Physicians' experience with Norplant implantable contraceptives in Finland

Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) and levonorgestrel (Norplant) use in adolescents among clinicians in Northern Europe and the United States

PURPOSE

To compare attitudes and practices related to clinicians' use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [Depo-Provera (DMPA)] and levonorgestrel implants in adolescents in three northern European countries and the United States.

METHODS

Between the fall of 1993 and the winter of 1995, surveys eliciting clinician attitudes and practices with the two contraceptive methods were collected from practitioners who provide contraceptive care to teens in Sweden (n = 282), The Netherlands (n = 197), Great Britain (n = 108), and the United States (n = 548).

RESULTS

Clinicians in Great Britain and the United States reported prescribing of DMPA, selected DMPA in their top three choices for contraception in teens, and had patients ask about DMPA more frequently than clinicians in Sweden or The Netherlands (p < 0.0001). U.S. clinicians were more likely to report prescribing of the implants, list them as a top choice, and have patients ask for it more frequently than were providers in the other three countries (p < 0.0001). Noncompliance with previous contraceptives was the most common indication for use of either method in this age group. "Worst fears" with DMPA use included infertility, particularly among Swedish clinicians (p < 0.0001), as was pregnancy and loss to follow-up, particularly among British clinicians (p < 0.0001). Condom nonuse was a concern associated with both methods. Breakthrough uterine bleeding was a concern related to implant use, particularly among Swedish practitioners (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians in the United States and Great Britain display more enthusiasm toward the use of the long-term progestins in adolescents than do clinicians in Sweden or The Netherlands. Continuing education programs could be designed to educate clinicians to allay their concerns about these contraceptives in countries where teen pregnancy is considered a problem.

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.

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.