Enel Health®Atlas
Sign in
Enel Health®Atlas
Browse libraries

Not medical advice. The Atlas is not a substitute for a clinician who can examine you.

MMAS

Massachusetts Male Aging Study (Feldman et al., Journal of Urology 1994)

Evidence grade 4 of 5, Strong. Read how the Atlas grades evidence.

0 human trials, about 1 studies, ~1,290 participants men aged 40-70 (cross-sectional analysis). The written rationale for this grade is still being prepared.

FDA
Observational community cohort (not a drug study)

Reference only. Not medical advice.

What can go wrong

Not applicable as an intervention; the dossier's clinical value is that MMAS reframed ED as a marker of underlying cardiovascular and metabolic disease, making new-onset ED a reason to evaluate heart and metabolic health.

This is something to take to a clinician. The Atlas can tell you what is known about mmas in general. It cannot tell you what is happening in your body, and the difference matters most for exactly the symptoms that bring people to this page.

The Massachusetts Male Aging Study was a large community-based observational cohort of men aged 40-70 in the Boston area, and its landmark 1994 paper by Feldman and colleagues produced the first rigorous population estimates of erectile-dysfunction prevalence. It found that some degree of ED affected roughly half of men in this age range and rose steeply with age, while linking ED to cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes, hypertension, and depression. MMAS established ED as a common, age- and vascular-linked condition and laid the epidemiologic groundwork that the Viagra era was built upon.

The cohort that first quantified how common erectile dysfunction really is.

What people take it for

What it is taken for. Approval, where it exists, covers only some of these.

  • Foundational ED prevalence reference
  • Evidence linking ED to cardiovascular and metabolic risk
  • Basis for treating ED as a vascular sentinel

How it works

MMAS was epidemiologic, not interventional: by self-report questionnaires and biological measurements in a representative community sample, it characterized how common ED is and which health factors travel with it.

Association is not causation

As an observational cohort, MMAS could establish that ED clusters with vascular and metabolic disease and with low physical activity - it could not prove direction or causation. Its prevalence figures depended on self-report instruments and a single geographic population, and they predate modern ED definitions, so exact numbers should be read as foundational estimates rather than universal constants.

What people get wrong

  • Often saidED is rare and mostly psychological

    ActuallyMMAS showed any-degree ED affected about half of men aged 40-70 and was strongly tied to vascular and metabolic disease - it is common and largely organic with age.

Who profits, and who pushes back

Nobody is named here yet, because we have not done that work on this entry. Read that as unfinished. Somebody almost certainly sells this, and somebody almost certainly disputes it. Assume both until we have checked.

How we got here

Conducted in the late 1980s and analyzed through the 1990s, MMAS arrived just before sildenafil and gave the emerging ED-treatment field its epidemiologic backbone. Its often-cited '52% of men 40-70' figure became one of the most repeated statistics in men's health and helped destigmatize a previously hidden condition.

  1. 1987-1989MMAS baseline data collection
  2. 1994Landmark Feldman prevalence paper in Journal of Urology
  3. 1998Viagra launches into the epidemiologic landscape MMAS defined
  4. 2000Longitudinal incidence estimates published

What the trials could not show

Limits of the studies themselves, as distinct from limits of the treatment.

  • Observational (no causal inference); single geographic population (eastern Massachusetts, predominantly one era and demographic); reliance on self-reported sexual-function measures predating validated instruments like the IIEF; cross-sectional prevalence cannot establish temporality.

What we do not know

  • How do MMAS-era prevalence figures compare across modern, diverse populations?
  • How much of the ED-cardiovascular link is shared risk versus causal?

At a glance

Design
Community-based observational cohort, cross-sectional and longitudinal
N
~1,290 (baseline cohort ~1,709 men)
Ages
40-70
Setting
Boston / eastern Massachusetts
Key statistic
~52% combined prevalence of minimal, moderate, or complete ED
Complete ED
~5% at age 40 rising to ~15% at age 70

What this entry does not yet cover

What follows is unfinished work on our side, not a finding about MMAS. A short entry is not a safe entry.

  • Cost and market. We have not documented what it sells for or who sells it.
  • Supply chain. We have not mapped where it is made.
  • Who uses it. We have not documented the user groups.
  • What could change. No forward-looking summary yet.
  • How it compares. We have not set it against the alternatives.
  • Children and teenagers. We have not checked what is known about younger people.
  • Where we land. We have not taken a position on this yet.

Sources

The studies below are named and described, but not linked. You cannot open them from here and check our reading against them, which means this page is our summary of the literature rather than a document you can verify. Weigh it accordingly until the links exist.

The studies that matter

  • Feldman et al. (Journal of Urology)1994

    Combined prevalence of any-degree ED ~52% in men 40-70; complete ED rose from ~5% at 40 to ~15% at 70; ED associated with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and depression

  • MMAS longitudinal incidence analyses (Johannes et al.)2000

    Estimated crude incidence of ED around 26 new cases per 1,000 man-years, rising with age