Why There's No FDA-Approved Testosterone for Women, and Why There Used to Be

There is no FDA-approved testosterone product for women in the United States. Not one, at any dose, for any indication.

Most people hear that and assume one of two things: that it was never tried, or that it was tried and failed on safety. Neither is what happened.

The US approved five estrogen-and-testosterone injectables for women. Doctors prescribed them for roughly sixty years. Then every one of them came off the market, and not because a trial found harm. The same drug class is still manufactured and sold in Mexico, Japan, Peru and Taiwan.

This is how a therapy disappears, and why nobody with a patent worth defending has been back to ask for it since.

A regulatory failure, plainly named

There are zero FDA-approved testosterone products for women in the United States.

Zero.

There are 68 FDA-approved testosterone products for men.

Let me show my work on that number, because you'll see it counted different ways and I'd rather you check me than assume I inflated it.

Sixty-eight is every testosterone product currently marketed in the United States, counted straight off the FDA's own Drugs@FDA register in July 2026. Forty-seven of those are generics. If you count only distinct brand names, you get ten: AndroGel, Testim, Vogelxo, Natesto, Jatenzo, Kyzatrex, Tlando, Xyosted, Aveed and Azmiro, plus Testopel if you count the implantable pellet.

Both numbers are true. They answer different questions. And the generics are the part that actually matters here, because 47 generics is what a solved problem looks like. It means the patents expired, manufacturers piled in, prices fell, and a man can walk into any pharmacy and fill a prescription cheaply because dozens of companies are competing for his business. Gel, nasal spray, oral capsule, weekly autoinjector, quarterly injection, implanted pellet. He can choose a delivery method based on his preference.

Women get none of that. Not ten, not sixty-eight. Zero products carrying a female indication, which means no generic competition, no price pressure, no pharmacy that can simply fill it, and no manufacturer with any financial reason to fund the research that would change it.

One caveat, since I'm asking you to trust a number: counts like this drift as generics enter and leave the market. That's a July 2026 snapshot from a database query, not a permanent fact. The zero has been permanent.

Approximately two million off-label testosterone prescriptions are written for women in the US every year. Doctors across the country know this therapy works, know women need it, and are prescribing it anyway, just without legal infrastructure to support them. They're doing workarounds because the FDA never built the road.

Two formal applications for women's testosterone products were submitted and denied. Intrinsa, a low-dose transdermal patch, was rejected in 2004 over long-term cardiovascular safety data concerns, despite more than 36 randomized clinical trials demonstrating testosterone's effectiveness for postmenopausal women. Australia approved the cream AndroFeme in 2020. The US still has nothing.

Casperson at the hearing:

"Testosterone has been used in women since the 1940s. Trans men receive 10 times the dose. What other drug do we have where we give people 10 times the dose for 50 years and publish it and then we're still asking if it's safe? Meanwhile, male testosterone products were approved with just six months of safety data. That is not a lack of evidence. It's a regulatory and equity failure."

She's right. The safety data on testosterone in female bodies is extensive, if you count the decades of research on trans men, who receive male doses, far exceeding anything prescribed for perimenopausal women, and for whom the long-term outcomes are well documented. The claim that we don't have enough evidence to approve a product at physiologic female doses is hard to defend with a straight face.

---

What gets left out: we used to have this

Casperson's line about testosterone being used in women since the 1940s is easy to read past. It shouldn't be. Here's what I didn't know until I went through the FDA's own database this month: the United States did approve estrogen-plus-testosterone therapy for women. Five products, all injectable, all discontinued.

Depo-Testadiol was the best known of them. Estradiol cypionate and testosterone cypionate suspended in oil, one intramuscular shot every four weeks, sold by Upjohn from 1954. It was prescribed as menopausal hormone therapy, for moderate to severe hot flashes. There was also Ditate-DS, and three generic versions built on estradiol valerate and testosterone enanthate instead.

Then they went away. Not because a trial found harm, and not because anything replaced them. The estradiol valerate combinations were off the US market by 2011 and the cypionate ones by 2013, discontinued the way old injectables usually are, for commercial reasons. The usual story is that this country never approved hormone therapy containing testosterone for women. It did, and then it stopped.

Where the drug went

It's still being made. Mexico, Japan, Peru, and Taiwan all carry the estradiol valerate and testosterone enanthate combination the US dropped in 2011. In Mexico it's sold as Despamen, by Laboratorios Carnot, and the label is specific about who it's for: the female climacteric syndrome, listing hot flashes, sweating, chills, irritability, insomnia, skin and urogenital atrophy, and prevention of postmenopausal bone loss.

I've been taking it since September, filled at a Mexican pharmacy. Each syringe holds 5 mg of estradiol valerate and 100 mg of testosterone enanthate. The label says one injection a month. I take it twice a month, which is a deliberate decision about the drug's half-life and knowingly a supraphysiologic dose. I explain exactly why, and what it costs, in my own experience with it.

