One-year experience with subdermal contraceptive implants in the United States

Biodegradable Polymeric Injectable Implants for Long-Term Delivery of Contraceptive Drugs

Development of injectable, long-lasting, contraceptive drug delivery formulations and implants are highly desired to avoid unplanned pregnancies while improving patient compliance and reducing adverse side effects and treatment costs. The present study reports on the fabrication and characterization of two levonorgestrel (LNG) microsphere injectable formulations. Poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) with 12.5% and 24% (w/w) LNG were fabricated into microspheres, measuring 300±125 μm, via the oil-in-water (o/w) emulsion solvent evaporation technique. Formulations showed sustained drug release up to 120 days. FTIR, XRD, DSC, and TGA confirmed the absence of LNG chemical interaction with PCL as well as its molecular level distribution. The in vitro release of LNG was calculated to be Fickian diffusion controlled and properly characterized. The inclusion of multiple elevated release temperatures allowed for the application of the Arrhenius model to calculate drug release constants and representative sampling intervals, demonstrating the use of elevated temperatures for accelerated-time drug release studies.

Complications of Subcutaneous Contraception: A Review

Over 62 million women in the United States are of childbearing age and 60% of them use contraception. Subcutaneous contraceptives include implantable contraceptives and subcutaneous injections. Implantable contraception involves subdermal time-release of synthetic progestin, which allows for several years of continuous, highly effective contraception. Its main effects are inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the cervical mucus. Many complications have been associated with subcutaneous contraception, including menstrual disturbances, headache, weight gain, acne, dizziness, mood disturbances, nausea, lower abdominal pain, hair loss, loss of libido, pain at the implant site, neuropathy, and follicular cysts. Using standard search engines, the complications of subcutaneous contraception are reviewed. Patients should be adequately counseled on the possible complications and side effects of subcutaneous contraception to help them make an informed decision when choosing the right contraceptive to meet their needs.

Tolerability and reasons for discontinuation of Norplant in an inner city population

We carried out a retrospective analysis of the continuation rates of 142 Norplant acceptors. Follow-up data was available on 110. We assessed the relative impact of side effects on discontinuation. No serious complications (immediate or late) were observed during the 3-year study period and no pregnancies occurred. The 3-year continuation rate was 88%. The commonest reported side effect was cycle disruption (64% of users). However this only accounted for 31% of discontinuations. This we attribute to thorough counselling about menstrual disruption. On the other hand androgenic side effects accounted for 12% of discontinuations but were experienced by 10% of users-perhaps because some users did not expect them. We conclude that Norplant is highly acceptable when offered with specialist counselling and support. Non-bleeding side effects accounted for relatively higher discontinuations and may need to be emphasised in counselling. A dedicated service enhanced acceptability.

Risks and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants

Levonorgestrel-releasing implants are long acting contraceptives, approved for 5 years of continuous use. Two marketed systems, the six capsule Norplant use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement. and the two rod Jadelle, have essentially equal rates of drug release, pregnancy and adverse events over 5 years of use. Randomised clinical trials and controlled cohort observations indicate that for the first 3 years, when pregnancy rates are at or almost zero, no other contraceptive system is more effective, although etonogestrel implants provide equal effectiveness. Annual pregnancy rates rise in the fifth year of continuous use but remain below 1 per 100 women. Annual pregnancy rates of Norplant users remain below 1 per 100 throughout 7 years of continuous use. Levonorgestrel implants provide low progestogen doses; 40-50 microg/day at 1 year of use, decreasing to 25-30 microg/day in the fifth year. Serum levels of levonorgestrel at 5 years are 60-65% of those levels measured at 1 month of use. Adverse effects with levonorgestrel implants are similar to those observed with progestogen only and combined oral contraceptives. Risks of ectopic pregnancy, other pregnancy complications and pelvic inflammatory disease are reduced in comparison with those of women using copper or non-medicated intrauterine devices. Risks of developing gallbladder disease and hypertension or borderline hypertension, although small, are about 1.5 and 1.8 times greater, respectively, in women using levonorgestrel implants than in women not using hormonal contraception. Other serious diseases have not been found to occur significantly more frequently in levonorgestrel implant users than in women not using hormonal contraception. The great majority of levonorgestrel implant users experience menstrual problems, but serious bleeding problems are not more frequent than in controls. Other health problems reported more frequently by levonogestrel implant users than by women not using hormonal contraception in a study of 16000 women included skin conditions, headache, upper limb neuropathies, dizziness, nervousness, malaise, minor visual disturbances, respiratory conditions, arthropathies, weight change, anxiety and non-clinical depression. Clinical depression is not more frequent in women using implants compared with those not using hormonal contraception (i.e. using intrauterine devices, sterilisation). Removal problems occur less frequently with Jadelle than with Norplant. The mean removal time for Jadelle is half that of Norplant. Levonorgestrel implants in nationally representative scientific samples, in randomised trials, and in controlled cohort studies have continuation rates as high as or higher than any other reversible contraceptive over a duration of 5 years. This would imply that the satisfaction women derive from the contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel implants greatly outweighs the dissatisfaction that may accompany menstrual disturbances and other adverse effects associated with implants.

Local side effects observed among long-term users of norplant contraceptive implants

The prevalence of local signs and symptoms related to the site of insertion of implants, and the association of these signs and symptoms with time of use, skin color and body mass index (BMI) was evaluated among users of the Norplant implant system. Three hundred and three Norplant users attending at the reproductive health clinic of PROFAMILIA in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, were asked if they had ever had any discomfort at the site/arm of implant insertion and the implant insertion area was examined and hyperpigmentation and hollowing of the surface was recorded. Half of the subjects reported either pain or paresthesia or both, in almost equal numbers, some time since insertion. Hyperpigmentation was observed in 35.6% and hollowing in 22.4% of the subjects. Report of pain and paresthesia was inversely associated to time of use and to BMI. Hyperpigmentation was directly associated to time of use and darker skin, and hollowing of the arm surface in the implants area with time of use and BMI. Local signs and symptoms were more frequent than previously reported, although they were of mild nature and appeared not to worry most of the users.

Nonmenstrual adverse events during use of implantable contraceptives for women: data from clinical trials

Contraceptive methods, including implants, do not prevent common symptoms and adverse health events that most people experience. It is difficult, therefore, to decide whether or not the occurrence of symptoms or adverse events that are common can be attributed to use of a contraceptive method or to determine if a given method changes the likelihood of their occurrence. Based on the review of the literature, no apparent differences in the frequency of adverse events are evident between the six-implant or two-rod levonorgestrel systems and the single implant etonogestrel and nomegestrol acetate systems. The most frequent adverse events reported in clinical trials that are probably related to implant use are headaches and acne. Weight gain, dizziness, and mood changes are also frequently mentioned adverse events and are possibly steroid-related. Other possibly related adverse events, although much less frequently reported, are loss of libido, fatigue, hair loss, and other skin conditions. Persistent ovarian follicles that spontaneously disappear are a common event during use of progestin-only contraceptives, and providers should be aware of this condition to avoid unnecessary interventions. Overall, the vast experience reported in the clinical studies reviewed here show that all existing implantable contraceptives are equally safe. This can probably be attributed to the low-hormonal dose delivered by progestin-implant systems.

Norplant and other implantable contraceptives

Implantable contraception represents a safe, reversible form of long-term family planning with distinct advantages. It does not contain estrogen, thus avoiding many of it contraindications. Importantly, it is extremely effective, has high continuation rates, and is well tolerated. The main side effects of Norplant are irregular menstrual bleeding and the occasional difficult removal. Although recent high-profile litigation has severely diminished enthusiasm for Norplant, the FDA has reaffirmed its safety and efficacy. Norplant remains a viable family planning option for carefully selected women. New contraceptive implants may soon be available accentuating the advantages of Norplant while minimizing the disadvantages.

