Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: Following extensive research activity to develop an effective hormonal approach to control male fertility, little is known concerning attitudes of men and women towards male contraception in different countries. Although several pharmaceutical companies have conducted studies in male contraception, a full clinical development programme to obtain approval for one of the hormonal methods has never been initiated.

Methods: Several studies and surveys have been performed in different parts of the world. Major surveys have been funded by Schering (now Bayer Pharma), one in 2002 in 9000 men aged 18–50 years, and a second one in 2006/2007 in 20 000 men in the same age group. An internet survey was conducted in 2000 women in Germany in 2010. In addition, published data are reviewed.

Results: In all surveys, male contraception is seen as an option to share responsibility for contraception in stable relationships. 70% say that the method of contraception is taken in a joint decision. In all surveys, 50% of men and women express a positive attitude towards male contraception. In the two large international surveys, acceptance rates are particularly high in Latin American countries and somewhat lowest in Asia. The majority of men would seek advice on hormonal MFC from a physician.

The two companies with an interest in male contraception have been taken over by two of the largest companies in pharmaceutical industry whose strategic goals are in different areas. Moreover, the premature termination of the WHO study has substantially increased the hurdles for those still willing to consider the development of male contraceptives.

Conclusion: The overall acceptance of male hormonal contraception is broad across both genders and various cultures. However, in the current situation, it is unlikely that pharmaceutical industry will see an opportunity for male hormonal contraception for many years to come.

Declaration of interest: The author declares that there is a conflict of interest.

Funding: This work was supported, however funding details are unavailable.