Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Levonorgestrel Subdermal Implants

Contraception on Trial

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Segal S. A new delivery system for contraceptive steroids. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 1090–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gehlert S, Lickey S. Social and health policy concerns raised by the introduction of the contraceptive Norplant. Soc Serv Rev 1995; 69 (2): 323–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wysowski DK, Green L. Serious adverse events in Norplant users reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch spontaneous reporting system. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 538–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. King EA, Stabler CM, Lien WJ. Pap smear compliance among Norplant users [letter]. J Fam Pract 1995; 41 (1): 16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Population group demands halt of Norplant sales: cites health risks to women and targeting of minority populations. PR Newswire 1996 Jun 27: 1

  6. Tyrer LB, Salas JE. Contraceptive problems unique to the United States. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1989; 32 (2): 307–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hataska H. Implantable levonorgestrel contraception: 4 years experience with Norplant. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38 (4): 859–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choice and challenge: global teamwork in developing a contraceptive implant. Ontario: International Development Research Centre, 1990

  9. Pre-introductory clinical trials of Norplant Implants: a comparison of seventeen countries’ experience. Contraception 1995; 52: 287–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Peers T, Stevens JE, Grahm J, et al. Norplant implants in the UK: first year continuation and removals. Contraception 1996;53:345–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ollila E, Hemminiki E. Does licensing of drugs in industrialized countries guarantee drug quality and safety for third world countries? The case of Norplant licensing in Finland. Int J Health Serv 1997; 27 (2): 309–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krueger SL, Dunson TR, Amatya RN. Norplant contraceptive acceptability among women in five Asian countries. Contraception 1994; 50: 349–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown GF, Moskowitz EH. Moral and policy issues in long-acting contraception. Annu Rev Public Health 1997; 18:379–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ollila E, Hemminiki E, Kajesalo K. Physicians’ experiences with Norplant implantable contraceptives in Finland. Scand J Soc Med 1995; 23(1): 47–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sivin I. Contraception with Norplant implants. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1818–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ollila E, Sihvo S, Meriläinen J, et al. Experience of Finnish women with Norplant insertions and removals. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:488–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenthal SL, Biro FM, Kollar LM, et al. Experience with side effects and health risks associated with Norplant implant use in adolescents. Contraception 1995; 52: 283–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine AS, Holmes MM, Haseldon C, et al. Subdermal contraceptive implant (Norplant) continuation rates among adolescents and adults in a family planning clinic. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1996; 9 (2): 67–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Phemister DA, Laurent S, Harrison FNH. Use of Norplant contraceptive implants in the immediate postpartum period: safety and tolerance. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 172: 175–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Darney PD, Atkinson E, Tanner ST, et al. Acceptance and perceptions of Norplant among users in San Francisco, USA. Stud Fam Plann 1990; 21: 152–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Frank ML, Poindexter AN, Cornin LM, et al. One-year experience with subdermal contraceptive implants in the United States. Contraception 1993; 48: 229–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Datey S, Gaur LN, Saxena BN. Vaginal bleeding patterns of women using different contraceptive methods (implants, in-jectables, IUDs, oral pills) — an Indian experience. Contraception 1995; 51 (3): 155–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alvarez-Sanchez F, Brache V, Thevenin F, et al. Hormonal treatment for bleeding irregularities in Norplant implant users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 919–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Diaz S, Croxatto HB, Pavez M, et al. Clinical assessment of treatments for prolonged bleeding in users of Norplant implants. Contraception 1990; 42: 97–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaunitz AM. Long-acting contraceptive options. Int J Fertil 1996; 41 (2): 69–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chez RA. Serious adverse events in Norplant users related to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch spontaneous reporting system [letter]. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 154–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sivin I. Serious adverse events in Norplant users related to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch spontaneous reporting system [letter]. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 318–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fraser JL, Millenson M, Malynn ER, et al. Possible association between the Norplant contraceptive system and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 860–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wagner KD, Berenson AB. Norplant-associated major depression and panic disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1994; 55: 478–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner KD. Major depression and anxiety disorders associated with Norplant. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 57: 152–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Klavon S, Grubb GS. Insertion site complications during the first year of Norplant use. Contraception 1990; 41: 27–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Su-Juan G, Ming-Lun D, Ling-De Z, et al. A 5-year evaluation of Norplant contraceptive implants in China. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 673–8

