A 2026 study found an association between off-label testosterone therapy without documented hypogonadism and higher long-term cardiovascular risks in men.
In a 2026 retrospective cohort study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that men prescribed testosterone without documented evidence of hypogonadism faced a higher long-term risk of cardiovascular events compared to men treated with a confirmed diagnosis. The research was led by Hatim Kerniss and colleagues from the Department of Cardiology at University Heart Centre Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany.
The information in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Testosterone therapy requires careful clinical evaluation. Readers should consult a qualified healthcare provider for personalized medical diagnosis and treatment decisions.
The scale of this research provides a broad view of international prescribing habits. By analyzing records from 123 different healthcare organizations worldwide, the researchers captured a massive data set. The initial pool included men between the ages of 30 and 75 who were starting hormone treatment. To maintain a clear focus on new risks, the team excluded men with prior testosterone use or major cardiovascular events in the preceding three years.
Out of 358,957 men starting treatment, the analysis revealed a notable trend in clinical documentation. A total of 127,152 patients had no documented evidence of hypogonadism prior to their first prescription. This means that 35.4 percent of the observed group received off-label therapy without a recorded clinical indication. To evaluate the outcomes accurately, the researchers utilized propensity-score matching to pair similar patients.
This statistical method helped create 113,554 matched pairs of men for direct comparison. These pairs were then tracked over a follow-up period of up to 10 years. The core findings highlight distinct differences in cardiovascular health between the two matched groups. Men without documented evidence of hypogonadism faced a reported 51 percent higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.
In practical terms, the event proportion for the off-label group reached 16.53 percent. By comparison, the group treated with clear evidence of hypogonadism had an event proportion of 11.83 percent. These figures reflect a relative association rather than an isolated effect of the hormone itself. Beyond general cardiovascular events, the report detailed specific risk increases for several serious conditions.
The group without a documented diagnosis showed a 90 percent higher risk of all-cause mortality. Researchers also reported a 23 percent increase in the risk of ischemic stroke for these men. The risk for cardiac arrest was 41 percent higher in the off-label group. Finally, the data showed a 32 percent higher risk for heart failure among those without confirmed hypogonadism.
While the statistical associations are notable, the limitations of observational research must be acknowledged. Because this was a retrospective analysis, the study cannot establish that testosterone therapy caused the adverse outcomes. The research compared two distinct groups of testosterone users rather than comparing treated men against untreated men. Consequently, the findings only highlight the differences between these two prescribing contexts.
Understanding how diagnostic criteria guide patient evaluations is crucial for making sense of this data. The authors noted that residual confounding and incomplete clinical documentation could influence the interpretation. A lack of documented evidence in a medical file does not strictly prove that a patient lacked hypogonadism. Incomplete record-keeping could easily affect how individuals were classified during the analysis.
Furthermore, the researchers lacked complete data on how the treatments were administered. The analysis contained limited information regarding treatment duration, specific medication dosages, patient adherence, and formulation types. Differences in prescribing practices across the 123 healthcare settings may have also played a role. When reviewing these findings, it is helpful to reference a comprehensive overview of standard clinical treatment protocols to ground the statistics.
The primary clinical takeaway from this eBioMedicine study is the importance of confirming a medical indication before starting hormone treatment. The study authors recommend confirming the treatment indication and monitoring cardiovascular health throughout therapy. Men considering hormone therapy can use these findings to guide their clinical consultations. It is essential to ask a qualified clinician what specific diagnostic evidence supports the proposed treatment plan.
Men who are currently using testosterone should not use this observational data as a reason to stop treatment independently. The reported group-level percentages represent broad statistical trends rather than an individual health forecast. This study does not test an individual treatment decision or establish causality for specific patients. Instead, patients should schedule a review with their provider to discuss their cardiovascular history and follow-up monitoring plans.
Men can also review resources about interpreting cardiovascular safety data from larger populations for broader context.
When men evaluate the long-term risks of off-label hormone therapy, they often struggle to distinguish between broad observational statistics and their own clinical requirements. Testostra directly resolves this uncertainty about low testosterone symptoms and their possible causes by clarifying standard diagnostic guidelines. We provide the objective evidence patients need to navigate treatment decisions with their healthcare providers safely.
Testostra follows testosterone research, clinical guidance and emerging evidence without turning general information into personal treatment advice.
Send us a question, research idea or topic suggestion. Reader questions help shape future Testostra content.
Contact Testostra