designing prospective research using validated symptom scales and structured safety monitoring. Randomized trials and longer follow-up were also identified as research needs. Those approaches would address important questions left open by the survey.
Today, write down one question for a qualified clinician: “What evidence supports testosterone for the specific change I want help with?”
Reported gains in energy and mood leave a gap between encouraging experiences and established treatment evidence. For readers concerned about changes in sexual confidence, Sexential connects hormonal evidence with physical health and relationship context to support clearer understanding. Its educational coverage keeps personal treatment decisions separate from general information.
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.
Different desire levels need context, not blame. Understand possible influences, discuss changing needs and recognize when professional input may help.
Compare spontaneous and responsive desire in midlife, with evidence, relationship questions and a clear distinction between openness and obligation.
Understand the differences between desire, arousal, comfort and satisfaction, with clearer language for discussing changes in women’s sexual wellbeing.
Explore practical resources on desire, function, hormones, confidence, intimacy and sexual wellbeing.
Read the Blog
