help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hair, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, F. C. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hair, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, F. C. W.
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 86, No. 11 5201-5209
Copyright © 2001 by The Endocrine Society


Endocrine Care

A Novel Male Contraceptive Pill-Patch Combination: Oral Desogestrel and Transdermal Testosterone in the Suppression of Spermatogenesis in Normal Men

W. Morton Hair, Kay Kitteridge, Daryl B. O’Connor and Frederick C. W. Wu

Department of Endocrinology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom M13 9WL

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. Frederick C. W. Wu, Department of Endocrinology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester, United Kingdom M13 9WL.

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of transdermal T and oral desogestrel on the reproductive axis of healthy men. Twenty-three men were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups and received a daily transdermal T patch plus oral desogestrel at a dose of 75, 150, or 300 µg/d for 24 wk. Baseline blood and semen samples were obtained and then every 4 wk thereafter for 32 wk. The outcome measures were sperm density and plasma levels of FSH, LH, total and free T. The results show a dose-dependent suppression of spermatogenesis and gonadotropins. Seven of the 17 subjects became azoospermic. Desogestrel (300 µg daily) in combination with 5 mg daily transdermal T was the most effective (57% azoospermic), whereas a dose of 75 µg was ineffective (0% azoospermic). Total and free plasma T were reduced by approximately 30%. High density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly reduced. No serious side-effects were encountered. We conclude that daily self-administered desogestrel with transdermal T is capable of suppressing the male reproductive axis, although the efficacy was less marked and less consistent than injectable regimens. The lower efficacy is likely to be due to failure of the transdermal T system to maintain circulating T levels consistently in the required range.

THE PRINCIPLE THAT exogenous sex steroid-induced oligo- and azoospermia can confer effective, reversible contraceptive protection in men was established in two multicenter trials employing an androgen-only prototype regimen of im injections of T enanthate (1, 2). The pharmacokinetics of T enanthate are such that a relatively high dose (200 mg), administered at weekly intervals, is required to ensure maximum suppression of gonadotropins and spermatogenesis (3). This regimen produced repeated supraphysiological peaks and markedly fluctuating levels of T (4) which induced significant extra-gonadal androgenic effects on lipid metabolism, skin, muscle, liver and hemopoiesis (5). These unwanted effects coupled with the impracticality of uncomfortable weekly im injections underline the need to use lower doses of T with more stable delivery in hormonal male contraception.

Spermatogenesis can be effectively suppressed by combining a reduced dose of T with a second antigonadotropic agent such as a progestagen (6) or GnRH antagonist (7). We previously reported that im T enanthate at the relatively low doses of only 100 or 50 mg weekly, if combined with a 19-nortestosterone-derived oral synthetic progestin, desogestrel (DSG), can suppress spermatogenesis very effectively in men; the best dose combination, 300 µg DSG daily with 50 mg T enanthate weekly, induced consistent azoospermia in all subjects (8). This study also showed that DSG and T both contributed additively and interchangeably to the reproductive as well as the nonreproductive metabolic effects, e.g. reduction of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and SHBG levels. T enanthate (50 mg, im, weekly), delivering 5 mg free T daily, is regarded as the minimal effective dose and also the minimal dose required to maintain androgen sufficiency. Although it can be surmised that lower doses of DSG or alternate formulations of T, which can reproduce stable physiological (rather than sharply fluctuating) levels, may reduce these unwanted actions, the minimally effective dose combination is currently unknown.

Transdermal T delivery systems have been recently developed for use as a noninvasive method of androgen replacement therapy in hypogonadal men (9, 10). Daily self-application of these systems offers the potential of maintaining stable levels of T within the normal range with a small diurnal fluctuation that closely mimics the physiological pattern.

To date, few male contraceptive studies have employed an entirely subject-administered regimen. As this is likely to be preferred by the majority of potential users, it is important to determine whether daily self-administration, independent of provider or research personnel, can still be effective. This will give important clues about the tolerance or margin of safety in hormonal male contraceptive regimens against a backdrop of the varying levels of compliance that will inevitably be encountered with preventative medications across any population.

We have conducted a study that employs a novel, noninvasive, daily, self-administered treatment regimen to effect reversible suppression of spermatogenesis in healthy male volunteers. The specific aims of the study were 1) to evaluate the effects of oral DSG combined with a nonscrotal transdermal T delivery on gonadotropin secretion and spermatogenesis; 2) to compare the effects of reducing doses of DSG combined with a fixed dose of T designed for physiological androgen replacement; 3) to determine the minimally effective contraceptive combination and the tolerance for breakthrough of suppression in this self-administered regimen; and 4) to assess the nonreproductive effects of these combinations in men.

Subjects and Methods

Subjects

Of 101 respondents to our advertisements, 33 were suitable for screening. After the initial interview and screening tests, 10 were excluded because of low sperm counts (n = 5) or high cholesterol (n = 5), leaving 23 Caucasian men (mean age, 34.2 ± 7.0 yr; range, 20–43 yr) to take part in the study.

Study design

Subjects who met the admission criteria similar to our previous study (8) were randomized into one of three treatment groups to receive 1) oral DSG (300 µg daily) and transdermal T (5 mg daily; n = 7), 2) oral DSG (150 µg daily) and transdermal T (5 mg daily; n = 6), or 3) oral DSG (75 µg daily) and transdermal T (5 mg daily; n = 4) for 24 wk in a single blind, parallel group design.

Subjects were studied in three phases. 1) In the control phase medical screening examination, two baseline semen analyses, and hormonal and biochemical assessments were carried out over 4 wk. 2) In the treatment phase each subject was randomly allocated to one of the three treatment groups described above. Both transdermal T and DSG were administered for 24 wk. Medical review, including physical examination, blood sampling, and semen analyses, were performed every 4 wk. 3) In the recovery phase all subjects were monitored every 4 wk by medical review, semen analysis, and blood sampling until recovery criteria were satisfied; namely, geometric mean pretreatment sperm density was reached or two consecutive specimens showed sperm density greater than 20 million/ml.

All subjects provided informed written consent and were advised to continue with their existing forms of contraception during the study. The study was approved by the Central Manchester Healthcare Trust ethical committee for medical research.

Medications

Desogestrel (75- and 150-µg tablets) were supplied by NV Organon (Oss, The Netherlands). Each subject received one tablet per d in the case of the 75- and 150-µg tablets or two 150-µg tablets in the case of the 300 µg/d group. Tablets were taken in the evening before bed. T was administered by the volunteers as two transdermal delivery systems (Andropatch, SKB, Welwyn Garden City, UK) applied to skin of the upper back, legs, or flanks and changed daily at bedtime, employing a different site at each application.

Clinical monitoring

Subjects were interviewed monthly, with particular emphasis on eliciting any side-effects, monitoring sexual function, and checking medication compliance. The latter consisted of direct questioning and counting tablets and patches remaining in returned containers. Each subject was also asked to record the occasions they missed their medications in writing. Body weight, pulse, and blood pressure were measured monthly, and testicular size (by orchidometer) was measured every 3 months. A digital prostate examination was carried out before treatment and on recovery.

Semen analysis

Semen collection and analysis of semen volume, sperm density, and motility were carried out according to the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. The suppression targets are defined as: azoospermia, complete absence of spermatozoa in the ejaculate verified by centrifugation of a whole semen sample; severe oligospermia, sperm concentration of less than 1 million/ml; and oligospermia, sperm concentration of less than 3 million/ml in one sample.

Blood tests

Blood samples were obtained twice before treatment and at 4-wk intervals thereafter for hormone measurements (T, LH, FSH, and SHBG) and hematological (hemoglobin, hematocrit, and white cell count), biochemical (urea, electrolytes, liver enzymes, glucose, and hemoglobin A1c), and lipid profiles [total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), HDL-C, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A1].

Hormone assays

All plasma samples were stored at -20 C until assay. Plasma gonadotropins were assayed by previously reported highly sensitive immunofluorometric assays (Delfia, Pharmacia-Wallac, Inc., Turku, Finland) (10) with an assay sensitivity of 0.05 IU/ml for both LH and FSH. T was determined by previously described RIA with an assay sensitivity of 0.3 nmol/liter (11). SHBG was determined by an immunoradiometric assay (Farmos Diagnostica, Oulun Salo, Finland). Free T was determined using an established equilibrium dialysis technique (12). All serial samples from one individual were assayed in a single batch to reduce variability.

Biochemical analyses

Full blood count, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, lipids (total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglyceride), and renal and liver function was measured by routine autoanalyzer methods. LDL-C was derived from the other lipid indices using Friedwald’s formula.

Statistical analyses

The data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA, paired t tests, and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for continuous variables with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. Values were expressed as the arithmetical mean ± SEM. LH and FSH levels below the sensitivity of the assay were allocated a value of 0.05 U/liter, the lower limit of detection.

Results

Spermatogenesis

Seventeen subjects completed the suppression phase, and 6 subjects were discontinued (see below). The mean sperm densities before, during, and after DSG and transdermal T administration in each of the 3 treatment groups are shown in Fig. 1AGo. The rates of suppression to three target sperm densities, i.e. azoospermia (no sperm), severe oligospermia (<1 million/ml), and oligospermia (<3 million/ml), are shown in Fig. 1BGo. Sperm density was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced in all treatment groups with respect to baseline showing a clear dose dependence, although the differences between treatment groups failed to achieve significance. Seven (41%) of the 17 subjects who completed the suppression phase achieved azoospermia. Nine (53%) of the 17 achieved suppression to less than 1 million/ml, with no additional subjects achieving suppression to less than 3 million/ml. The most effective drug regimen was 300 µg DSG and 5 mg transdermal T daily in which 4 (57%) of the 7 subjects achieved azoospermia, the earliest by wk 8 and the remainder by wk 16. One additional subject suppressed to less than 1 million/ml by wk 12, giving a total of 71% for this group. In the 150 µg DSG group, 3 (50%) of the 6 subjects achieved azoospermia, the earliest by wk 8, and the others by wk 12, while the remainder failed to suppress to oligospermia. In the 75 µg DSG group none of the 4 subjects achieved azoospermia, although 1 became severely oligospermic (<1 million/ml) by wk 12, whereas the others (75%) remained outside the oligospermic range, with sperm densities above 10 M/ml throughout treatment. Pretreatment sperm densities were not significantly different between the azoospermic or oligozoospermic responders and the nonsuppressors.



View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Suppression of spermatogenesis. A, Individual sperm density profiles for subjects in each of the three treatment groups at 4-wk intervals during 24 wk of treatment. B, Rates of suppression of spermatogenesis indicated by the percentage of subjects attaining azoospermia ({blacksquare}) or oligozoospermia below 1 million/ml () and below 3 million/ml ({square}) over the same time course. Subjects received transdermal T (5 mg/d) plus daily oral DSG at a dose of 300, 150, or 75 µg.

 
Examination of the individual sperm density profiles in each group demonstrates marked heterogeneity of response within treatment groups (Fig. 1AGo). In 4 of the 7 subjects who achieved azoospermia there was escape from suppression before the end of the treatment period; the others remained fully suppressed until treatment ended. This phenomenon was also observed in 1 of the 2 subjects who became severely oligospermic. Sperm density values began to recover within 4 wk of cessation of therapy. All but 1 of the subjects achieved the recovery criteria by wk 48 (i.e. 24 wk after the end of treatment). One subject, despite normal gonadotropin levels, did not recover until wk 64. His T levels were also subnormal over a similar time course, although his gonadotropin levels were normal.

LH

LH levels were significantly (P < 0.05) suppressed during the treatment phase in all treatment groups from wk 4 onward. Suppression was dose dependent, the most effective being in the 300 µg DSG group, although the difference between treatment groups did not achieve statistical significance (Fig. 2Go). In the 300 µg DSG group, LH was significantly (P < 0.05) suppressed from a baseline mean of 4.5 ± 0.7 U/liter to a nadir of 0.2 ± 0.1 U/liter (wk 8), whereas in the 150 µg DSG group mean levels fell from 4.5 ± 1.0 U/liter to a nadir of 0.8 ± 0.3 U/liter (wk 4). In the 75 µg DSG group LH levels were suppressed from a baseline mean of 4.6 ± 1.5 to 0.9 ± 0.7 U/liter (wk 12). Suppression of LH was not fully maintained during continued treatment. In the 300 µg DSG group, LH decreased to below the assay detection limit initially in four subjects and to less than 0.3 U/liter by wk 8 in the other three subjects. Between wk 8 and the end of treatment, all subjects in this group showed some degree of escape, mostly transient and below 0.8 U/liter, except for one which broke through to 1.6 U/liter at wk 16 having had undetectable LH 4 wk earlier. In the 150 µg DSG group, LH suppressed to below assay detection in four of the six subjects, two of whom escaped while the other two maintained undetectable LH until the end of treatment. In the 75 µg DSG group, suppression was variable, and no subject had detectable levels.



View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Hormone data: group means. The levels of plasma FSH, LH, and total and free T at 4-wk intervals during the 24-wk treatment period and the subsequent recovery period are shown. Groups received transdermal T (5 mg/d) plus daily oral DSG at a dose of 300, 150, or 75 µg. Values are the mean ± SEM. Subjects received transdermal T (5 mg daily) plus oral DSG at a dose of 300 µg (solid rhomboids), 150 µg (solid squares), or 75 µg (solid triangles).

 
The pretreatment LH level was significantly higher in subjects who did not respond compared with those that suppressed to azoospermia and oligozoospermia (<3 M/ml). This was largely attributable to one unresponsive subject with a baseline LH of 9.1 U/liter. The mean LH level during treatment was significantly lower in azoopermic and oligozoospermic responders compared with nonresponders. In all subjects LH recovered to baseline within 4 wk after cessation of treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of recovery in the three treatment groups.

FSH

FSH levels were significantly (P < 0.05) suppressed during the treatment phase in all treatment groups. Suppression was dose dependent, the most effective being in the 300 µg DSG group, although the difference between treatment groups did not achieve statistical significance (Fig. 2Go). In the 300 µg DSG group, FSH was significantly suppressed from a baseline mean of 2.7 ± 0.3 U/liter to a nadir of 0.4 ± 0.2 U/liter (wk 8), whereas in the 150 µg DSG group, mean levels fell from a baseline of 4.2 ± 0.5 U/liter to a nadir of 0.5 ± 0.3 U/liter (wk 4). In the 75 µg group mean FSH levels fell from a baseline of 3.4 ± 0.4 to a nadir of 0.9 ± 0.4 (wk 8). There was a consistent pattern of gradual escape from suppression after wk 8 in all three groups.

In both the 300 and 150 µg DSG groups, FSH suppressed to below assay detection limits in three subjects, but only one in each group maintained the suppression until the end of treatment. In the 75 µg DSG group, FSH suppressed to less than 1.0 U/liter in two subjects, but only transiently.

There was no difference in pretreatment FSH levels in subjects who suppressed to azoospermia and oligozoospermia (<3 M/ml) compared with those who did not. The mean FSH level during treatment was significantly lower in azoopermic and oligozoospermic responders compared with nonresponders. FSH recovered rapidly on cessation of treatment, reaching normal levels by wk 28, i.e. the first posttreatment assessment. There was no significant difference in the rate of recovery in the three treatment groups.

T

Mean total T levels were significantly (P < 0.05) decreased during the treatment phase compared with baseline in all three groups, although they remained within the normal physiological range throughout the study. There was no significant difference in total T between the three groups. In the 300 µg DSG group, T levels fell from a baseline of 22.0 ± 2.7 nmol/liter to treatment mean of 14.2 ± 2.5 (64.5% of basal) and a nadir of 12.5 ± 2.2 nmol/liter (wk 20), whereas in the 150 µg DSG group, levels fell from a baseline of 25.2 ± 3.1 nmol/liter to a mean of 17.8 ± 2.7 (70.6% of basal) and a nadir of 15.5 ± 3.1 nmol/liter (wk 24). In the 75 µg DSG group T levels decreased from a baseline of 21.3 ± 1.8 nmol/liter to a mean of 16.4 ± 2.4 (76.8% of basal) and a nadir of 11.4 ± 2.8 nmol/liter (wk 8).

Free T levels also decreased significantly (P < 0.05) during the treatment phase. In the 300 µg DSG group levels fell from baseline mean of 0.28 ± 0.03 nmol/liter to a treatment period mean of 0.17 ± 0.01 nmol/liter (61.6% of basal). In the 150 µg DSG group free T levels fell from 0.31 ± 0.03 to 0.24 ± 0.04 nmol/liter (78.4%) and in the DSG 75 µg group T levels fell from 0.30 ± 0.01 to 0.20 ± 0.03 nmol/liter (66.3% of basal).

There was no difference in pretreatment total T levels in subjects who suppressed to azoospermia and oligozoospermia (<3 M/ml) compared with those who did not. The mean T during treatment was not significantly different in azoopermic and oligozoospermic responders compared with nonresponders. Total and free T levels returned to pretreatment levels by the end of the recovery period in all groups.

SHBG

SHBG levels were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in all treatment groups during the treatment phase, although there was no significant difference between treatment groups in this regard. In the 300 µg DSG group, mean levels fell from a baseline of 31.3 ± 4.8 nmol/liter to a nadir of 20.7 ± 3.9 (wk 12), whereas in the 150 µg DSG group levels fell from baseline mean of 30.2 ± 6.7 nmol/liter to a nadir of 22.5 ± 5.5 nmol/liter (wk 24). In the 75 µg DSG group, levels fell from a baseline mean of 35 ± 8.92 nmol/liter to a nadir of 27.8 ± 6.3 nmol/liter (wk 12). SHBG levels returned to pretreatment levels by the end of the recovery period in all groups.

Biochemical and hematological parameters

There were no significant changes in plasma urea, creatinine, sodium, potassium, calcium, alkaline phosphatase, aspartase amino transferase, alanine amino transferase, {gamma}-glutamyl transpeptidase, bilirubin, glucose, HbA1c, hemoglobin, hematocrit, white cell count, or platelets during treatment (data not shown).

Lipids

HDL-C was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) with respect to baseline during treatment in all groups. In the 300 µg DSG group, HDL-C fell from a baseline of 1.34 ± 0.10 mmol/liter to a nadir of 1.11 ± 0.06 mmol/liter (wk 24), a fall of 17%. In the 150 µg DSG group, HDL-C fell from a baseline of 1.29 ± 0.15 mmol/liter to a nadir of 0.86 ± 0.06 mmol/liter (wk 16), representing a fall of 33%. In the 75 µg DSG group, HDL-C fell from a baseline of 1.18 ± 0.17 mmol/liter to a nadir of 0.90 ± 0.02 mmol/liter (wk 12), a fall of 24%. The differences in HDL-C suppression between treatment groups did not achieve statistical significance. Overall, the mean decrease in HDL-C levels at the end of the treatment period was 12 ± 3.2%.

There were no significant changes in total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, or apolipoprotein A1. Total cholesterol was significantly increased in the recovery period compared with baseline; this significance disappeared on removing one outlier from the analysis. All other lipid parameters returned to pretreatment levels by the end of the recovery phase in all treatment groups.

Physical changes

There was a small, but significant (P < 0.001), increase of 1.94 ± 0.56 kg (range, -4 to +7kg) in body weight by the end of the treatment phase. This gain persisted; the average weight gain at the end of the recovery period was 2.53 ± 0.67 kg (range, -3 to +9.5kg). There was no significant difference between treatment groups in this regard. Testicular volume decreased by an average of 3.3 ± 1.1 ml (range, 0–7.25 ml) during treatment and returned to pretreatment values by the end of the recovery phase. There were no significant changes in systolic or diastolic blood pressure throughout the study.

Discontinuations, side-effects, and compliance

There were 6 discontinuations; 2 were due to marked and persistent skin reaction to the T patches, and the remaining 4 subjects were either lost to follow-up before completion of the study (n = 2) or withdrew for nontreatment-related reasons, i.e. job relocation or marital discord (n = 2). During the treatment phase 11 subjects reported side-effects, namely increased sex drive (n = 4), decreased sex drive (n = 7), emotional lability (n = 2), irritability (n = 5), and tiredness (n = 2), although these were transient in nature and unrelated to treatment groupings. In addition, 15 (65%) of the subjects reported skin reactions of varying degree to the T patches. In 3 subjects the reaction was classified as mild (transient erythema), whereas in an additional 8 subjects the reaction was classified as moderate (marked erythema and itch requiring treatment with topical hydrocortisone). The remaining 4 subjects were classified as having severe reactions, manifest as marked skin erythema and blistering.

Most of our subjects reported full compliance with the drug regimen. Closer questioning, however, revealed problems with the transdermal patches other than the significant skin reaction. These included patch removal to swim, play sports, or participate in lovemaking; patch detachment with excess perspiration or showering; and poor patch adhesion to hirsute skin and in hot weather. It was therefore difficult to accurately assess the degree of noncompliance with the T patch. As daily oral DSG administration was not subject to the same problems as transdermal application and skin reaction, there was no reason to doubt the high degree of compliance reported, and this was confirmed by the tablet counts. This showed that compliance with oral medication was 90–95%.

Discussion

Previous studies in hormonal male contraception have overwhelmingly employed im injections of T (enanthate in particular) in doses (200 mg weekly) that generated supraphysiological levels in the circulation (13). Consequently, not only have side-effects been observed, but the minimal effective dose for spermatogenesis suppression has remained undefined. In the development of new therapies, it is important to demonstrate the extent of the safety margin for breakthrough and the tolerance to variable/suboptimal compliance. This can only be revealed by systematically investigating the effects of reducing doses and establishing the minimally effective dose level. In our previous study (8) we showed that spermatogenesis suppression could be effectively achieved even when im T enanthate was reduced to the lowest physiological maintenance dose of 50 mg weekly (equivalent to 5 mg unesterified T daily) when combined with the synthetic oral progestin, DSG. However, despite substantially reducing the total dose, the suboptimal pharmacokinetics of T enanthate inevitably produced sharp fluctuations with supraphysiological postinjection peak T levels (14). This contributed to demonstrable nonreproductive effects and rendered interpretation of minimal effective doses of drug combinations difficult. At the equivalent dose of 5 mg T daily, transdermal systems can maintain stable physiological levels of T and offer the opportunity to investigate the minimal dose combination of progestin required to suppress spermatogenesis effectively.

In the present study a downward dose-ranging design was employed to determine the threshold dose of DSG combined with a fixed daily amount of 5 mg transdermally delivered T for suppression of spermatogenesis. We have demonstrated a trend of progressively declining efficacy in achieving the three target levels of sperm density with reducing doses of DSG. Three hundred and 150 µg DSG daily induced azoospermia in 57% and 50% of subjects, respectively. This is approaching the range of azoospermic suppression observed with 500 µg levonorgestrel with 100 mg T enanthate weekly (67%) (15), 200 mg T enanthate weekly (1) (65%), and 1200 mg T implants (16) (56%) in Caucasian men. Suppression to oligozoospermia (either <1 or <3 M/ml) in the present study (71% and 50% with 300 and 150 µg DSG, respectively), however, was clearly inferior to the other regimens (8, 17, 18), which can achieve the less than 3 M/ml target in 94–100% of subjects. Below 150 µg/d DSG, there was a marked drop in effectiveness, with none of the subjects achieving azoospermia. Nevertheless, even at this suboptimal dose, one of the four subjects suppressed to less than 1 million/ml consistently, whereas the other three failed to reach sperm densities less than 10 M/ml. This divergence in responsiveness was also observed in the 150 µg, but not the 300 µg, DSG group. Thus, in contrast to previous studies that emphasized the resistance to achieving azoospermia in a minority of men receiving maximal doses (19), we have demonstrated a marked between-subject variation in sensitivity to hormonal suppression by exploring threshold (150 µg DSG daily) to subthreshold (75 µg DSG daily) doses of treatment. This heterogeneity in suppression suggests that a substantial proportion, perhaps up to 50%, of healthy men are able to respond to much lower doses of exogenous sex steroids than customarily used in attaining effective contraception in previous studies. In common with others (20) we have not been able to identify these susceptible individuals by any baseline characteristics, such as sperm density, gonadotropins, T levels, or body mass index, but they tend to show a more precipitous decline in sperm density within the first 8 wk after starting treatment.

Suppression of spermatogenesis with daily oral DSG and transdermal T was also less effective than with similar doses of DSG combined with weekly im injections of T enanthate (Table 1Go), although the speed of decline in sperm density was not different (8, 21). This was particularly true for the oligospermic targets. In the previous studies using DSG (8, 21) the least effective combination employing 150 µg DSG daily with 50 mg T enanthate weekly produced suppression rates similar to the best results obtained in the group receiving 300 mg DSG with 5 mg transdermal T. Furthermore, the breakthrough of suppression in three of the seven men who reached azoospermia and the partial recovery or escape before the end of the treatment period in most subjects was not observed previously with DSG and T enanthate or T enanthate alone. It appears that substituting transdermal T for im T enanthate has resulted in a loss of efficacy in spermatogenesis suppression.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Comparison of spermatogenesis suppression between oral DSG combined with transdermal T daily and oral DSG daily with im T enanthate weekly

 
Similarly, inhibition of gonadotropins by DSG and transdermal T was less effective and less consistent than previous regimens employing im T enanthate. Suppression of gonadotropins showed the same dose-related trend as spermatogenesis suppression, with LH and FSH reaching assay sensitivity in 57% and 43% of subjects, respectively, in the 300 µg DSG group and none in the 75 µg group. In line with sperm density, very few subjects maintained consistent suppression of gonadotropin, most showing transient escape or partial recovery before the end of treatment. Unsurprisingly, azoospermic and oligozospermic responders achieved significantly lower levels of gonadotropins than nonresponders during treatment. It is therefore highly probable that the inadequate suppression of spermatogenesis engendered by reducing doses of DSG and transdermal T is due to incomplete inhibition of gonadotropins.

The torso transdermal T delivery system has been shown to produce physiological circulating T levels in hypogonadal men (9, 10, 22). In eugonadal men rendered hypogonadal by exogenous sex steroid in the present study, however, total T decreased from baseline by about 30% during treatment, but mean levels at 16.1 ± 2.4 nmol/liter (all three groups combined; normal, 10–35 nmol/liter) remained within the physiological range. Equilibrium dialysis-measured free T levels also decreased significantly by similar extents as total T. A lower SHBG concentration, associated with DSG and other oral synthetic progestin treatment, therefore did not correct for the low total T, and an absolute decline in circulating bioavailable T levels was extant during treatment. Insufficient T may therefore be one explanation for the lower efficacy in gonadotropin and spermatogenesis suppression compared with other studies using the same doses of oral DSG (Tables 1Go and 2Go). Nevertheless, this study showed that improved suppression of spermatogenesis can be obtained with DSG and transdermal T compared with levonorgestrel combined with a similar dose but a different transdermal T preparation (23) and also compared with cyproterone acetate and oral T undecanoate (24) (Table 2Go). This may be related to the varying biopotencies and efficiencies of the different progestins and/or preparations of noninjection T. Our results suggest that self-administration of male hormonal contraceptive steroids is potentially viable, particularly in more responsive individuals. However, the transdermal systems are clearly less reliable than injectable T regimens (see below). The loss of efficacy when weekly im injections of T enanthate is substituted by daily self-administered noninjection preparations of T is a consistent finding across all three paired comparisons (Table 2Go). This highlights the critical role of T in male hormonal contraception.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Comparison of efficacy of spermatogenesis suppression between the present study and other progestin and T combinations as indicated by the maximal percentage of subjects achieving oligozoospermia and azoospermia

 
The lower efficacy associated with noninjection delivery of T merits further consideration. When the supraphysiological dose of 100 mg T enanthate (14) was coadministered with LNG or CPA, the higher dose and the higher peak levels of T compared with the transdermal dose of 5 mg daily and the T undecanoate dose of 80 mg twice daily may account for the superior efficacy. However, in our two studies with DSG and T (Table 2Go), we deliberately targeted comparisons with a lower, yet effective, dose of 50 mg T enanthate weekly, im, which delivers 5 mg unesterified T daily, an amount equivalent to the daily delivery rates of the transdermal system studied. The mean T levels, therefore, should not be very different. The fluctuating T levels giving high postinjection peaks with T enanthate are probably not required for maximal gonadotropin suppression, as relatively stable T levels generated by 800-mg T implants combined with depo medroxyprogesterone acetate was highly effective (25). Scrutiny of individual profiles showed that many subjects in our study had transient decreases in total and free T levels to the hypogonadal range with concomitant or subsequent escape in gonadotropins and sperm density (Table 3Go, subject 1). In contrast, the few individuals whose T levels were maintained in the normal range throughout the treatment phase were able to sustain suppression of gonadotropins and spermatogenesis throughout treatment (Table 3Go, subject 2). Analogously, the short half-life of oral T undecanoate and its unpredictable absorption (26) make it unlikely that twice daily administration can maintain stable T levels within the physiological range (27). These observations suggest that the common thread that links the low efficacy in the three studies using noninjectable T preparations is likely to be nonmaintenance of adequate T levels, which may have resulted from pharmacokinetic and delivery problems or noncompliance. The consequence of these intermittent troughs in circulating T may not be important or clinically evident in hypogonadal replacement, but is likely to be of critical importance in the maintenance of spermatogenesis suppression for contraception. The cumulative effects of repeated falls in T (probably underestimated by monthly monitoring) provide the most likely explanation not only for the lower initial efficacy, but also the subsequent breakthrough and progressive escape seen across all three studies using noninjectable T preparations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Individual hormone profiles for two subjects

 
This study also shows that as we descend to lower threshold doses of DSG, the safety margin is gradually eroded, and the tolerance of the combination regimen to fluctuations in T levels becomes increasingly tested. The margin of safety for suppression of spermatogenesis to maintain contraceptive efficacy is relatively narrow. Doses of T adequate for physiological replacement (5–6 mg daily) represent the minimum requirement, but only if drug delivery is strictly reliable. This raises the important issue of compliance in potential contraceptive users who are healthy young men unaccustomed to daily self-medication. There was serious doubt concerning the efficacy and acceptability of transdermal T delivery due to the difficulties experienced with patch application and the high incidence (65% of subjects) of skin reactions in agreement with recent experience with the same preparation in hypogonadal men (28). These factors will conspire to discourage high compliance, and it is our view that the transdermal route will not be the most satisfactory for drug delivery in male contraception unless the current therapeutic systems are improved considerably. In our previous study with daily oral DSG combined with weekly im T enanthate, high compliance with the oral medication was confirmed by the well maintained plasma levels of etonogestrel (the active metabolite of DSG) after 6-month treatment and the persistent lowering of SHBG levels (8). In the current study with a similar cohort of men, compliance with daily oral DSG administration was good. Although etonogestrel levels were not measured, the consistent suppression of SHBG indirectly attests to satisfactory compliance. Daily oral drug administration does not appear to be problematical for healthy men seeking contraception.

We have previously shown that DSG alone decreased levels of HDL-C as well as apolipoprotein A1, an effect augmented by coadministration of T enanthate. In the present study with transdermal T, HDL-C was reduced significantly in all treatment groups. This confirms that in the absence of high peak T levels, reduction of HDL-C is due to the action of oral DSG on hepatic lipid metabolism.

Side-effects during this study were relatively uncommon apart from skin irritation. Symptoms that may be attributable to androgen deficiency were encountered in seven subjects. However, these were transient in nature, and temporal correlation with changes in T levels was inconsistent.

In conclusion, we have shown that oral DSG combined with a nonscrotal transdermal T delivery system produces suppression of gonadotropins and spermatogenesis, but is less effective than regimens incorporating injectable T. The minimally effective dose of DSG is 150 µg. Escape from suppression is seen at all dose levels of DSG, particularly in those subjects in whom T replacement is not well maintained. These findings serve to further emphasize the critical role of T delivery and highlight some important practical issues concerning daily self-administered regimens for hormonal male contraception. In the current state of patch technology, the transdermal route of delivery may not be optimal for male contraception.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. C. Wang, Dr. R. S. Swerdloff, and Mr. Andrew Leung for performing the equilibrium dialysis assay for free T, and NV Organon (The Netherlands) and SmithKline Beechams (UK) for donating the medications. We thank the Contraceptive Research and Development Program, University of East Virginia, for their support.

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Contraceptive Research and Development Program, University of East Virginia (CSA-95-164). This work was presented at 24th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Andrology, Louisville, Kentucky, April 10–13, 1999.

Abbreviations: DSG, Desogestrel; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Received December 14, 2000.

Accepted July 16, 2001.

References

  1. WHO Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility 1990 Contraceptive efficacy of testosterone-induced azoospermia in normal men. Lancet 335:955[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. WHO Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility 1995 Rates of testosterone-induced suppression to severe oligospermia or azoospermia in two multicentre clinical studies. Int J Androl 18:157–165[Medline]
  3. Schearer SB, Alvarez-Sanchez F, Anselmo J, Brenner P, Coutinho E, Latheon-Faundes A, Frick J, Heinild B, Johansson EDB 1978 Hormonal contraception for men. Int. J. Androl 2(Suppl):680–712
  4. Anderson RA, Ludlum CA, Wu FCW 1995 Haemostatic effects of supraphysiological levels of testosterone in normal men. Thromb Haemost 74:693–697[Medline]
  5. Wu FCW, Farley TMM, Peregoudov A, Waites GM1996 Effects of testosterone enanthate in normal men: experience from a multicentre contraceptive efficacy study. Fertil Steril 65:626–636
  6. Handelsman DJ, Conway AJ, Howe CJ, Turner L, Mackey MA 1996 Establishing the minimum effective dose and additive effects of depot progestin in suppression of human spermatogenesis by a testosterone depot. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:4113–4121[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Tom L, Bhasin S, Salameh W, Steiner B, Peterson M, Sokol RZ, Rivier J, Vale W, Swerdloff RS 1992 Induction of azoospermia in normal men with combined Nal-Glu gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist and testosterone enanthate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 75:476–483
  8. Wu FCW, Balasubramanian R, Mulders T, Coelingh-Bennink JT 1999 Oral progestagen combined with testosterone as a potential male contraceptive: additive effects between desogestrel and testosterone enanthate in suppression of spermatogenesis, pituitary testicular axis and lipid metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:112–122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Miekle WA 1998 A permeation-enhanced non-scrotal testosterone transdermal system for the treatment of male hypogonadism. In: Nieschlag E, Behre H, eds. Testosterone: action, deficiency, substitution, 2nd Ed. New York: Springer; 390–419
  10. Meikle AW, Mazer NA, Moellemer JF, Stringhan JD, Tolman KG, Sanders SW, Odell WD 1992 Enhanced transdermal delivery of testosterone across non-scrotal skin produces physiological concentrations of testosterone and its metabolites in hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 74:623[Abstract]
  11. Wu FCW, Butler GE, Kelnar CJH, Stirling HF, Huhtaneimi I 1991 Patterns of pulsatile luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone secretion in prepubertal (mid-childhood) boys and girls with idiopathic hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (Kallmann’s syndrome): a study using an ultrasensitive time resolved immunofluorometric assay. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 72: 1229–1237
  12. Wang C, Iranmesh N, Berman N, McDonald V, Steiner B, Ziel F, Faulkner SM, Dudley RE, Veldhuis JD, Swerdloff RS 1998 Comparitive pharmacokinetics of three doses of percutaneous dihydrotestosterone gel in healthy elderly men–a clinical research center study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83:2749–2757[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hair WM, Wu FCW 1999 The role of drugs in male contraception. Curr Opin Oncol Endocrinol Metab Invest Drugs 1:50–59
  14. Snyder PJ, Lawrence DA 1980 Treatment of male hypogonadism with testosterone enanthate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 51:1335–1339[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Anawalt BD, Bebb RA, Bremner WJ, Matsumoto AM 1999 A lower dosage levonorgestrel and testosterone combination effectively suppress spermatogenesis and circulating gonadotrophin levels with fewer metabolic effects than higher dosage combinations. J Androl 20:407–414[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Handelsman DJ, Conway AJ, Boylan LM 1992 Suppression of human spermatogenesis by testosterone implants. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 75:1326–1332[Abstract]
  17. Meriggiola MC, Bremner WJ, Costantino A, Di Cintio G, Flamigni C 1998 Low dose of cyproterone acetate and testosterone enanthate for contraception in men. Hum Reprod 13:1225–1229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Pavlou SN, Brewer K, Farley MG, Lindner J, Bastias MC, Rogers BJ, Swift LL, Rivier JE, Vale WW 1991 Combined administration of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist and testosterone in men induces reversible azoospermia without loss of libido. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 73:1360–1368[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Anderson RA Wallace EM, Wu FCW 1996 Comparison between testosterone enanthate induced azoospermia and oligospermia in a male contraceptive study. III. Higher 5-{alpha} reductase activity in oligospermic men administered supraphysiological doses of testosterone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:902–908[Abstract]
