• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Steroid Profiles
  • Steroid Articles
    • Contributors
  • Steroid Forum
MESO-Rx

MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

  • Anabolic Steroids
    • Anadrol
    • Anavar
    • Deca Durabolin
    • Dianabol
    • Equipoise
    • Masteron
    • Oral Turinabol
    • Primobolan Depot
    • Sustanon 250
    • Testosterone
    • Trenbolone Acetate
    • Winstrol Depot
  • hGH & Peptides
    • CJC-1295
    • GHRP-6
    • hGH
    • hCG
    • IGF-1
    • Melanotan II
    • MGF
    • Mod GRF 1-29
    • TB-500
  • Anti-Estrogens
    • Arimidex
    • Aromasin
    • Clomid
    • Letrozole
    • Nolvadex
  • Fat Loss
    • AICAR
    • Albuterol
    • Clenbuterol
    • DNP
    • Ephedrine
    • T3
    • Telmisartan
You are here: Home / Steroid News / FDA Gives Testosterone Gel Black Box Warning to Protect Children from Increasing Penis Size

FDA Gives Testosterone Gel Black Box Warning to Protect Children from Increasing Penis Size

May 8, 2009 by Millard 8 Comments

TRT: A Recipe for Success - Cautionary Advice!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requiring the manufacturers of the topical testosterone gels AndroGel and Testim to include a “black box warning” on its labels in order to “protect children” from the potentially adverse effects of this particular anabolic steroid. The “black box warning” is the FDA’s most serious warning short of recalling a product. The action is based on eight recent reports of children who were accidentally exposed to the testosterone gel through incidental contact with a parent and/or caregiver who had use either Androgel or Testim. The FDA also felt it necessary to warn children that use of this product would increase the size of their penis which probably is NOT the best way to deter children from using it (“Testosterone Gel Safety Concerns Prompt FDA to Require Label Changes, Medication Guide,” May 7).

These drugs are approved for an important medical need, but can have serious, unintended side effects if not used properly, said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. We must ensure that the adults using them are well-informed about the precautions needed to protect children from secondary exposure. […]

Of the fully reviewed cases, adverse events reported in these children included inappropriate enlargement of the genitalia (penis or clitoris), premature development of pubic hair, advanced bone age, increased libido, and aggressive behavior.

In most cases, the signs and symptoms regressed when the child no longer was exposed to the product. However, in a few cases, enlarged genitalia did not fully return to age-appropriate size and bone age remained modestly greater than the child’s chronological age.

The concern about children being accidentally exposed to Androgel is nothing new. The risk of exposing children to transdermally absorbed steroids seems to be an obvious and common-sensical concern for people applying the testosterone gel on their body. Researchers have known about the risks of secondary exposure from Androgel for over a decade. “Given the widespread availability of [testosterone gels] in our society, we suspect that this is not an isolated event,” according to researchers from the University of North Carolina in 1999.

But why is the FDA making an issue out of it all of a sudden? Is it appropriate for the FDA to issue a black box warning for a drug that is deemed safe when used as indicated?

Should black box warnings be used just because patients are careless with their medications allowing exposure to others either by contact exposure with children or leaving the gel within reach of their children?

Is the FDA action just another example of steroid hysteria in the United States?

Does a government warning telling children that use of this product will increase the size of your penis really help?

Are the risks of such extreme virilization in children from incidental contact accurate or overblown?

Is it really possible that occasional exposure to a parent/caregiver using Androgel can cause such virilization? Or is such extreme virilization the result of parents leaving Androgel within the reach of their children who use it as a lotion?

The FDA action appears to be the first time that a drug has been given the “black box warning” due to the risks of secondary exposure associated with its use. Boxed warnings are usually required on medications that have the potential for harmful or serious adverse side effects occurring in the person for which the drug was prescribed. For example, the category of antidepressants that included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and Lexapro were required to have a black box warning because of the alleged increased risk of suicide in patients who were prescribed these drugs.

The FDA black box warning for testosterone gels, unlike similar warnings for other drugs, does not mean that the use of testosterone itself poses any serious risk to the patient for which the drug was intended. Other forms of pharmaceutical testosterone, such as the injectable FDA-approved testosterone enanthate and testosterone cypionate, do not have a black box warning. The delivery method (i.e. transdermal topical), not the active ingredient itself, used by Androgel and Testim is the culprit behind the increased secondary risk to children.

