, Volume 71, Issue 8, pp 969–980 | Cite as

Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception

  • Amy Stoddard
  • Colleen McNicholas
  • Jeffrey F. PeipertEmail author
Therapy in Practice


Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) includes intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the subdermal implant. These methods are the most effective reversible methods of contraception, and have the additional advantages of being long-lasting, convenient, well liked by users and cost effective. Compared with other user-dependent methods that increase the risk of noncompliance-related method failure, LARC methods can bring ‘typical use’ failure rates more in line with ‘perfect use’ failure rates. LARC methods are ‘forgettable’; they are not dependent on compliance with a pill-taking regimen, remembering to change a patch or ring, or coming back to the clinician for an injection. LARC method failure rates rival that of tubal sterilization at <1% for IUDs and the subdermal implant. For these reasons, we believe that IUDs and implants should be offered as first-line contraception for most women. This article provides a review of the LARC methods that are currently available in the US, including their effectiveness, advantages, disadvantages and contraindications. Additionally, we dispel myths and misconceptions regarding IUDs, and address the barriers to LARC use.


Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Emergency Contraception Insertion Tube Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Male Condom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported in part by a Midcareer Investigator Award in Women’s Health Research (K24 HD01298) and by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1RR024992) from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.[57,58] The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, et al., editors. Contraceptive technology. 19th rev. ed. New York: Ardent Media, 2007: 120, 148–9, 759, 874Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Comparing typical effectiveness of contraceptive methods. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat 2010; 23(29): 1–44Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, et al. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril 2009; 91(5): 1646–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenzl R, van Beek A, Schnabel P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon. Contraception 1998; 58(5): 283–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiriwat O, Patanayindee A, Koetsawang S, et al. A 4-year pilot study on the efficacy and safety of Implanon, a single-rod hormonal contraceptive implant, in healthy women in Thailand. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1998; 3(2): 85–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Affandi B, Korver T, Geurts TB, et al. A pilot efficacy study with a single-rod contraceptive implant (Implanon) in 200 Indonesian women treated for < or=4 years. Contraception, 1999; 59(3): 167–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van den Bosch T, Donders GG, Riphagen I, et al. Ultrasonographic features of the endometrium and the ovaries in women on etonogestrel implant. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20(4): 377–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mäkäräinen L, van Beek A, Tuomivaara L, et al. Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: Implanon compared with Norplant. Fertil Steril 1998; 69(4): 714–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell Jr DR, et al. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception 2005; 71(5): 319–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ponpuckdee J, Taneepanichskul S. The effects of implanon in the symptomatic treatment of endometriosis. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88 Suppl. 2: S7–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mansour D, Korver T, Marintcheva-Petrova M, et al. The effects of Implanon on menstrual bleeding patterns. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008; 13 Suppl. 1: 13–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chikamata DM, Miller S. Health services at the clinic level and implantable contraceptives for women. Contraception 2002; 65(1): 97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brache V, Faundes A, Alvarez F, et al. Nonmenstrual adverse events during use of implantable contraceptives for women: data from clinical trials. Contraception 2002; 65(1): 63–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison-Woolrych M, Hill R. Unintended pregnancies with the etonogestrel implant (Implanon): a case series from postmarketing experience in Australia. Contraception 2005; 71(4): 306–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: S.W.H.O., Reproductive Health and Research, 2004Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levine JP, Sinofsky FE, Christ MF. Assessment of Implanon insertion and removal. Contraception 2008; 78(5): 409–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Clinical proceedings: new developments in intrauterine contraception. Washington DC: Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mosher W, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2010; 23(29): 1–44Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sonfield A. Popularity disparity: attitudes about the IUD in Europe and the United States. Guttmacher Policy Rev 2007; 10: 19–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang D. Contraceptive failure in China. Contraception 2002; 66(3): 173–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(6): 1359–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tatum HJ, Schmidt FH, Phillips DM, et al. The Dalkon shield controversy: structural and bacteriologic studies of IUD tails. JAMA 1975; 231(7): 711–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Svensson L, Westrom L, Mardh PA. Contraceptives and acute salpingitis. JAMA 1984; 251(19): 2553–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hubacher D, Lara-Ricale R, Taylor DJ, et al. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(8): 561–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ory HW. Ectopic pregnancy and intrauterine contraceptive devices: new perspectives. The Women’s Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 57(2): 137–44Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pakarinen P, Toivonen J, Luukkainen T. Therapeutic use of the LNG IUS, and counseling. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19(4): 365–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ACOG Committee Opinion No. 392, December 2007. Intrauterine device and adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110(6): 1493–5Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McNaught J. Adolescents and IUCDs: not a contraindication. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2006; 19(4): 303–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brockmeyer A, Kishen M, Webb A. Experience of IUD/IUS insertions and clinical performance in nulliparous women: a pilot study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008; 13(3): 248–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117(5): 1105–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nilsson CG, Haukkamaa M, Vierola H, et al. Tissue concentrations of levonorgestrel in women using a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. Clinical Endocrinol 1982; 17: 529–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sivin I, Stern J, Coutinho E, et al. Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDS. Contraception 1991; 44(5): 473–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bengtson MB, Solberg IC, Aamodt G, et al. Relationships between inflammatory bowel disease and perinatal factors: both maternal and paternal disease are related to preterm birth of offspring. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010; 16(5): 847–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    CDC. U S medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Oct 12]
  36. 36.
    Andersson JK, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(8): 690–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baldaszti E, Wimmer-Puchinger B, Loschke K. Acceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena): a 3-year follow-up study. Contraception 2003; 67(2): 87–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hidalgo M, Bahamondes L, Perrotti M, et al. Bleeding patterns and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) up to two years. Contraception 2002; 65(2): 129–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jindabanjerd K, Taneepanichskul S. The use of levonorgestrel-IUD in the treatment of uterine myoma in Thai women. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89 Suppl. 4: S147–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zapata LB, Whiteman MK, Tepper NK, et al. Intrauterine device use among women with uterine fibroids: a systematic review. Contraception 2010; 82(1): 41–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin: No. 110. Noncontraceptive uses of hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (1): 206–18Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bahamondes L, Ribeiro-Huguet P, de Andrade KC, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) as a therapy for endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82(6): 580–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987; 753: 1–91Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Adoni A, Ben Chetrit A. The management of intrauterine devices following uterine perforation. Contraception 1991; 43(1): 77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 59, January 2005. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists: intrauterine device. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (1): 223–32Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walsh T, Grimes D, Frezieres R, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics before insertion of intrauterine devices. IUD Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351(9108): 1005–8Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Teisala K. Removal of an intrauterine device and the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Ann Med 1989; 21(1): 63–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Soderberg G, Lindgren S. Influence of an intrauterine device on the course of an acute salpingitis. Contraception 1981; 24(2): 137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Penney G, Brechin S, de Souza A, et al. FFPRHC guidance (January 2004). The copper intrauterine device as long-term contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30(1): 29–41; quiz 42Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhou L, Xiao B. Emergency contraception with Multiload Cu-375 SL IUD: a multicenter clinical trial. Contraception, 2001; 64(2): 107–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Alvarez F, Brache V, Fernandez E, et al. New insights on the mode of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices in women. Fertil Steril 1988; 49(5): 768–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    United Nations Development Programme. Long-term reversible contraception: twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception 1997; 56(6): 341–52Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sivin I, Stern J, Diaz S, et al. Rates and outcomes of planned pregnancy after use of Norplant capsules, Norplant II rods, or levonorgestrel-releasing or copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166(4): 1208–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vessey MP, Lawless M, McPherson K, et al. Fertility after stopping use of intrauterine contraceptive device [letter]. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 1983; 286(6359): 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hubacher D, Grimes DA. Noncontraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002; 57(2): 120–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hubacher D, Chen PL, Park S. Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time? Contraception 2009; 79(5): 356–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Centre for Research Resources [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Apr 12]
  58. 58.
    National Institutes of Health [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Apr 12]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Stoddard
    • 1
  • Colleen McNicholas
    • 1
  • Jeffrey F. Peipert
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWashington University in St. Louis School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations