Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8736719

Male contraception.

Abstract

With the powerful tools of molecular investigation, the last decade has witnessed the most remarkable scientific advance in our history, yet no new leads for male contraception have been forthcoming. All the likely methods of male contraception discussed above were derived from relatively 'old' physiological principles or serendipitous observations. The increasing gap between fundamental research (in the control of mammalian spermatogenesis) and the lack of clinical application are a testament to the low public funding priority afforded to male reproduction and the unwillingness of the pharmaceutical industry to invest in male reproductive research and development. Yet amidst such an unfavourable setting and with very limited support, it is heartening to note that the prospects of introducing a new systemic method for male contraception into the market by the end of this millenium has been greatly enhanced. Thus the results of recent studies have confirmed the contraceptive efficacy of sex steroid-induced oligozoospermia and unexpectedly revealed an ethnically distinct pattern of susceptibility to the hormonal suppression of spermatogenesis. Thus, Asian men are more responsive than are caucasian, and long-acting testosterone esters now being tested in that most densely populated part of the world may well hasten the large-scale application of this method. This is probably the most effective way to correct the misconceptions that men are unwilling or disinterested in sharing in family planning options with their partners. Together with the increased acceptance of novel non-surgical and reversible methods of vas deferens occlusion and the availability of improved non-latex condoms, the currently unfulfilled contraceptive needs of millions of men can be increasingly met in future years. The consequent increase in overall contraceptive prevalence could well make the telling difference between demographic catastrophe and maintaining good quality existence. Politicians, scientists and industrialists need to wake up to their responsibilities and the opportunities offered by this untapped resource and market potential.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F C Wu. 1996. Male contraception.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3552(96)80059-9

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↗