I want to be careful about what that does and doesn't demonstrate. One woman's experience isn't evidence. This is also a far higher testosterone dose than the physiologic replacement most American clinicians aim for in women, and it carries the warnings any estrogen-containing product does, including endometrial risk if you have a uterus and aren't taking a progestogen alongside it, and androgenic effects like acne or voice change, some of which don't reverse. Work that out with a clinician who knows your history rather than copying a dose off someone's article. Please do not copy mine.

The regulatory fact holds up on its own, though. An American woman can be prescribed a combination hormone injection that this country approved, sold for nearly sixty years, and then stopped making. She just has to cross a border to fill it.

---

The FDA and the missing twelve words

In December 2004, Procter & Gamble submitted a formal application to the FDA for approval of Intrinsa, a low-dose testosterone patch specifically designed for women. The company had run the trials. The data was there. The committee convened to evaluate it.

Fourteen of seventeen advisory committee members agreed: the benefits were clinically meaningful.

The vote was not close. The benefit signal was real. The committee members knew it.

So what happened?

A committee member named Dr. Steven Nissen, at the time perhaps the most influential cardiologist in America, said the following, on the record:

"I don't want to expose several million American women to the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in order that they can have one more sexual episode a month."

Read that again slowly.

One more sexual episode a month.

That sentence did more damage to women's testosterone access than any single piece of negative research. It captured, in twelve words, exactly how medicine had chosen to frame the question, as a narrow, almost trivial convenience, a slight bump in one metric of one function, weighed against catastrophic cardiovascular risk. Not cognitive function. Not dopamine. Not mitochondrial health, bone formation, muscle integrity, anhedonia, or the neurological machinery of ambition. One more sexual episode a month.

The FDA demanded what they did not demand for men: five or more years of safety data on more than 5,000 women before approval. Male testosterone products were approved on six months of data.

Procter & Gamble did the math. Testosterone is a generic molecule. There is no patent on it. There is no intellectual property moat that would allow them to recoup a billion-dollar safety study, the kind it would take to satisfy the FDA's demand. If you run a $1 billion clinical trial and it proves a generic molecule is safe, any competitor can immediately manufacture the same molecule under a different name and capture the market you paid to create.

So P&G did the only rational thing: they got Intrinsa approved in Europe in 2006, where the evidentiary bar was different, and then abandoned the U.S. application entirely.

And that is why, as of 2026, there are still zero FDA-approved testosterone products for women in the United States.

---

The international landscape is a useful contrast. Australia approved a testosterone cream for women (AndroFeme) in 2020. The UK approved one in 2026. A company called Aviva Bio received FDA guidance in January 2026 on their AVA-291 product, the first real regulatory movement in twenty-two years.

But in the country that spent the most time deciding, the answer is still no.

In 2023, Nissen himself chaired the TRAVERSE trial, a large randomized controlled trial that found bioidentical testosterone does not increase major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) even in men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Healthy postmenopausal women at one-tenth the male dose were the population he was supposedly protecting in 2004. His own subsequent research made that protection look like it was never needed.

Dr. Nissen's quote summarizes how an entire institution had framed the question, and what it had decided the answer was worth. Not "what does testosterone do to the female nervous system?" Not "what happens to the dopamine pathways when a neurohormone declines 50% between ages 25 and 40?" Just: is one more sexual episode a month worth the cardiovascular risk?

That's not the right question. It never was.

---

So when a clinician tells you there's no approved product, they're right, and it isn't because the question was asked and answered. It's because the molecule is generic, the study the FDA wanted would have cost a billion dollars, and whoever paid for it couldn't have owned the result.

That's not a scientific conclusion about testosterone in women. It's an economic one about patents, and it has been standing in for a scientific conclusion for twenty-two years.

---

This is one of four pieces on the same subject. The others: what testosterone does, and what happened when I took it · the side effects, honestly · why the studies keep finding nothing

Sources

The therapy works, and the safety data exists - Islam RM et al., Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology 2019, the definitive meta-analysis of randomized trials: testosterone reliably improves sexual function in women. It also found the evidence on mood, cognition, and musculoskeletal outcomes was still insufficient. - Davis SR et al., Journal of Sexual Medicine 2019, the Global Consensus Position Statement on Testosterone Therapy for Women, published simultaneously in several journals: the international standard-of-care document. - Achilli C et al., Fertility and Sterility 2017: transdermal testosterone improves hypoactive sexual desire disorder in postmenopausal women. - Lincoff AM, Nissen SE et al., New England Journal of Medicine 2023, the TRAVERSE trial: testosterone did not increase major adverse cardiac events, even in men with existing cardiovascular disease. Nissen, who blocked women's testosterone in 2004 over cardiac fears, was senior author. (Trial population was men.)

The regulatory history in this article (zero FDA-approved testosterone products for women, the Intrinsa rejection, the roughly 2 million off-label prescriptions a year, the "one more sexual episode a month" quote) comes from FDA advisory-committee records and the 2025 FDA hearing testimony, not from the peer-reviewed literature. Those figures are widely repeated but haven't been traced to a primary published source.