There is a noticeable hesitation in parts of academic ob-gyn when the subject of subcutaneous hormone pellets arises. The reflex is familiar: they are not FDA-approved, they are compounded, and they lack large U.S.-based randomized controlled trials. For some, that is where the discussion ends.

But medicine is rarely advanced by reflex.

If we examine the history of menopausal hormone therapy, the evolution of evidence after the Women’s Health Initiative, the international data on testosterone therapy for women, the pharmacokinetic logic of steady serum levels, and the regulatory precedents in women’s health, a more nuanced conclusion emerges: pellet therapy deserves rigorous scrutiny — but not intellectual dismissal.

We Have Been Here Before

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) fundamentally altered menopausal care in the U.S. The randomized trial of conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate in older postmenopausal women demonstrated increased risks of breast cancer, coronary events, stroke, and venous thromboembolism in that specific population and formulation.

Hormone therapy prescriptions fell dramatically. For years afterward, even individualized hormone evaluation during perimenopause was treated cautiously in academic settings.

Over time, reanalysis clarified key distinctions: age at initiation matters; route of administration matters; formulation matters. These insights were reflected in the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) 2022 Position Statement, which supports hormone therapy as the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms in appropriately selected patients and distinguishes between oral and transdermal risk profiles.

The lesson is not that caution was wrong. It is that interpretation evolved.

The ACOG Position on Compounded Hormones and Pellets

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published a 2023 Clinical Consensus stating that compounded bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy should not be prescribed routinely when FDA-approved formulations are available. ACOG specifically notes concerns about compounded pellet therapy, including lack of FDA approval, variability in dosing, and the inability to remove the pellet once inserted.

These concerns are legitimate regulatory considerations. They are grounded in the principle that FDA-approved products undergo standardized manufacturing oversight.

However, lack of FDA approval does not equate to lack of evidence or physiologic plausibility. Off-label prescribing is widespread in American medicine. Misoprostol was used off-label for cervical ripening for decades before formal labeling. Numerous medications in pediatrics are prescribed based on extrapolated data rather than pediatric-specific FDA trials.

The distinction is regulatory — not necessarily scientific.

The Vaginal Estrogen Precedent: Regulatory Caution and Course Correction

For decades, low-dose vaginal estrogen products carried a boxed warning derived from systemic estrogen risks identified in the WHI. Yet observational data from the Nurses’ Health Study demonstrated that vaginal estrogen use was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, or other chronic conditions.

In November 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA initiated removal and modernization of boxed warnings for menopausal hormone therapy labeling, including agreement to remove the boxed warning from low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies.

The physiologic evidence had long supported minimal systemic risk. Regulatory labeling caught up later.

This precedent underscores an important point: regulatory positions can evolve as evidence accumulates.

Testosterone Therapy for Women: International Evidence

The debate around pellet therapy often intersects with testosterone replacement in women.

A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology evaluated randomized controlled trial data on testosterone therapy for women and concluded that testosterone is effective for postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), improving sexual function outcomes without serious adverse events in the studied populations.

The 2019 Global Consensus Position Statement on the Use of Testosterone Therapy for Women — endorsed by multiple international menopause societies — acknowledged that the only evidence-based indication for testosterone therapy in women is HSDD after formal assessment.

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines also recommend considering testosterone supplementation for menopausal women with persistent low sexual desire despite estrogen therapy.

These positions are not fringe. They are international consensus statements grounded in randomized trial data.

While pellet formulations vary by region, subcutaneous delivery has been used in clinical practice for decades. Observational studies by Glaser and colleagues have reported improvements in sexual function and mood parameters in women receiving subcutaneous testosterone implants, with low complication rates in large cohorts. In 2021, Donovitz et al. reported observational cohort data suggesting low breast cancer incidence in women treated with subcutaneous testosterone implants.

These studies are observational, not randomized trials. That distinction must be acknowledged. But large prospective cohort data are not devoid of scientific value. They contribute real-world safety and outcome signals, particularly when RCT sponsorship is limited.

The Pharmacokinetic Argument

Subcutaneous pellets provide continuous hormone release over several months, bypassing hepatic first-pass metabolism. Oral estrogen increases hepatic production of clotting factors and triglycerides; transdermal delivery mitigates this effect. Pellets similarly avoid first-pass metabolism and provide steady serum concentrations.

Stable serum levels may reduce peak-trough variability associated with daily topical preparations and adherence fluctuations. While formal head-to-head randomized pharmacokinetic trials comparing pellets with patches are limited, the principle of steady-state subcutaneous release is pharmacologically sound.

The argument is not that pellets are superior for all patients. It is that their mechanism is physiologically coherent.

The Compounding Question: Variability and Oversight

The central concern underlying ACOG’s position is not simply lack of FDA labeling — it is variability in compounding.

This is where nuance matters.

Not all compounding pharmacies operate at the same level of quality. However, many reputable compounding laboratories adhere to USP <797> and <800> sterile compounding standards, conduct third-party batch testing, and provide certificates of analysis verifying purity and dosing consistency.

Independent laboratory verification demonstrates that variability concerns can be mitigated when sourcing is rigorous. The solution is not categorical dismissal but stricter physician due diligence: confirming third-party testing, sterility assurance, and regulatory compliance.

In other words, the issue is not inherently the pellet — it is the source.

Addressing Industry Abuse

There is legitimate discomfort about commercialization. Some clinics aggressively market pellet therapy with exaggerated claims. Some practitioners may over-treat without adequate monitoring.

This concern is ethical, not physiologic.

Responsible practice requires adherence to established contraindications. According to NAMS (2022) and broader endocrine guidance, hormone therapy is contraindicated in women with active or prior estrogen-sensitive breast cancer without oncologic guidance, unexplained vaginal bleeding, active thromboembolic disease, severe uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, pregnancy, or significant hepatic dysfunction. Testosterone therapy requires monitoring for erythrocytosis and should not be used in women with androgen-sensitive malignancies.

Appropriate patient selection distinguishes medicine from marketing.

The Broader Clinical Perspective

Menopause is not a cosmetic inconvenience. It is an endocrine transition with measurable effects on bone density, cardiovascular health, cognition, metabolism, and sexual function.

Clinicians who understand endocrine physiology, evaluate patients carefully, use FDA-approved transdermal estradiol when appropriate, prescribe oral micronized progesterone thoughtfully, employ vaginal estrogen safely, and consider testosterone therapy in evidence-supported cases are practicing within contemporary standards of care.

Those who also utilize pellet therapy in carefully selected patients, sourced from reputable compounding pharmacies with third-party verification and appropriate monitoring, are not operating outside medicine. They are navigating an evolving landscape where regulatory conservatism and physiologic evidence are still converging.

Conclusion

ACOG’s caution reflects legitimate regulatory concerns. The WHI reminds us to interpret hormone data carefully. The vaginal estrogen labeling reversal reminds us that regulatory positions evolve. International consensus statements support testosterone therapy in defined indications. Observational pellet data demonstrate promising safety signals but warrant further rigorous study.

The intellectually honest position is neither uncritical enthusiasm nor reflexive rejection.

It is disciplined evaluation.

If medicine has taught us anything over the past 20 years in menopausal care, it is that nuance ultimately prevails. And those clinicians who approach hormone therapy with physiologic understanding, ethical sourcing, rigorous monitoring, and respect for emerging data may well find that time aligns more closely with their practice than with today’s skepticism.

Dr. Amy Gueye-Weinstein is a board-certified ob-gyn, public health nerd, and the founder of Visionary Women’s Health, a practice rooted in therapeutic, inclusive, and culturally responsive care for women, especially in midlife.

This article is part of the Medical Insights vertical on Op-Med, which features study breakdowns, resources, and insights from Doximity members on popular topics in medicine. Want to submit to Medical Insights? See our submission guidelines here; note that we are especially interested in articles covering oncology, dermatology, or rheumatology.

Collage by Jennifer Bogartz / Getty Images / Shutterstock