Testosterone replacement therapy - Testim transdermal gel
Testosterone replacement therapy – Testim transdermal testosterone gel

About the author

Millard
Millard
MESO-Rx | Website

Millard writes about anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs and their use and impact in sport and society. He discusses the medical and non-medical uses of anabolic-androgenic steroids while advocating a harm reduction approach to steroid education.

Filed Under: Steroid News

8 replies

Join the discussion →

Loading new replies...

Avatar of flmedic911 flmedic911 May 08, 2009 #1

I dont really see anything wrong with extra security measures....if im reading what you posted the right way.:confused:

FLMEDIC911

Reply Like

Avatar of Millard Millard May 09, 2009 #2

Every government regulation involving steroids is purportedly an additional security measure. The FDA could have even taken it a step further and issued a product recall in the interest of extra security measures. The questions are where do you draw the line? And are policies uniform and consistent for all drugs? Or are steroids targeted via fear/hysteria campaigns? These are important questions when evaluating government/regulatory action involving steroids.

Reply Like

Avatar of Jeton Jeton May 10, 2009 #3

ur certainly correct about the need for vigilance with regard to any new government regulations of AASteroids, but in this case a black box warning was frankly overdue. the effects of AAS in children can be quite harmful and varied, and the awareness level is low.

one of the reasons i switched off transdermal gels and onto injections is because it was so easy to rub off gel on people (and clothes and anything else). neither my doctor at the time nor my pharmacy gave me any child- or women-specific warnings that i can recall...i just happen to be the kind of guy that reads drug package-inserts carefully and repeatedly. most people dont. also, i already had some idea of how harmful AAS can be in children-- again, most people dont.

all told, i think the black box warning was a good idea to inform more people of an underappreciated and dangerous potential side effect. while it may indeed lead to more indesirable restrictions, that's a function of the overall AAS hysteria we must fight and not the black box warning itself. there are many non-controlled-substance FDA approved medications with black box warnings...the warning label by itself does not make a medication any harder to get.

are u against the warning itself or do u see it as a preamble to more restriction?

Reply 1 like

click to expand...
Avatar of Millard Millard May 10, 2009 #4

I've strongly advised parents of young children to avoid topical testosterone for over 4 years.

applying Androgel

The real risk is unclear, but as a parent, I don't think you can be too cautious when it comes to inadvertently exposing your children to androgens during a critical development period.

This is part of responsible parenting. I fault ignorant doctors for not educating their patients about potential risks of testosterone gels to others. I fault the pharmaceutical companies and their reps who aggressively pushed Androgel (because of the high profit margins over general testosterone enanthate/cypionate injectables for same purpose) to doctors and health care providers.

My personal experience with the issue... I went to three doctors before a doctor would prescribe me injectable testosterone over Androgel. The first two doctors ONLY wanted to prescribe Androgel EVEN AFTER I explained my concern about inadvertently exposing others to androgens. This was because they were ignorant about androgens, they were afraid of prescribing androgens, they were told by pharm reps that androgel was always best solution.

It seems like common sense that if you use a gel that can be absorbed through YOUR skin, then of course it can be absorbed through OTHERS skin too. Anyone who has used gels, know that they are very messy, they get all over your hands, the drug packaging, on faucets, on counters, etc.

As far as government regulation is concerned... No, I don't think the black box warning is appropriate in this case. It is not the purpose of FDA boxed warnings.

And I think the argument that "if you're against it, then you're against protecting children" is a bogus argument that is used too often to push ill-conceived emotional/hysteria-driven legislation/regulations.

Even after expressing my own personal concerns about Androgel, I don't think the risks are as great as indicated by the 8 cases cited by the FDA. In the past 50 years or so, a lot of research has purposely given androgens to children without such extreme side effects. Such side effects do not seem likely from occasional contact with parent who has androgel on skin. It seems more likely that children may have seen their father use the cream/gel and mimicked them when the child obtained the gel from an easily accessible location.

Still, the black box warning is not intended for powerful drugs that can cause side effects in people other the prescription-holder (i.e. children) simply because parents can not responsibly use and/or securely store the medication. Otherwise, we would have additional black box warning on dozens of drugs especially psychoactive drugs that have a high likelihood of diversion by teens searching through their parents medicine cabinets.

Reply Like

click to expand...
Avatar of Jeton Jeton May 10, 2009 #5

i'm gonna number your points and my responses for clarity:

1) i agree with you about responsibility falling on parents and doctors.

2) i also agree that doctors are too easily manipulated by the reps of pharma companies, and by general public hysteria...which can also be augmented by ignorant medical boards when AAS are involved.

3) common sense isn't always common.

4) i disagree, black box warnings are used when the FDA gets reports of serious side effects and the FDA feels those side effects are under-appreciated among doctors and patients...whether it's the risk of tendon rupture with flouroquinolones like Cipro, excessive bleeding on Warfarin, actually dying of cancer from Tacrolimus, or causing hormonal disruptions in children and women via t-gels.

5) i never made that accusation, and take your assertion of warning of t-gel side effects at face value. However, i do think that fighting the black box warning in this case is a losing battle, and if you appeared on a news program with some frothing anti-AAS activist giving counterpoint, i suspect THEY would milk the "you don't care about children" angle, and any moderating host would have to ask you "c'mon, where's the real harm in just warning people?"

6) i expect that there probably are cases of children applying their parent's t-gel directly, but i doubt that accounts for all cases...and i suspect not all cases of children exposed to adverse levels of t-gel have even come to the FDA's attention. Most coverage of hormone disruptions in children have focused on the substantial variability in response form child to child, whether it's from medically supervised hormone therapy or from aggregate exposure to things like xenoestrogens in livestock and dairy products producing morphological disruptions like premature menstruation in girls and feminizing effects in boys.

of course i also wouldn't be surprised if there was the occasional parent stupid enough to make their children use such medication, whihc would of course be abuse. in any case, I'd imagine the FDA running through a few of these scenarios (and points 1-3) and deciding that a black box warning couldn't possibly hurt and might help.

7) actually i'd expect the FDA to consider controlled-substance labels and other warning labels applied to med-bottles at a pharmacy sufficient in most circumstances...ironically, overall anti-drug hysteria better serves their purpose in that regard than a black box warning could. it may very well be that Androgel's and Testim's successful marketing as safer" and less offensive than injectable T was a critical factor in getting the FDA to issue the black warning as a caveat.

anyway, i'm still curious if your animus against this move is purely procedural ("black box warnings are not supposed to be used THAT way!") or if you think this warning could/will serve as a pretext for more overall restriction and enforcement...

thanks for the thorough response btw, and my noobie-howdies to your Admin-highness.:)

Reply 1 like

click to expand...
Avatar of Millard Millard May 10, 2009 #6

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and article and give your thoughtful responses and reactions. I think we are more in agreement on this issue than you think.

My primary objective is to highlight action that I don't think would have been otherwise taken if it were not for the negative attention given to steroids in recent years. If it weren't for the hysteria, I don't believe that the FDA would have ever acted. I think the risk for endocrine disruption is just as serious for EstroGel and related transdermal delivery systems, yet I don't see a similar black box warning.

My point is anabolic-androgenic steroids are discriminately targeted, nothing more, nothing less.

I particularly agree with you that THIS is not a battle worth fighting and I have NO INTEREST whatsoever in making the revocation of the black box warning part of my agenda. Not my intent. I hope to encourage people to critically examine all government regulations of steroids. Because in many cases, but not all, well-meaning regulation that "couldn't possibly hurt and might help" does have unintended negative consequences.

I think the issue you raised about the effects of xenoestrogens in our society is a major health issue. I wish we could re-prioritize focus on steroids in sports to this issue.

Reply Like

click to expand...
Avatar of Jeton Jeton May 11, 2009 #7

1) oh i've been sure our goals are similar, i just wasn't sure i could get clear answers without incurring admin-wrath...my experiences elsewhere leave me slightly paranoid. i'm happy to know you can argue without taking offense...no small feat for many people.

2) an interesting point that gives me a mixed reaction. i suspect that reports of endocrine disruptions in children are inherently alarming for regulators, so i suspect that t-gel would eventually earn a black box warning regardless of steroid hysteria...it may also be appropriate for Estrogel, whihc i didnt know existed until now. :) i save a further reaction here for point 5...

3) agreed...but i think it points to political faultlines that also get exposure in pt 5...

4) i concede the need for relentless critical appraisal, but until now it wasn't clear whether u considered this warning "battle worthy".

5) the political faultline i see here is almost literally the hippies and straight-edges battle transposed. thru the efforts of a few busybodies and a few more ignorant AAS users, AAS have been successfully cast by mass media into just one more drug for those damn "not-good-guys"...literally a dangerous indulgence transgressing America's eternally Puritan undercurrent. whereas hostility to xenoestrogens involves holding many different Corporate interests to account.

it's an interesting set of ironies...anti-drug hysteria has it's strongest legacy from the hippy era, when drugs were considered corrosive of manhood, capitalism and traditional values... yet now the biggest threats to longterm health and manhood on Earth come from companies that wrap themselves up in conservative images, and those same companies (and the politicians they own) cast aspersion on (pinko/commie) environmental enforcement that would curb the damage those companies due to (especially male) humans.... meanwhile medications that abet or enhance health and/or masculinity are associated with dangerous self-indulgence and counter-culture.

since a general backlash has grown in the USA against knee-jerk anti-environmentalism, it will help to transpose some of that justifiable skepticism over to the frothing anti-AAS crowd. that's why Stossel's 20/20 report on Friday was so exciting, even if it was very brief and incomplete.

Reply 1 like

click to expand...
Avatar of Jeton Jeton May 11, 2009 #8

oh hey, i just wanted to add that i tried to catch ur radio appearance tonite n couldn't. i got an email at 10:12pm EDT saying that the show you'd be appearing on would air at 9pm PDT, whihc i assumed would be midnite east coast time...but instead i'm hearing a long commercial on kfwb.com since midnite, and your twitter page says you were already on!

do u know if there's a stream or podcast of that show i might catch?

Reply Like

click to expand...

Join the full discussion at the MESO-Rx →

Primary Sidebar

Sponsors

Popular Articles

Does Trenbolone Have Progestagenic Activity or Increase Prolactin?

Does Trenbolone Have Progestagenic Activity or Increase Prolactin?

Q: "Is trenbolone progestagenic? Or does trenbolone increase prolactin? A friend did a cycle of 500 mg/week testosterone plus 500 mg/week trenbolone enanthate and got gyno, when previously he'd done just the … [Read More...] about Does Trenbolone Have Progestagenic Activity or Increase Prolactin?

What Type of Steroid Cycles Did Bodybuilders Use During Arnold Schwarzenegger's Time?

What Steroid Cycles Did Bodybuilders Use During Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Time?

Q: “I'm a middle-aged lifter seriously considering starting cycling. With the last 10 years straight being consistent and I think good quality training, and many years before that being off-and-on, more of the same … [Read More...] about What Steroid Cycles Did Bodybuilders Use During Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Time?

How to use Arimidex

How Much Arimidex or Letrozole Is Needed on a Testosterone Cycle?

Q: What dosage of Arimidex or Letrozole should be used for estrogen management on a testosterone cycle? I'm running 700mg of testosterone propionate per week and want to keep my estrogen levels in the low-normal … [Read More...] about How Much Arimidex or Letrozole Is Needed on a Testosterone Cycle?

Ask Dave Palumbo - The Truth According to Palumbo

Ask Dave Palumbo #3

Maximizing Effects of GH with Insulin and Cytomel? I am 6 1'' and weigh 240lbs and I think I've reached by genetic potential. I want to start taking GH along with the steroids I'm on but am not sure of how much GH … [Read More...] about Ask Dave Palumbo #3

Cosequin - chondroitin, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs)

Connective Tissue Part 1 – Tissue in Action

Athletes are mostly concerned with increasing strength or speed in specific activities. Increasing muscle size and power, endurance abilities, fuel utilization efficiency: these are often the primary concerns in … [Read More...] about Connective Tissue Part 1 – Tissue in Action

Footer

MESO-Rx International

MESO-Rx articles are also available in the following languages:

Deutsch, English, Español, Français, Português, Русский

Questions? Comments?

Use the following link to send us an e-mail. We will respond as soon as we can.

Contact us.

Search

Copyright © 1997–2025 MESO-Rx. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.