Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant
- 535 Downloads
There is scarce information about bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition (BC) among users of the etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing implant.
To evaluate BC and BMD in ENG-releasing implant users as compared to copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD)-users.
A prospective study was conducted on 75 users of both contraceptive methods. BMD was evaluated at femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) (L1–L4) and BC at baseline and at 12 months after insertion.
The mean (±SD) age was 30.4 ± 6.8 and 29.8 ± 8.4 years and body mass index (kg/m2) was 24.9 ± 4.1 and 24.6 ± 3.5 in ENG-releasing implant- and Cu-IUD-users, respectively. ENG-releasing implant users did not show significant differences on BMD at the LS and FN at 12 months of use. Furthermore, ENG-implant users had an increase in body weight at 12 months (p < 0.001) and an increase of 2 % in the percentage of body fat, when compared with Cu-IUD users. There was a significant increase in lean mass in ENG-implant users at 12 months (p = 0.020).
No significant changes of BMD were seen after the first year of use among the ENG-releasing implant-users, albeit an increase of weight and fat mass was seen when compared to Cu-IUD users.
KeywordsEtonogestrel-releasing implant Bone mineral density Body composition
W.M. received grants from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Grants# 2011/01554-4 and this study received financial support from the FAPESP Grants# 2012/12432-0.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 7.World Health Organization (2005) WHO statement on hormonal contraception and bone health. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 80(35):302–304Google Scholar
- 12.De Laet C, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johanson H, Johnell O, Delmas P, Eisman JA, Kroger H, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ 3rd, Meunier PJ, Pols HA, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2005) Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16(11):1330–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar