Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 3281961

Male contraception.

Abstract

To share contraceptive measures between partners is a goal which should be reached in the future. The possibilities on the male side are still limited in comparison with the techniques available for women. During the last 20 years many efforts have been undertaken to study and evaluate possible methods for fertility control in the male, based on interaction with the hormonal axis, sperm maturation and sperm transport. The requirements for such a method in the male are the same as in female: high efficacy, little or almost no side-effects, high practicability and compliance and the possibility for easy reversibility in a high percentage of men. Despite their increasing acceptability worldwide, the existing male methods, condom and vasectomy, do not fully meet these requirements and therefore a search for alternative male methods is warranted. At present, the following medical approaches to male fertility control have been tested or are under consideration: (i) selective inhibition of FSH: antibodies, inhibin; (ii) inhibition of pituitary-gonadal axis: steroids such as testosterone, progestin-testosterone combinations, LHRH analogues with and without testosterone substitution; and (iii) selective inhibition of spermatogenesis by gossypol, a phenolic compound from cotton plant. Whether one of these methods will reach the desired goal for male fertility control has yet to be determined.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Frick, W Aulitzky. 1988. Male contraception.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136664

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Biphasic versus triphasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. A suggested disadvantage of biphasic compared to triphasic oral contraceptive pills is an increase in breakthrough bleeding. We conducted this systematic review to examine this potential disadvantage. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with triphasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any triphasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the searches for possible inclusion and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of included studies and of possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes. We entered the data into RevMan. We calculated Peto odds ratios for incidence of discontinuation due to medical reasons, intermenstrual bleeding, and absence of withdrawal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials of limited quality met our inclusion criteria. Larranaga 1978 compared two biphasic pills and one triphasic pill, each containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. No important differences emerged, and the frequency of discontinuation due to medical problems was similar with all three pills. Percival-Smith 1990 compared a biphasic pill containing norethindrone (Ortho 10/11) with a triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel (Triphasil) and with another triphasic containing norethindrone (Ortho 7/7/7). The biphasic pill had inferior cycle control compared with the levonorgestrel triphasic. The odds ratio of cycles with intermenstrual bleeding was 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) for the biphasic compared with the triphasic levonorgestrel pill. The odds ratio of cycles without withdrawal bleeding was 6.5 (95% CI 3.1 to 13). In contrast, cycle control with the biphasic pill was comparable to that of the triphasic containing the same progestin (norethindrone). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and the internal validity of these trials is questionable. Given the high losses to follow up, these reports may even be considered observational. Given that caveat, the biphasic pill containing norethindrone was associated with inferior cycle control compared with the triphasic pill containing levonorgestrel. The choice of progestin may be more important than the phasic regimen in determining bleeding patterns.

Contraception↗