  20. Handelsman DJ, Farley TMM, Peregoudov A, Waites GMH, WHO Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility 1995 Factors in non-uniform induction of azoospermia by testosterone enanthate in normal men. Fertil Steril 63:125–133[Medline]
  21. Anawalt BD, Herbst KL, Matsumoto AM, Mulders TM, Coelingh-Bennink HJ, Bremner WJ 2000 Desogestrel plus testosterone effectively suppresses spermatogenesis but also causes modest weight gain and high-density lipoprotein suppression. Fertil Steril 74:707–714[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Dobs AS, Meikle AW, Arver S, Sanders SW, Caramelli KE, Mazer NA 1999 Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of a permeation enhanced testosterone transdermal system in comparison with bi-weekly injections of testosterone enanthate for the treatment of hypogonadal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:3469–3478[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Buchter D, von Eckardstein S, von Eckardstein A, et al. 1999 Clinical trial of transdermal testosterone and oral levonorgestrel for male contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:1244–1249[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Merrigiola CM, Bremner WJ, Costantino A, Pavani A, Capelli M, Flamigni C 1997 An oral regimen of cyproterone acetate and testosterone undecanoate for spermatogenic suppression in men. Fertil Steril 68:844–850[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Handelsman DJ, Conway AJ, Howe CJ, Turner L, Mackay M-A 1996 Establishing a minimum effective dose and additive effects of depot progestin in suppression of human spermatogenesis by a testosterone depot. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:4113–4121
  26. Behre HM, Nieschlag E 1998 Comparative pharmacokinetics of testosterone esters. In: Behre HM, Nieschlag E, eds. Testosterone: action, deficiency and substitution, 2nd Ed. New York: Springer; 293–328
  27. Skakkebaek NE, Bancroft J, Davidson DW, Warner P 1981 Androgen replacement with oral testosterone undecanoate in hypogonadal men: a double blind controlled study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 14:49–61[Medline]
  28. Parker S, Armitage M 1999 Experience with transdermal testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadal men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 50:57–62[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
E. Mommers, W. M. Kersemaekers, J. Elliesen, M. Kepers, D. Apter, H. M. Behre, J. Beynon, P. M. Bouloux, A. Costantino, H.-P. Gerbershagen, et al.
Male Hormonal Contraception: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2008; 93(7): 2572 - 2580.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr. Rev.Home page
S. T. Page, J. K. Amory, and W. J. Bremner
Advances in Male Contraception
Endocr. Rev., June 1, 2008; 29(4): 465 - 493.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
P. Y. Liu, R. S. Swerdloff, B. D. Anawalt, R. A. Anderson, W. J. Bremner, J. Elliesen, Y.-Q. Gu, W. M. Kersemaekers, Robert. I. McLachlan, M. C. Meriggiola, et al.
Determinants of the Rate and Extent of Spermatogenic Suppression during Hormonal Male Contraception: An Integrated Analysis
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2008; 93(5): 1774 - 1783.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
S. T. Page, J. K. Amory, B. D. Anawalt, M. S. Irwig, A. T. Brockenbrough, A. M. Matsumoto, and W. J. Bremner
Testosterone Gel Combined with Depomedroxyprogesterone Acetate Is an Effective Male Hormonal Contraceptive Regimen and Is Not Enhanced by the Addition of a GnRH Antagonist
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2006; 91(11): 4374 - 4380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
K. L. Matthiesson and R. I. McLachlan
Male hormonal contraception: concept proven, product in sight?
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2006; 12(4): 463 - 482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol. Interv.Home page
J. Chen, J. Kim, and J. T. Dalton
Discovery and Therapeutic Promise of Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators
Mol. Interv., June 1, 2005; 5(3): 173 - 188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
D. B. O'Connor, J. Archer, and F. C. W. Wu
Effects of Testosterone on Mood, Aggression, and Sexual Behavior in Young Men: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Study
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2004; 89(6): 2837 - 2845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J AndrolHome page
M. C. Meriggiola, T. M.M. Farley, and M. T. Mbizvo
A Review of Androgen-Progestin Regimens for Male Contraception
J Androl, July 1, 2003; 24(4): 466 - 483.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr. Rev.Home page
R. A. Anderson and D. T. Baird
Male Contraception
Endocr. Rev., December 1, 2002; 23(6): 735 - 762.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
R.A. Anderson, Z.M. van der Spuy, O.A. Dada, S.K. Tregoning, P.M. Zinn, O.A. Adeniji, T.A. Fakoya, K.B. Smith, and D.T. Baird
Investigation of hormonal male contraception in African men: suppression of spermatogenesis by oral desogestrel with depot testosterone
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2002; 17(11): 2869 - 2877.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
R. A. Anderson, D. Kinniburgh, and D. T. Baird
Suppression of Spermatogenesis by Etonogestrel Implants with Depot Testosterone: Potential for Long-Acting Male Contraception
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., August 1, 2002; 87(8): 3640 - 3649.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hair, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, F. C. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hair, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, F. C. W.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals