Last Friday drug company Boehringer Ingelheim presented evidence to the FDA’s advisory panel on their drug Flibanserin. This product, designed to tackle Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) in women had already been given plenty of media coverage focusing on ‘Pink Viagra’, and raised concern from scientists, healthcare staff, therapists and activists. You can see a summary of the case up until the hearing here. Meanwhile Neuroskeptic has an excellent discussion on the problems with the drug while the New View Campaign (who gave evidence at the hearing) have produced a number of really helpful fact sheets to help you understand the research behind Flibanserin.

Why did the FDA Advisory Panel say ‘no’?
The FDA rejected the application to approve Flibanserin for several reasons. They were concerned about the materials used in trials to measure sexual response, the trial outcomes (which suggested Flibanserin did not perform much better than placebo) analysis of the data, and overall management of the trial. The FDA did not, however, dismiss HSDD generally and indicated it was a problematic condition they recognised.

Those who have raised concerns about Boehringer Ingelheim’s marketing of Flibanserin, it’s attempts to increase focus on HDSS within medical education and the quality of the research on the drug were relieved to hear the FDA’s decision. However, critics of the concept of medicalising women’s sexuality were concerned the FDA accepted the diagnosis of HSDD which is seen by many as problematic.

Boehringer Ingelheim have since issued a press release detailing how they will continue to research HSDD and continue their trials on Flibanserin. The result from the FDA, although fair, comes as very bad news to the company who have already invested heavily in the drug in the hope of making millions from sales if they can get it approved.

The FDA Advisory Panel’s decision will be formalised in the coming months. What seems very obvious is concerns raised about the drug have been heard but only in part and certainly there is no sign Boehringer Ingelheim will discontinue trials of Flibanserin at this stage.

How about the press coverage of this case?
The media have handled this case better than previous drugs aimed at treating HSDD. Although in the run up to the hearing there has been a lot of coverage for ‘Pink Viagra’ there has been some more accurate and critical reporting. Certainly since the FDA decision has been released there has been some particularly excellent coverage such as this report for CNN by Jennifer Terry.

There are, however, lessons to be learned from the media’s approach to this case. Journalists in the main did not investigate the claims made by scientists such as myself about the marketing of Flibanserin, the approaches by Boeringher Ingelheim took to medical education, or the quality of the research. Indeed many journalists said they couldn’t find the research – and that’s because Boeringher Ingelheim did not publish it in any peer reviewed journal. This alone should have rung major warning bells for journalists but generally didn’t. So we need to be aware that while there is now some critical coverage about the medicalisation of sexuality there is also a long way to go to get journalists to ask basic questions about drug company funded research in this area. It’s important the media gets better at this because, aside from getting better stories to cover, the focus on finding a pill to fix female sex problems won’t go away.

What should we be aware of now?
Boeringher Ingelheim have indicated they will continue with their trials of Flibanserin, they may well reapply to the FDA with new trial data or may apply to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for approval.

Debates about the diagnosis of HSDD (and sexual problems) will also continue as the DSM V is developed.

Journalists, healthcare providers, therapists and the public need to be aware of the problems with the research that led to the FDA’s decision and further scrutiny needs to be applied to the company and the drug in the coming months. It would certainly be helpful if healthcare staff challenged the medical education for HSDD awareness funded by the company and the media applied a critical lens. We will also need to be alert to other drug companies also working on similar products.

We also need to be careful to avoid getting into debates about whether a pill is needed or whether women have sexual problems, as has been the case in the current coverage of Flibanserin. This has missed the wider aspects of marketing, poor trial design and other research questions that really needed to be talked about. Instead we’re often left with an argument that in questioning medicalisation of female sexual functioning we’re somehow denying women have problems.

So as this latest chapter in the medicalisation story closes, let’s be very clear. Women do experience sexual problems that cause them distress, discomfort and dissatisfaction. These are often linked to other factors and do need attention, but they are not a clinical condition or a dysfunction, and they do not require a new and separate diagnosis. A summary of common reasons women experience problems with sex can be found here.

Helping women involves highlighting the wide range of reasons they may experience problems with sex, the different solutions to those problems and to focus on educating women and their partners about the wide range of sexual experiences they may enjoy. It also means continually challenging anything that may restrict and pathologise female sexual desire.

The FDA decision is good news for science, healthcare, activism and for women’s sexual lives. However the push to find a medical solution to female sex problems is not going away and I will continue to question, challenge and update you on what’s happening. Although I hope you’ll also be doing this too!

On June 18th pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim will be seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their drug Flibanserin (which may be traded under the names of Ectris and/or Girosa).

This is an antidepressant style drug which Boehringer Ingelheim claim is a treatment for low/lack of sexual desire in women (aka Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder or HSDD). It must be taken every day and for up to a month before any benefits may be noticed. How long it should be taken for after that is not clear.

It has been difficult to judge the efficacy/effectiveness of this drug because to date no trial data has been published in a peer reviewed journal. Instead data was presented at a conference last November based on combined data from a number of trials. This combined data indicated a significant difference between the drug and placebo although it was only one more sexually satisfying experience per month on Flibanserin as compared with placebo. There is little information available about how long the drug must be taken for, potential side effects and what happens during/after withdrawal. A summary of activity on this product to date can be found here.

Despite a lack of clear data about the product, its effectiveness or how it has been evaluated, Boehringer Ingelheim has already focused on marketing to the public with activities including a glossy website aimed at women called Sex Brain Body. Messages outlining the prevalence of HSDD and related issues are also shared frequently via @SexBrainBody on Twitter. They have also been approaching practitioners to put their name to pre-written pieces to go into journals. These detail the prevalence of HSDD to be aimed at GPs and other healthcare staff along with hosting numerous ‘training events’ (described as ‘round table discussions’) for practitioners to learn more about HSDD and CME activities for medics such as “Female Sexual Health: Recognizing the Impact of FSDs on Patient and Partner and Implementing Clinical Strategies for Overcoming Communication Barriers”. In addition for the last 12 months the company has also paid a number of sexologists to design marketing materials.

What is HSDD and does it exist?
Women do experience psychosexual problems, as well as relationships difficulties or dissatisfaction with sex/relationships. You can see these summarised in an answer I recently wrote for NHS Choices.

Obviously with many potential causes of problems there are many potential solutions/responses. This might include basic health information, adequate reproductive health care, improved communication with a partner, healthcare for other problems or relationships counselling.

Concerns have been raised by the suggestion that not wanting sex or experiencing low sexual desire is a clinical problem requiring a pharmaceutical solution as a first port of call.

It was all about your hormones, now it’s all in your head
In the past five years we’ve seen some interesting (and worrying) developments in the area of drug development for HSDD. For several years the general view was women’s lack of desire was linked to hormonal deficits (specifically Testosterone) with hormonal patches designed to ‘treat’ the problem. These performed poorly at trial and were not approved by the FDA (although did get approval for use in Europe). A systematic review of all trial data indicated the Intrinsa patch was not effective at dealing with low desire in women.

The focus has now shifted to seeing women’s lack of desire as a neurological problem, with Flibanserin working in a similar way to an antidepressant (indeed it was developed as an antidepressant but was not fit for purpose). The naming of the promotional site as ‘Sex. Brain. Body’ particularly shifts attention towards female desire problems as being psychological, complex and emotional.

Intrinsa was only designed for women who had low desire following surgical menopause, whereas Flibanserin can be taken by any woman diagnosed with low sexual desire. Already we have seen practitioners associated with Boehringer Ingelheim working on Flibanserin also suggesting the contraceptive pill reduces desire which is one market which may benefit from having a pill to boost arousal.

Challenging the medicalisation of female sexual problems
There have been a number of efforts to challenge the medicalisation of female sexual dysfunction and to ask questions about Flibanserin. These include the New View Campaign, journalist Ray Moynihan’s forthcoming book Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals and Liz Canner’s documentary Orgasm Inc. While Paul Joannides has used humour to focus on problematic aspects of the drug.

The response by the Boehringer Ingelheim has been to focus on presenting high levels of female sexual dysfunction to practitioners and the media, and reinforcing the message HSDD is extremely prevalent and highly distressing. Those who have criticised the company or the drug have been accused of ignoring women’s plight or dismissing problems.

This is unfair and inaccurate. It is perfectly reasonable to question any drug that is being marketed, particularly in terms of its effectiveness, safety, marketing and purpose. Rather than denying women’s problems those questioning Boehringer Ingelheim are mostly long term activists for women’s health and sexual wellbeing.

