4.5 Article

Pharmacokinetics of testosterone and estradiol gel preparations in healthy young men

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 171-178

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.05.018

关键词

Behavioral endocrinology; Pharmacokinetics; Testosterone; Estradiol; Gel

资金

  1. Hartmann-Muller Stiftung [1275]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBEZP3-131154]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PBEZP3-131154] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paucity of pharmacokinetic data on testosterone gel formulations and absence of such data on estradiol administration in healthy young men constitutes a fundamental gap of knowledge in behavioral endocrinological research. We addressed this issue in a double-blind and placebo controlled study in which we applied a topical gel containing either 150 mg of testosterone (N = 10), 2 mg of estradiol (N = 8) or a respective placebo (N = 10) to 28 healthy young men. We then assessed serum concentrations of estradiol and testosterone in one hour intervals up to seven hours after drug application, measured LH, SHBG and cortisol levels once at baseline and three, four as well as six hours after gel administration. Treatment with testosterone gel resulted in maximum total serum testosterone concentration three hours after administration and did not suppress LH, cortisol and SHBG levels at any time point. Administration of estradiol gel led to maximum estradiol serum concentration two hours after administration. There was no suppression of cortisol, SHBG and absolute LH levels. We report here, for the first time, pharmacokinetic data on both high dose testosterone and estradiol gel application in healthy young males. The proposed model will assist in the design of future studies that seek to establish causality between testosterone and estradiol gel administration and behavioral as well as neurophysiological effects. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据