A qualitative study of perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of long-term levonorgestrel implant users

The present study examined the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of long-term contraceptive implant users. Group interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative in-depth attitude and opinion data from 31 women who had used the implant for a minimum of four years. Results indicated that many women had experienced side effects with implant use, in particular during the first year. The primary motivations for continuing the use of implant were: women's strong desire for a long-term, reversible, and convenient method that offered effective protection from pregnancy, a strong need for control over one's life, and general dissatisfaction with alternative methods. Exposure to negative media reports, and peer commentaries did not influence implant's continued use. However, intensive educational counseling prior to insertion played a significant role in the long-term use of implant. Findings from this study indicate that women are willing to accept side effects as the price to be paid for an effective and convenient contraceptive method, and for gaining control over their lives. Furthermore, women appear to be less influenced by opposing social climate, in the absence of negative personal experiences. Our findings underscore the importance of educational counseling prior to implant insertion.

Implantable contraception

Although levonorgestrel contraceptive implants have been available for over 15 years, innovations have only recently led to a wider choice. These new implants offer easier insertion and removal and other advantages depending on the type of progestin. Implants prevent pregnancy by several mechanisms, including inhibition of ovulation and luteal function and alteration of cervical mucus and the endometrium. The high efficacy and ease of maintenance make implants an ideal contraceptive for many women, including adolescents, a population that uses implants infrequently but reports high satisfaction. Implants are appropriate for women who are breastfeeding, who have contraindications to estrogen, or who have diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, sickle cell anemia, or an HIV infection because implants have few metabolic or hematologic effects. Long-term use has not been associated with a decrease in BMD and generally leads to increased blood levels and iron stores. Women who wish to space their pregnancies appreciate the nearly immediate onset of action with insertion and the rapid termination of all effects with removal. All types of implants lead to menstrual changes and other side effects in some women. Adverse effects that occur in implant users more than the general population include headaches and acne. Women must be thoroughly counseled regarding the potential for menstrual alteration, side effects, and sexually transmitted infections if they do not use condoms. Despite their initial high cost, implants are a cost-effective method over several years, even when discontinued before the life of the implant.

Norplant use among urban minority women in the United States

The aim of this study was to develop a profile of urban American women who chose Norplant(R), determine factors associated with retention and early termination of implants, and to determine reasons for early removal. A total of 197 adult black and Hispanic women who had Norplant inserted were followed prospectively for up to 5 years. Interval and cumulative termination rates were calculated. Data were stratified by race and analyzed to include lost-to-follow-up (LTFU) subjects. Multivariate survival analysis was used to determine variables independently associated with termination. Cumulative continuation rates were 68% after year 1 and 13% after year 4. Significant predictors of retention included black race and lower parity. Probability of early termination increased with higher parity and Hispanic race. For black subjects, recent use of hormonal contraception was a predictor of retention. Menstrual changes and weight concerns were common reasons for removal. The Norplant 1-year continuation rate is lower than previously reported, but is higher than reported for oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera(R). Future studies should stratify by age, race, and parity, and use standardized terminology to report intervals of use.

Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women

OBJECTIVES

This study examined correlates of Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women.

METHODS

Interviews were completed in family planning clinics in 4 Florida counties with 1152 Norplant users and 1268 nonusers, with follow-up interviews with a subsample up to 1 year later. Logistic regression models estimated the associations of socio-demographic and medical characteristics with Norplant selection and method satisfaction.

RESULTS

Odds ratios for Norplant selection were significantly greater among women who planned to have children in 5 or more years, those who were "offered" Norplant, those who lived in Palm Beach County, those who were using drugs, and those who were Medicaid clients. Women younger than 17 and those who learned about Norplant from a friend were twice as likely as others to select Norplant. Ninety-two percent of Norplant users were satisfied with the method; women with side effects and those who felt pressure to select a method were significantly less likely than others to be satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

Norplant provides an acceptable and satisfying method of birth control for many low-income women. Proper counseling about all methods of birth control and about Norplant's side effects remains critical to the appropriate delivery of this method.

Chronic antiprogestin therapy produces a stable atrophic endometrium with decreased fibroblast growth factor: a 1-year primate study on contraception and amenorrhea

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy of mifepristone in the prevention of menstrual bleeding and ovulation, with similar observations in comparison groups.

DESIGN

Prospective experimental study. Thirty-two cynomolgus monkeys were divided equally into four treatment groups (n = 8). Treatment lasted for 1 year.

INTERVENTION(S)

Group I received GnRH-agonist (GnRH-a) and in-sequence mifepristone, group II received mifepristone only, group III received GnRH-a only, and group IV received vehicle control.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Serum estradiol and progesterone, menstrual bleeding, endometrial thickness, and endometrial expression of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) as determined by immunohistochemistry.

RESULT(S)

Weekly progesterone determinations showed that mifepristone-treated monkeys seldom ovulated (6 ovulations in 8 years), compared with the controls (100 ovulations in 8 years), while maintaining early to midfollicular levels of circulating serum estradiol. The GnRH-a-only group also rarely ovulated, but was chronically and severely hypoestrogenic. The mifepristone-only group showed scant menstrual bleeding (5 days in 8 years) as compared with the menstrual frequency in control animals (422 days in 8 years). Endometrial proliferation, as determined by biopsy, was similarly minimal for both the GnRH-a and mifepristone groups, and statistically less than in control monkeys. Both the mifepristone and GnRH-a treatments suppressed endometrial gland expression of the angiogenesis polypeptide bFGF.

CONCLUSION(S)

Chronic mifepristone induced anovulation along with virtual amenorrhea, which suggests the worth of this novel hormonal contraceptive.

Levonorgestrel subdermal implants. Contraception on trial

When they were introduced to the world market in the 1980s, levonorgestrel subdermal implants offered the promise of an exciting alternative to traditional hormonal contraception. They provide highly effective, long-acting protection from pregnancy, without the need for user compliance. Broad acceptability of the drug has been reported throughout the world. Recently, however, the implants have met with opposition. The drug is associated with a variety of adverse effects, and removal of implants can be problematic. Serious events have been reported in women using levonorgestrel subdermal implants, although causal relationships have not been demonstrated. Additionally, concerns have been raised over the potential for coercive use of the drug. Numerous law suits have been filed alleging serious problems with implants. As a result, the drug has received considerable negative media attention. Before the controversy over levonorgestrel subdermal implants erupted, contraceptive development had declined, resulting from limitations to profits and funding, legal threats, and changes in the insurance industry. The levonorgestrel subdermal implant experience may serve to accelerate this trend. While the introduction of levonorgestrel subdermal implants offered an alternative to the current array of medical contraception, its experience may serve to dampen future contraceptive development efforts. Costly litigation and much controversy involving the implants have acted to create disincentives to further research and development of new methods of medical contraception.

Intrauterine contraception in adolescent women. The GyneFix intrauterine implant

Pregnancy rates among adolescents have not decreased over the last 10 years, despite numerous efforts. To solve this important health problem, the major strategy recommended is to encourage contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers. An important means of obtaining this is by promoting methods that are not dependent on daily administration in order to avoid noncompliance. One such method (Norplant) has already shown to be much more effective than the combination pill in preventing pregnancy in adolescent women. The frameless intrauterine implant system (fixed, frameless, and completely flexible) has been studied since 1985 in women between 14 and 50 years of age. The results in young nulligravid women confirm its very high effectiveness (cumulative pregnancy rate at 36 months: 1.4%), its low expulsion rate (cumulative rate at 36 months: 0.9%) and its optimal tolerance (cumulative removal rate for medical reasons at 36 months: 2.4%), resulting in a high acceptance of the implant and a high continued use. The system (GyneFix) offers long-term protection (5 years), and its insertion, with or without anesthetic, is easily accomplished in the office. The GyneFix should therefore be recommended as an excellent alternative for birth control pills for young women with low risk for STDs, especially when compliance is a problem, without an increased risk for complications and without systemic side effects. Removal of the device is accomplished by traction on the tail. It can also be used for emergency contraception and for insertion immediately after termination of pregnancy.

A multicenter comparative study on the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the contraceptive subdermal implants Norplant and Norplant-II

In order to assess efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the contraceptive subdermal implants Norplant and Norplant-II in Mexican women, a comparative phase III clinical trial was undertaken in eight clinics across the country. The study involved 1052 women who were followed-up trimonthly for three years. Cumulative pregnancy rates were 0.29% and 0.34% for Norplant and Norplant-II implants, respectively. Similar overall cumulative discontinuation rates were observed at three years: 50.38% for Norplant capsules, and 50.44% for Norplant-II rods. The main method-related reason for termination was endometrial bleeding irregularity which led to discontinuation rates of 11.94% and 11.62% for Norplant and Norplant-II contraceptive systems, respectively. In 15,279 woman-months of experience accumulated with Norplant implants and 14,092 with Norplant-II implants, there were few adverse events reported. No difference was found between the two groups in either difficulty for implants placement and removal or women's discomfort, even though the time required for insertion and removal of Norplant capsules was longer than for Norplant-II rods. It is concluded that during the first three years of use, both implants systems are equally effective, safe, and acceptable.

Experience of Finnish women with Norplant insertions and removals

OBJECTIVE

Norplant and Norplant-2 have been available for use by Finnish women since 1984 and 1986, respectively. The objective of this study was to explore Norplant users' experiences of insertions, removals and medical treatments.

DESIGN

A questionnaire was sent to women who had received Norplant or Norplant-2 implants one to two years earlier (n = 262) in normal clinical settings; the response rate was 79%.

RESULTS

At insertion, problems were experienced by 9% and at least some pain by 23% of women. During the first year 20% of all users (14% of Norplant and 33% of Norplant-2 users) had their implants removed. Problems were experienced at removal by 33% of women and pain was experienced by 40%; nevertheless most users were satisfied with the device. Findings were similar for the two types of Norplant. Forty-two percent of the women had received minipills containing levonorgestrel before Norplant insertions in an attempt to assess Norplant's suitability, and 8% had received drugs for adverse effects caused by Norplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies including perspectives of Norplant users and the whole lifespan of Norplant (including removal) should be conducted in all clinical settings where Norplant is provided.

Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to evaluate both the continuation and pregnancy rates and the side effects experienced during the first year of use by adolescents who selected Norplant implants as compared with those who chose oral contraceptives for contraception. Furthermore, side effects experienced at 6 versus 12 months among Norplant implant users were compared to determine whether they diminished with continued use of this method.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a case-control study of 56 adolescents < or = 18 years old who selected implants as compared with 56 age-matched controls who chose oral contraceptive pills during the same time period.

RESULTS

Only 34% of patients prescribed oral contraceptives as compared with 91% of Norplant implant patients were still using their chosen method 1 year later. As a result 25% of oral contraceptive users became pregnant within 12 months as compared with none who selected Norplant implants. Side effects were reported by > 80% of patients in both groups, with menstrual irregularities reported more often by Norplant implant users than by oral contraceptive users (73% vs 5%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, Norplant implant users gained more weight than oral contraceptive users (8.7 vs 4.2 pounds) and were twice as likely to have an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Finally, little diminution in side effects was observed during the second 6 months of Norplant implant use.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that Norplant implants provide better protection against unintended pregnancy in an adolescent population but may be associated with more side effects. Clinicians should be aware of these findings so they can adequately counsel young patients about these two methods of contraception.

New hormonal methods of contraception

Three types of new contraceptive delivery system have been discussed in this chapter. Each have novel methods of delivery and may be acceptable to certain groups of women. It is clear that subdermal contraceptive implants are extremely useful as a long-term method of contraception, and provided insertion occurs correctly, removal will then be easy. The second-generation implants using a single rod, compared with the first-generation ones using six capsules, would appear to offer advantages both to the patient and in relation to the training of medical and paramedical personnel who have to fit the subdermal implant. The main disadvantage is the incidence of irregular bleeding, which, by and large, can be overcome by pre-insertion counselling and by time. The second method of delivery, vaginal rings, offers high patient acceptability, but a usable ring for contraception has as yet to be developed. Two approaches appear to be the use of a continuous progestogen-only ring, or a combined ring releasing oestrogen and progestogen with a 21-day-in, 7-day-out cycle of use. Ongoing studies will indicate whether vaginal lesions are significant or related to the flexibility of the ring. If these studies prove satisfactory, further development of the vaginal rings, both as an alternative method for interval use or as a specific postpartum form of contraception using progesterone-releasing rings, will be developed. Significant developments in the use of a combined monthly injectable have led to the release of two preparations, Cyclofem and Mesigyna, which are now available in many countries. This combined approach offers a significant reduction in amenorrhoea rates and unacceptable bleeding, the majority of women having acceptable menstrual patterns even during the first 3 months of use. All three methods have low and acceptable rates of pregnancy, the lowest being seen with the subdermal implants and with combined monthly injectables. Due to the length of action of subdermal implants, these may find a niche for women wishing to use a long-acting method and not wishing to be sterilized. They also provide a useful method where medical intervention is not available on a regular basis. Monthly injectable preparations can be given by paramedical personnel, and introductory studies have indicated that in developing and developed countries, they are highly acceptable. All three methods offer an increased choice for women and safe and effective methods of contraception.

Multicenter clinical trial on the efficacy and acceptability of a single contraceptive implant of nomegestrol acetate, Uniplant

Uniplant, a single Silastic implant containing nomegestrol acetate, provides contraceptive efficacy for one year. Uniplant use for one year was studied in 1,803 healthy women of reproductive age, enrolled from 10 centers in 9 countries, after informed consent. Implants were placed subdermally either in the upper arm or in the gluteal region. Two-hundred-seventy-six subjects discontinued prior to completing one year of study. Cumulative discontinuation rate at 12 months was 15.72%. Medical reasons for discontinuation were principally menstrual-related. Fifteen pregnancies occurred during the one year study period, resulting in a 12-month net cumulative pregnancy rate of 0.94%. Approximately 56% of subjects using Uniplant had bleeding patterns similar to normal menstruation. Results from this study confirm that Uniplant is an efficient, well tolerated, 12-month contraceptive implant, with the advantage of easier insertion and removal of the single implant compared to other multiple implant methods.

Characteristics and experiences of American women electing for early removal of contraceptive implants

The study describes the experiences of 430 women who had Norplant(R) contraceptive implants removed prior to the five years of method effectiveness. Each subject was surveyed when the implants were inserted and again at the time of removal. Descriptive data are presented concerning perceptions of the method before insertion and after removal, reactions to the contraceptive and experiences associated with the removal procedure. Subjects' use of Norplant implants ranged from 14 days to 40 months, with a mean of 13.3 and median of 13 months. Over 95% reported changes in menstrual bleeding patterns and 95% experienced other non-bleeding related side effects. Non-bleeding side effects were the most frequently indicated reasons for removal, followed by bleeding changes. The mean removal time was 34 minutes with a median of 25 minutes. Over 48% reported experiencing significant pain during the removal procedure, and 27% stated that the pain was greater than expected. Despite electing for early removal of implants,the majority of women surveyed indicated satisfaction with all aspects of the method save its effect on their overall health. Although method-related side effects were intolerable for most subjects, their overall perception of the method was generally satisfactory.

Assessing the acceptability of Norplant contraceptive in four patient populations

The object of this study was to review the experience of Norplant implants insertion at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center with specific attention to the potential impact of source of care and/or clinic site of of insertion. Norplant implants were inserted at four different office sites, namely, adolescent-teen, resident, certified nurse midwife, and faculty physician. The charts of all patients who had Norplant implants inserted between April 1991 and September 1992 were reviewed and we attempted to contact each patient by telephone to assess clinical course and acceptability of Norplant contraceptive. We were able to contact 254 of 414 women (61%) who had Norplant implants inserted. The average length of time since Norplant implants insertion was 13.2 months. The only significant demographic difference between groups was that the adolescent-teen patients were younger, of lower parity, less educated, and were more likely to be single than the other three groups. The overall removal proportion was 14.6%, and removal proportions were not significantly different between any of the four groups. The primary reason for removal was unacceptable bleeding (32% of removers). Only 59% of patients returned for follow-up care. Faculty physician patients were significantly more compliant with follow-up compared to adolescent-teen and resident patients (p < 0.01). Patient retention of Norplant contraceptive is unrelated to age or the clinic setting in which the device was inserted. Since similar side effects are experienced by retainers and removers, it is unclear what other factors prompt women to seek removal. Particularly in the teen and resident groups, follow-up is poor.

Use of levonorgestrel implants versus oral contraceptives in adolescence: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

We compared continuation rates, effectiveness, satisfaction with method, side effects, and condom practices among adolescents using levonorgestrel implants (Norplant, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Philadelphia) as compared with oral contraceptives.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a case-control study comparing 94 adolescents < or = 18 years old who received Norplant between March 1, 1992, and Nov. 1, 1993 (cases), with 94 age-matched controls who selected oral contraceptives during this same time period. By use of a structured questionnaire, information was obtained on pregnancy status, duration of use, patient satisfaction, side effects, and condom practices 6 months after initiation. Objective measures included weight on Norplant and oral contraceptive users and hematocrit on implant patients.

RESULTS

Forty (43%) oral contraceptive patients compared with no Norplant patients discontinued their selected method before the 6-month interview (p = 0.00). Six patients prescribed oral contraceptives became pregnant. Ninety-three percent of Norplant users expressed overall satisfaction despite experiencing menstrual irregularity and cramping, amenorrhea, nervousness, abnormal hair growth or loss, rashes, and an increase in appetite more often than oral contraceptive users. Although Norplant patients also reported an increase in the duration of menstrual flow and number of days of spotting more often than oral contraceptive users, evaluation of hematocrits in these patients demonstrated a significant increase over the 6-month period (p = 0.00). Assessment of condom practices since initiation demonstrated that Norplant patients used condoms less often than oral contraceptive users (p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Use of levonorgestrel implants may cause more side effects than oral contraceptives in the early months after initiation but provide superior protection against unintended pregnancy. We concluded that Norplant is a reasonable alternative for adolescents, especially when compliance is an issue.

Innovative technique for Norplant implants removal

This study evaluates a unique and completely different approach from the original removal technique. The main objective of this technique is to facilitate removal of widely-spaced, deeply-positioned, and misplaced Norplant capsules. A local anesthetic is injected deep and perpendicular to the long axis of the Norplant rods. The hypodermic needle is left in place underneath the six silicone rods for the entire removal procedure. One or two 3-4mm vertical incisions were made between the capsules over the needle. The Norplant rods were dissected free from the fibrous tissue and the skin with a #11 blade. A curved mosquito forceps was inserted between the skin and the Norplant rod, to hook and deliver the capsule through the incision, from where it can be easily removed. This method resulted in far less time, effort, and skill from the health care provider, no damage to the capsules, and much less trauma to the clients.

The Emory method: a modified approach to Norplant implants removal

Norplant implants were removed from fifty (50) patients using a modified approach to Norplant implant removal (Emory Method). Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the removals were accomplished in less than 10 minutes using this technique. The average time for removal of Norplant implants from 50 women included in the current study was 8 minutes. The Emory Method for Norplant implant removal includes three steps which are different from the technique developed by the Population Council. More anesthesia, a slightly longer incision and vigorous disruption of the tissue encapsulation surrounding the implants are recommended. The Emory Method is fast, safe and easy to perform. It has been successfully taught to over twenty-five clinicians.