What can you do?
Write to the FDA
This needs to be done by 3 June (can do this via email or fax). Contact details are:
Kalyani Bhatt
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21)
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1093)
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301-827-7001
Fax: 301-827-6776
E-mail: Kalyani.Bhatt@fda.hhs.gov

In particular you may wish to focus on the following in your feedback via the New View Campaign
“Please write to the FDA before June 3 about Flibanserin. All the information you need is on the FDA website. Write about side effects worries, poor efficacy in the trials, your concerns about the target population of young women, the outrageous marketing campaigns now underway with actress Lisa Rinna and others, the poor efficacy in the European trials that is never mentioned, the emphasis on HSDD (a soon to be extinct designation), etc. Be specific and be personal!!”

Sign the petition
The petition against Flibanserin and the medicalisation of female sexual functioning is hosted at Change.org. Please share this widely on twitter, your blog, forums, through health groups and listserves. It will be presented to the FDA at the hearing on the 18th June.

Encourage the media to focus on this as a women’s health issue, rather than a pro/con debate on whether HSDD exists or whether women should/shouldn’t get help.

If you work within healthcare encourage colleagues to look critically at this drug, ask questions about why trial data hasn’t been published/subjected to peer review, and consider wider ways we can enable women and their partners.

This is a very important issue in sexual and reproductive health. It is extremely worrying the FDA are being asked to approve a drug which has not performed particularly well at trial, and which has not been published in any peer reviewed journal to allow the scientific community to investigate it. It is also concerning that female sexual responses which may be distressing are being reclassified into a clinical condition.

Last November you may remember drug company Boehringer Ingelheim reported at a conference on their trials of a drug called Flibanserin, aimed at treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women. In lay terms HSDD means a lack of sexual desire, sometimes also described as a lack of libido.

The trials did not indicate strong findings individually, but with combined data from different country sites it suggested a women who took the drug reported 0.7 more sexually satisfying sexual experience per month as compared with placebo. You can read a summary of the history of Flibanserin, information about the trials, details of how the drug company have tried to involve practitioners and appraisals of the drug and trials here.

While aspects of the drugs effectiveness and safety long term are still being investigated, and while approvals are being sought from the FDA and EMEA the drug company appear to be continuing efforts actively promote the concept of HSDD.

Late last week the company released findings from a survey of women with low desire and associated distress at a women’s sexual health conference. Dubbed the DESIRE study (Desire and its Effects on female Sexuality Including Relationships) it reported on 65,129 women ages 18-88 from five European countries. Participants completed a computerised Decreased Sexual Desire Screener (DSDS) a five-question diagnostic tool which is apparently designed to assist “non-expert clinicians in the clinical diagnosis of generalized, acquired Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD)”. 7,542 (11.5% of original sample) answered “yes” to all four questions and 5,098 (8% original sample) women further chose to participate in the in-depth survey.

It’s not clear what participants were asked in the survey, nor whether these women were part of the wider Flibanserin trials. But we can see the DSDS screening tool, which asks five questions to which you should answer yes or no:

- In the past, was your level of sexual desire/interest good and satisfying to you?
- Has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?
- Are you bothered by your decreased level of sexual desire/interest?
- Would you like your level of sexual desire/interest to increase?

In a fifth Yes or No question, women are asked to note any factors from the following list they feel may be contributing to a loss of sexual desire or interest.
- Medications, drugs or alcohol you are currently taking
- Pregnancy, recent childbirth, menopausal symptoms
- Other sexual issues you may be having (pain, decreased arousal or
orgasm)
- Your partner’s sexual problems
- Dissatisfaction with your relationship or partner
- Stress or fatigue

If you say ‘yes’ to questions 1 to 4 and ‘no’ to all the questions in number five you can be classified as having HSDD.

However, let’s go back and look at this study again. Firstly the title of it – DESIRE. It’s unclear if this is how it was introduced to participants, but it is worth noting that using potentially coercive titles in study acronyms is ethically frowned upon in research. Regardless of whether participants were told this was the name of the study, the branding of the research as ‘DESIRE’ is certainly making a point and one might add is part of an overall marketing strategy.

Moving on to look at questions 1-4 again. They don’t contain clear parameters so ‘in the past’ could mean anything from ever in your life to the last few weeks or months.

They’re also vague ‘has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?’ A decrease compared to what? How I’ve felt over the course of my life? How I feel now as compared to when I met my partner? How I feel with my current partner compared to how I felt with a previous lover?

See also ‘are you bothered’. Well, maybe I’m bothered because my partner bugs me I don’t seem to want sex enough. Or maybe my partner’s great and never pressurises me but I still feel inadequate. Perhaps I feel bothered about a lack of desire not because I don’t feel any, but because I’m not in a relationship currently. Or maybe I’ve lost desire for reasons I understand, it does bother me, but I also know that the situation may change or I can do something to solve the issue. Being ‘bothered’ can mean very different things to different people at different times in their relationship.

The questions are also leading. ‘Would you like your level of desire/interest to increase?’ Well most of us would probably say yes. But even if we did say this, does it really tell us much. If I say I don’t want my levels of desire to increase it may not also tell you that I would like the opportunities to explore pleasure to be more forthcoming. Or perhaps I’d like more opportunities to have the time to spend on intimacy.

If you’re setting up a diagnostic you need to be really clear about what it is you’re asking people to measure their experiences/behaviour against. Otherwise it becomes all too easy for people who’re probably not that troubled by something to be classed as someone who is in difficulty.

Let’s not lose sight of what are the main causes of desire problems in women – see how many of these you consider to be a ‘medical’ condition:
* Concerns over body image
* A lack of sex education or knowledge how your body works
* Not knowing what turns you on, or the inability to share what does turn you on with a partner
* Psychological or physical health problems (including sexually transmitted infections)
* Past or present sexual abuse or domestic violence
* A partner who has a sexual problem
* A partner who does not know how to turn you on effectively
* Relationship difficulties including arguments or jealousy
* Being overworked and lacking support from family and/or partner
* Having a young family (particularly if there’s little support provided to care for them)
* Concerns over fertility, problems with contraception use
* Lack of privacy to relax enough for sex
* Poverty and related issues of limited access to healthcare
* Focusing on vaginal sex instead of wider sexual activities, particularly clitoral stimulation

Aside from the DESIRE study a ‘patient registry’ will now be collating data on women classified as having HSDD who will be followed up long term. This will be supported by an ‘unlimited grant from Boehringer Ingelheim’ (see press release above).

What’s interesting about the reports on the DESIRE study and launch of the patient registry is there is no mention on the press release about Boehringer Ingelheim’s development of medication specifically to treat HSDD. This is important if you need to put both their investment in this study and the registry in context.

Sadly the media covered this story uncritically and without asking key questions about it. Not least about the funding of the research, registry and additional studies being conducted on medications to ‘treat’ female desire disorders.

Instead we heard coverage that women with a lack of desire suffer from emotional distress, in reports that indicated this was a widespread crisis that needed immediate attention.

Now many women do report dissatisfaction with sex, but that does not mean they are dysfunctional, nor does it mean they are always distressed. Problems around desire affect women and men, gay and straight, partnered or single. And they can be due to a variety of often interrelated factors – physical, psychological and social.

What we are currently seeing is a shift towards setting up a lack of desire as a widespread, distressing, clinical condition that requires drug treatment as a first port of call.

There are questions to be asked about why a drug company would invest in surveys and patient registers to indicate there is a disorder, while at the same time creating medication to treat this condition.

[Non UK readers may be wondering what the 'am I bovvered?' phrase in this title refers to. It's a catchphrase of a character, surly teenager Lauren Cooper, in UK comedy programme The Catherine Tate show, shown in the picture at start of this blog]

First off, after blogging about Flibanserin I was contacted by Boehringer Ingelheim wanting a right to reply. So their letter is now added to that blog, which you can read here.

More 4 ran a short piece about the drug, featuring the very excellent Katherine Angel. This piece ran to the standard format that many media outlets took. It was presented as the ‘fun’ piece at the end of the news, and didn’t explain the drug completely. Interestingly within the piece one interviewee (the features editor for Woman magazine) described a scenario of a wife feeling pestered into sex by a husband – an upsetting situation and one that could be addressed through better communication. But not one that a drug might fix. And yet this was presented within the report in the context of a female libido problem that scientists should be working to ‘fix’. And sadly, as with countless other reports on this issue, the More 4 piece ended with a typical jokey response, with the anchorman describing Flibanserin as ‘the cure for creeping hands’.

Christine Ottery wrote a fantastic piece for The Guardian outlining the drug but with a focus on the wider issues of women’s sexual functioning. Meanwhile blogger Laurie Penny took up the political aspects of what the drug might mean to women in her piece (simultaneously published for Morning Star and Liberal Conspiracy). Both Christine and Laurie’s pieces are well worth a read – and particularly the responses. It’s interesting to me if you frame this debate within a health or sexual rights issue people tend to listen more than if you place it within a more feminist account.

The New York Times ran two pieces about medicalising female desire generally which you can read here and here. While Cory Silverberg returned to the debate and referenced a couple of fantastic blogs he’d spotted on Flibanserin.

The San Diego Union Tribune focuses on medics involved in consulting on female sexual dysfunction products, while Scottish paper The Herald compares male and female sex drugs. I wanted to like the Herald’s piece but a quick glance suggested the writer hadn’t really researched the area and seemed to have relied on a poorly written piece about ‘what women want’ to argue sex researchers can’t agree about what excites women, and ends with the statement “comparatively little research goes into combating killers of the developing world such as malaria” – which is just not true. It’s very annoying when you’re requiring journalists to write intelligently about the marketing of drugs if they don’t get basic public health information correct.

In more helpful coverage Agony Aunt and medic Miriam Stoppard wrote a helpful lay summary of female desire problems – along with some practical solutions.

And on a similar note, today I discussed Flibanserin and more specifically issues of female desire on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, with veteran Agony Aunt and writer Katharine Whitehorn. You can hear that discussion here.

One thing that has been brought to my attention during the period of time Flibanserin’s been in the news, is the lack of awareness about the development and marketing of the drug by many therapists or those working in sexual health. Journalists have told me they’ve had a struggle to find people who can talk about the drug in any informed way. They’ve had no shortage of therapists and others able to talk about women and desire, but they’ve noted that either therapists/educators hadn’t heard of Flibanserin, or hadn’t followed its recent progress, nor were able to interpret or understand the clinical data from the trials.

In fairness to those working in therapy/education the drug trials haven’t been reported in any peer reviewed journals, but some parts of the data were released to the public (see my original blog linked above). It is worrying that those working in this area are not keeping up to speed with the development of drugs, the debates around medicalisation, and the ability to read trial data. It’s one reason that drug companies can unduly influence practitioners – if said practitioners are not aware of wider political debates or able to critically evaluate evidence. So a big take home message from this is about better education for those involved in therapy/sexual health – and particularly those willing to talk to the media.

It’s also worth correcting a few errors that have appeared in the media following launch of the Flibanserin trial data. Flibanserin is not the ‘female Viagra’ (despite the lead researcher for the Flibanserin trials using that term). Viagra works on the circulatory system and it increases blood flow to the penis. Flibanserin works on neurotransmitters and promotes feelings of desire.

Some media reports have suggested the drug will be on sale in two years time. This is also inaccurate. At this stage the drug is still undergoing trials and has yet to be approved for safe use. So there will be a period of time (unknown) before it becomes publicly available, and we have seen other drugs fall at this point if the FDA or EMEA don’t pass them for public use. If/when Flibanserin is made available it won’t be on sale or an over the counter product, but will be on prescription only. And in the UK this will be limited based on cost.

I’ve seen media coverage stating you take the drug when you want sex. This is also incorrect. Flibanserin is an anti-depressant style drug and to get any effects you have to take it daily for a set period of time. We don’t yet know what the side effects are from withdrawing from the drug, or long term use. But we do know it’s not a ’sex smartie’ to take when you want to have sex.

Obviously a lot of the coverage of the drug has raised concerns women have about desire and arousal. I’ve noted these worries and I’ll be creating blogs and handouts for the new year that address these issues. After all, there are many reasons women go off sex, and while a lot of them can’t be fixed overnight, many of them can be sorted effectively.

Let’s wait and see what happens with the development of Flibanserin. I’ll keep you updated on it, and I’ll be letting you know what other research on women and desire is coming out.

What made me start blogging?
Five years ago I sat down on a dark November evening and wrote my very first blog entry. It was a bit ranty. I’d been misquoted by a journalist and was anxious it would get me into hot water (again).

I didn’t have a game plan when I started blogging. My partner (who’s way more tech savvy than I am) thought it might be a good way of sharing ideas I was struggling to convey via the mainstream media (I was writing several advice columns in magazines at the time, as well as hosting a regular radio phone in for BBC Five Live).

I approached the blog as a form of therapy. I wanted to work with the media but was getting a lot of stick for it professionally (I’m an academic as well as a sex educator). Having a place to blog would allow me to correct any errors in reporting and disclose bad journalism. I even hoped it it might even let me bring evidence into sex/relationships reporting – and show it was possible to do so without things becoming worthy or dull.

One thing I felt sure of early on was this blog was something I enjoyed writing, but I wanted to be useful, and most importantly to deliver things about sex, relationships, science and journalism that readers wanted to know about. Which is why the blog has always been shaped by things you’ve asked for.

Readers make this blog (or “why don’t you have comments?”)
Last summer I asked regular readers to give me feedback on this blog and got some very helpful responses. It’s taken me a while to implement some of these, but I have now upgraded the blog to include the things you asked for – photos and images to liven things up, a better blogroll, summaries at the start of most entries so you can decide if you wish to read on. And categories. Something I didn’ think about five years ago and really wish I had. I’m now in the process of going back through all the 800+ posts and adding categories to them, which I hope will make this blog a lot more useful to you.

The one thing this blog doesn’t have is comments. I did start off having them, but encountered several problems. As I was offering advice within columns and websites elsewhere I hadn’t planned to also answer problems on this blog. However, not all readers understood this so I frequently found requests for advice on anything from infidelity to penis size included in discussions about blogs relating to research design or journalism ethics. This sometimes led to some readers mocking those asking for advice, which of course is completely unacceptable for me as an educator.

Moreover, I’ve always blogged openly – never behind a pseudonym. I work within the community on sex/relationships projects and educational activities (in the UK and internationally). This meant I was very accessible, and felt vulnerable when those whose comments were deleted or not posted, made very personal threats.

I found moderating the comments was time consuming and took me away from other educational activities which I felt were more worthwhile. So I decided to remove the comments option. When I’ve asked readers if they want them back the general response is ‘no’. That’s mostly from people who feel the blog’s a safe space to get information which they can use as they wish elsewhere.

Of course I strongly welcome respectful email feedback and am always happy to add information or correct errors within the blog. You’re always welcome to start discussions on other forums or your own blog about issues raised here. For now I’ve no plans to reinstate comments, but since I’m occasionally asked why I don’t have them I thought this was a good a time as any to clarify the issue.

Achievements so far
Having read back to 2004 I’m pretty pleased with this little blog. It’s nice to see it’s grown into a resource that people trust and enjoy reading.

The things I’m most proud to have written are activist blogs that highlight medicalisation, exploitation and abuse. These include the debates around female sexual dysfunction, questioning high street stores stocking ‘herbal’ erectile dysfunction drugs (not approved by the FDA), exposing the Advanced Medical Institute’s aggressive sales technique for men affected by premature ejaculation, or highlighting misleading media coverage of the availability of Viagra on the high street.

I initially planned to use the blog to set right bad sex coverage in the media (or occasions where I’d been misquoted). This has been a theme within the blog although I think it’s become more focused over time (although not necessarily less ranty than my very first post). I can’t say whether it’s made much difference to journalists, and I hope it’s not put people off working with the media. I’ve found it helpful to describe poor practice – not least because the general trend for ‘experts’ working with the media is to act grateful for any exposure, not publicly discuss poor experiences or document bad practice. Gems for me include an expose of GMTV sending a cab to my home at 6am on the off chance I might wake up and come to their studio. Or how a TV show wanted to discuss female sexual confidence without mentioning genitals or masturbation. Or some rather nasty experiences with snotty TV producers just after I’d had a baby. Not to mention the hilarious case of the science journalist who really took a dislike to me (and colleagues). Oh, and let’s not forget the journalist who wanted me to recommend them an ‘unethical psychologist’ .

Of course, the past five years have not been spent simply slagging off journalists. No. Sometimes I’ve also turned my gaze to bad science too. Where it’s been depressing to report on a carnival of studies which seem to set us back sexually. Studies complaining women orgasm too easily, or there’s a ‘clitorocentric conspiracy’ against the vagina, how sex with a partner is 400% better than any other kind of sex you might have, and you can tell whether a woman has vaginal orgasms by her walk.

Let’s not forget my other bugbears. The fake formula and shonky surveys and my goodness this blog’s a treasure chest for those. And if I’m not being irritated by that, then there’s always the problem of psychologists talking about celebrities, or the general ethical issues raised by Big Brother for me to moan about.

Of course, it’s not all been bad news. Anyone would think this blog is only about gripes and grumbles. I’ve always wanted to showcase a variety of sexual experiences within this blog and not just think about sex just for a Western audience. I’ll continue to discuss issues relating to sex and seniors; teenagers; disability; transsexuality; lesbian, gay and bi issues; open relationships; BDSM; sexual health; contraception; prostitution; pornography; reproductive health; pleasure; desire; asexuality; dating; psychosexual problems; showcasing great sex pioneers; talking about safer sex; and as many other topics as I can find for you to read about.

Where to next?
Unlike five years ago, I’m now thinking strategically about this blog – who it’s for, what it does, and seeking to find ways to assess any impact it may have. I’ve noticed over the years it sometimes deviates into areas that interest me, but may not appeal to all readers. So my aim is to ensure the focus of the blog remains around the core things you’re most interested in when you visit – sex, science, and media.

I’m currently involved in overhauling the site so in the new year I hope to have far more open access materials available for you – relationships and sex guides, information about sexual and reproductive health, more advice and links to sources of help, along with practical information for journalists, healthcare professionals, parents, teens and teachers.

I’ve been asked by many readers for more information about how to become an agony aunt/media sex educator, so I’ll be blogging about this – as well as how to write a sex blog – in the not too distant future.

I’ll also be making use of twitter soon, as sometimes I blog about issues people need to hear about fast (particularly developments in science/health), so hopefully that will make messages more accessible. I’ll let you know once I’ve sorted it.

Obviously I’d like to hear what you’d like to see. How would you like this blog to develop over the next year (or five!). Are there any particular things you’d like to see more/less of? Topics you want covered? People you’d like me to interview for the ‘quickies’ section of the blog? Campaigns you want covered? Let me know what your vision is for this blog.

So, happy fifth birthday blog. Big birthday kisses to those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning. For those of you who’ve only recently found this blog I hope you like it enough to stick around for the next half decade. I notice one of my favourite other blogs Mind Hacks has also celebrated it’s fifth birthday too, so congratulations to them.

Time to blow out the candles and make a wish. Of course, I can’t tell you what it is. You’ll have to come back in five years to find out if it’s come true.

Brief background – female sexual dysfunction

Over the past 10 years the race has been on with pharmaceutical companies to find the ‘female Viagra’ – a drug to treat female sexual dysfunction (FSD).

At the same time, concern has been growing within healthcare, therapy and education about the medicalisation of sexual functioning. FSD in particular is a diagnosis with a controversial heritage, with concerns expressed that common (but often upsetting) female problems around lack of desire and difficulty experiencing orgasm have been repackaged within a illness-based model.

[You might also find this discussion held a couple of years ago on Woman's Hour that addressed FSD useful (includes links to support organisations relating to sexual difficulties). Plus this special issue of the journal Sexualities tackles the problem of medicalising sex for women and men, and Liz Canner's amazing documentary Orgasm Inc provides a thorough backdrop to the topic]

Over the years several drugs have been developed, although many did not get past early trial stages. Of those that did, testosterone patch Intrinsa was heralded as being the answer to lack of sexual desire in women, although was later found not to be clinically effective (and was never approved for use in the US). Another drug – PT141 – aimed at boosting desire (and aimed at men and women) also failed to meet safety standards and wasn’t developed further (although that wasn’t before the media promoted it as the sex wonder-drug of the future). Alongside these promised medications there’s been a whole slew of herbal products and ’super foods’ (usually fruits, seeds and berries) promoted in the media and all guaranteed to boost desire or enhance orgasms.

Latest trials – Flibanserin
Flibanserin is a centrally acting anti-depressant type drug made by Boehringer-Ingelheim who have been developing it over the past few years. It is aimed at a condition referred to as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) – or a lack of/no desire for sex in lay terms. Reports suggest the latest trials of the drug are about to be announced, and it’s likely the product will be promoted for public use within the six to eighteen months (pending FDA and EMEA approval). Early trials claim the drug boosts sexual desire, but (as with other SSRIs) this drug must be taken every day for 3-6 weeks before any effects will be noticed and continuously thereafter.

What’s interesting about this drug is it indicates a shift around how we conceptualise and ‘cure’ female sexual problems. Previously the message from drug companies was FSD was a hormonal problem and could be managed with additional testosterone. Flibanserin reframes FSD as a ‘desire is in your head’ model, working on neurotransmitters to increase libido. Moreover, previous drugs tended to focus on women who were approaching or had gone through the menopause (naturally or surgically). Flibanserin is being targeted at all women (so a far larger market share than products just for post menopausal women).

Aside from the wider worries about medicalising female sexual problems (which are caused by numerous factors), critics of Flibanserin question how an antidepressant can boost desire given a common side effect of such drugs are to reduce desire. There are also worries from healthcare workers and therapists around the long term safety of using such drugs and potential problems with withdrawal.

Those defending Flibanserin (and drugs like it) argue that therapists are only criticising the products as they want to promote talking cures over medical ones (and thus have a conflict of interest). They also have reappropriated feminist discourse to talk about women being left out or needing the same access to sex drugs as men (although the products available for men are actually limited and mostly only for erectile dysfunction).

The difficulty with discussing this area is that women do experience sexual problems for a variety of reasons. Many of these can be helped with education, better contraception, improving (or leaving) a difficult relationship, therapy, addressing psychological or physical health problems, or better sexual communication between a woman and her partner. These issues should be tackled as a first port of call, rather than recommending a pill or patch. However, given the embarrassment women experience over sex problems, plus additional pressures from the media and partners to be good in bed (and a desire for pleasure and intimacy), it’s easy to see why someone would prefer a magic bullet than having to work through what’s causing their problems.

Sadly drug companies (and practitioners allied to them) exploit this by making out anyone who questions the FSD diagnosis is anti-women or out to stop women enjoying sex.

What you can expect from media coverage
At each stage of development Flibanserin has already been promoted via the media as a forthcoming drug that will transform women’s sex lives. No doubt coverage over latest research on the drug will follow this format. It’s a dream for health writers and particularly glossy men and women’s magazines as you can discuss sex (and the stereotypical ‘women don’t like it’ angle) with a mix of science and the promise women who’re not sexy enough can be fixed.

You can expect plenty of headlines promoting a wonder drug to boost sex – and reinforcing the idea that women’s sex problems are ‘all in her head’.

What you won’t see is questioning about the drug, safety and long term effects. Nor will you see any critical reflection on the construction of FSD as a medical condition, nor any practical advice on the many reasons women may not experience the sex life they expect – and what they might do about this.

What journalists probably don’t know – behind the scenes of marketing Flibanserin
While Flibanserin has been developed, there has also been a systematic approach from Boehringer-Ingelheim to promote the product before it has been developed. In 2008/9 I’ve had two invitations to attend two two-day long ‘training days’ at top London hotels (with an honorarium of £1000 per session). This invitation has been extended to other practitioners within sexual health.

My understanding of the aim of these events were to highlight FSD (or more specifically Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder) as a problem and inform practitioners about treatment approaches. From that, key advisors who’d attended training days could speak further and influence colleagues to also promote FSD as a problem and recommend future treatments as they came on board. Here’s a copy of the agenda for one of the events to give you an idea about what was covered.

I did not attend these events. However, this did not prevent Boehringer-Ingelheim from trying to engage me in other ways. On 1 April this year I was sent an unsolicited invitation to write a paper for their journal British Journal of Sexual Medicine. You’ll see from both the letter and instructions for writing the paper that they had clear instructions about what they wanted me to say and how this would set the scene that HSDD was a prevalent and distressing problem doctors ought to be aware of – presumably so they could be alerted to a problem and be more willing to prescribe a pill when said medication became available.

This may not seem like a major issue, but it’s worth noting that such activity is frowned upon by reputable academics as really all you are doing is marketing a product, not engaging in true peer reviewed science. So obviously I didn’t accept this offer either.

[Since writing this Boehringer Ingelheim's Medical and Scientific Affairs Manager contacted me and requested a right to reply. You can read their response here].

I’m raising this here as journalists and the public need to know this may be considered a case where the market for the product is being worked upon at the same time the product is being developed.

Nobody is denying women have problems, but there are many ways to approach these without slapping a clinical diagnosis on women who don’t feel sexy.

Questions you should be asking about FSD and sex drugs
If you’re a journalist, healthcare provider or member of the public you should think about what may cause women’s problems with sex and solutions to those. Question whether a clinical intervention is the best option, and research how the category of FSD (and related diagnoses like HSDD) have been created (and who by). In particular you should ask the question whether taking SSRIs on a long term basis is the best answer to women who aren’t feeling desire.

Update 16/11/09
The press release for Flibanserin is now available. If you’re a journalist covering this story you may want to ask questions about efficacy, safety and medicalisation (as outlined above). You may also want the drug company to clarify exactly how many ’satisfying sexual events’ (their term) were classed as significant as compared with placebo. The press release states a significance, but in lay terms how much more satisfying sex per month can a woman expect if she’s taking her daily dose of Flibanserin?

Update 17/11/09
Cory Silverberg has a clear and thoughtful analysis of the Flibanserin studies, reflecting particularly on how sexual experiences were measured. This blog highlights how Flibanserin is still an experimental drug (not quite how the media are reporting it). Also, it’s worth noting from Cory’s appraisal of the research how not all women in the study did experience significantly better ’satisfying sexual events’ compared with placebo. Well worth a read for an appraisal of both the research and marketing approaches from Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Also, Neuroskeptic has a fantastic blog that tackles in depth the trials for Flibanserin and the interpretation of the findings.