Feasibility study for the centralized measurement of sperm concentration

Objective non-intrusive markers of sperm production and sexual activity

Objective studies of men's reproductive function are hindered by their reliance on: (i) self-reporting to quantify sexual activity and (ii) masturbation to quantify sperm output rendering both types of estimate vulnerable to unverifiable subjective factors. We therefore examined whether detection of spermatozoa and measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in urine could provide objective semiquantitative estimates of sperm output and recent ejaculation, respectively, using widely available laboratory techniques. Of 11 healthy volunteers who provided urine samples before and at intervals for 5 days after ejaculation, sperm was present in 2/11 men before, and in all 11/11 samples immediately after ejaculation, but by the second and subsequent void, spermatozoa were present in ∼10%. PSA was detectable at high levels in all urine samples, peaking at the first post-ejaculatory sample but returning to baseline levels by the second post-ejaculatory void. We conclude that urinary spermatozoa and PSA are objective biomarkers for sperm production and sexual activity, but only for a short-time window until the first post-ejaculatory urine void. Hence, for a single urine specimen, the presence of spermatozoa and PSA are valid biomarkers, reflecting sperm production and recent ejaculation only until the next micturition, so their measurement should be restricted to the first morning urine void.

Male hormonal contraception: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to assess spermatogenesis suppression and safety of a new combination of an etonogestrel (ENG) implant combined with testosterone undecanoate (TU) injections for male contraception. This is the first large placebo-controlled study for male hormonal contraception.

DESIGN AND STUDY SUBJECTS

In this double-blind, multicenter study, we randomly assigned 354 healthy men to receive either a low- or high-release ENG implant sc combined with im TU injections (750 mg every 10 or 12 wk or 1000 mg every 12 wk) or placebo implant and injections. Treatment duration was 42 or 44 wk and posttreatment follow-up at least 24 wk.

RESULTS

Overall, spermatogenesis was suppressed to 1 million/ml or less at wk 16 in 89% of men, with approximately 94% in two high-release ENG groups. Suppression was maintained up to the end of the treatment period in 91% of men. For all men who completed the treatment period, 3% never achieved 1 million/ml or less. Median recovery time to a sperm concentration above 20 million/ml was 15 wk (mean 17 wk, 95% confidence interval 16-18 wk). Treatment was well tolerated. As compared with the placebo group, more men in the active treatment groups reported adverse events such as weight gain, mood changes, acne, sweating, or libido change. For both spermatogenesis suppression and safety, differences were small between the active treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an ENG implant with TU injections is a well-tolerated male hormonal method, providing effective and reversible suppression of spermatogenesis. Although the results are good, there is still room for improvement, possibly by adjusting the dose regimen or changing the mode of application.