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zuber TJ, DeWitt DE, Patton DD. Skin damage associated with the Norplant contraceptive. J Fam Pract 1992; 34: 613–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sivin I. International experience with Norplant and Norplant-2 contraceptives. Stud Fam Plann 1988; 19: 81–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Dunson TR, Amatya RN, Krueger SL. Complications and risk factors associated with the removal of Norplant implants. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:543–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Peers T, Stevens JE, Graham J, Davey A. Norplant implants in the UK: first year continuation and removals. Contraception 1996;53:345–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sarma SP, Hatcher R. The Emory method: a modified approach to Norplant implants removal. Contraception 1994; 49: 551–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Praptohardjo U, Wibowo S. The ‘U’ technique: a new method for Norplant implants removal. Contraception 1993; 48: 526–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dunson TR, Amatya RN, Krueger SL. Complications and risk factors associated with the removal of Norplant implants. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:543–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas AG, LeMelle SM. The Norplant system: where are we in 1995? J Fam Pract 1995; 40 (2): 125–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Reynolds RD. The ‘Modified U’ technique: a refined method of Norplant removal. J Fam Pract 1995; 40: 173–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cecil H, Holtz JK. Norplant removal facilitated by use of ultrasound for location. J Fam Pract 1995; 40: 182–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ward SJ, Sidi IPS, Simmons R, et al. Service delivery systems and quality of care in the implementation of Norplant in Indonesia. New York: Population Council, April 1990

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hunt L. Shot in the arm for birth control. The Independent 1993 Aug 4: 1

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rush for five-year contraceptive. Daily Mail 1993 Oct 8: 11

  46. Cullins VE, Blumenthal PD, Remsburg RE, et al. Preliminary experience with Norplant in inner city population. Contraception 1993; 47: 193–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Frank ML, Bateman L, Poindexter AN. The attitudes of clinic staff as factors in women’s selection of Norplant implants for their contraception. Women Health 1994; 21 (4): 75–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Doyle C. Doctors set to issue new contraceptive that can last five years. The Daily Telegraph 1993 Aug 5:4

    Google Scholar 

  49. UBINIG. Norplant, the five year needle: an investigation of the Norplant trial in Bangladesh from the user’s perspective. Issues Reprod Genet Eng 1990; 3 (3): 211–28

    Google Scholar 

  50. UBINIG. “The price of Norplant is TK.2000! You cannot re move it.” Clients are refused removal in Norplant trial in Bangladesh. Issues Reprod Genet Eng 1991; 4 (1): 45–6

    Google Scholar 

  51. Samuels SE, Smith MD, editors. Dimensions in contraception: Norplant and poor women. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  52. Thompson MS. Contraceptive implants: long acting and provider dependent contraception raises concerns about freedom of choice. BMJ 1996; 313 (7069): 1393–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bromham DR. Contraceptive implants: users lose out when misleading information limits choice. BMJ 1996; 312 (7046): 1555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. People v. Johnson. No. 29390. Court Proceedings of Tulore County, California, USA

  55. Moskowitz EH, Jennings B, Callahan D. Long-acting contraceptives: ethical guidance for policy makers and health care providers. Hastings Center Report 1995; 25 (1) Suppl.: S1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kolata G. Will the lawyers kill off Norplant? The New York Times 1995 May 28; Section 3: 1

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bromham DR, Davey A, Gaffikin L, et al. Materials, methods and results of the Norplant training program. Adv Contracept 1995; 11:255–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Jenkins L. Women sue over birth control implant. The Times 1995 Aug 19: 1

    Google Scholar 

  59. Glazer SH. Once hailed as ‘dream’ contraceptive, Norplant faces ethical and practical problems. CQ Researcher 1994; 28 (4): 662–8

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mastroianni L, Donaldson PJ, Kane TT. Special report: development of contraceptives — obstacles and opportunities. N Engl J Med 1990; 322 (7): 482–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Sihvo S, Ollila E, Hemminki E. Perceptions and satisfaction among Norplant users in Finland. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995; 74 (6): 441–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Bromham DR. Contraceptive implants: users lose out when misleading information limits choice. BMJ 1996; 312 (7046): 1555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New Haven, 300 Orange Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut, 06516, USA

    Margaret L. Frank & Carrie DiMaria

Authors
  1. Margaret L. Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carrie DiMaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret L. Frank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frank, M.L., DiMaria, C. Levonorgestrel Subdermal Implants. Drug-Safety 17, 360–368 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199717060-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199717060-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation