Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple advantages and few disadvantages associated with the use of long-acting reversible contraception

  • Disease Management
  • Published:
Drugs & Therapy Perspectives Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Table I
Table II

References

  1. Stoddard A, McNicholas C, Peipert JF. Efficacy and safety of long-acting reversible contraception. Drugs 2011; 71(8): 969–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, et al., editors. Contraceptive technology. 19th rev ed. New York: Ardent Media, 2007: 120, 148–9, 759, 874

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mavranezouli I, LARC Guideline Development Group. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Hum Reprod 2008 Jun; 23(6): 1338–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 Nov; 44(5): 473–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. United Nations Development Programme. Long-term reversible contraception: twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception 1997 Dec; 56(6): 341–52

    Google Scholar 

  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 Jun; 3(2): 85–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: WHO, Reproductive Health and Research, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 May; 91(5): 1646–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andersson JK, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990 Aug; 97(8): 690–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zapata LB, Whiteman MK, Tepper NK, et al. Intrauterine device use among women with uterine fibroids: a systematic review. Contraception 2010 Jul; 82(1): 41–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 Jun; 82(6): 580–2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987; 753: 1–91

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hubacher D, Chen PL, Park S. Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time? Contraception 2009 May; 79(5): 356–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sonfield A. Popularity disparity: attitudes about the IUD in Europe and the United States. Guttmacher Policy Rev 2007 Fall; 10(4): 19–24

    Google Scholar 

  15. Svensson L, Weström L, Mårdh PA. Contraceptives and acute salpingitis. JAMA 1984 May 18; 251(19): 2553–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, et al. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001 Aug 23; 345(8): 561–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011 May; 117(5): 1105–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrison-Woolrych M, Hill R. Unintended pregnancies with the etonogestrel implant (Implanon): a case series from postmarketing experience in Australia. Contraception 2005 Apr; 71(4): 306–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell Jr DR, et al. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception 2005 May; 71(5): 319–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ponpuckdee J, Taneepanichskul S. The effects of implanon in the symptomatic treatment of endometriosis. J Med Assoc Thai 2005 Oct; 88Suppl. 2: S7–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mansour D, Korver T, Marintcheva-Petrova M, et al. The effects of Implanon on menstrual bleeding patterns. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008 Jun; 13Suppl. 1: 13–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brache V, Faundes A, Alvarez F, et al. Nonmenstrual adverse events during use of implantable contraceptives for women: data from clinical trials. Contraception 2002 Jan; 65(1): 63–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Multiple advantages and few disadvantages associated with the use of long-acting reversible contraception. Drugs Ther Perspect 28, 12–14 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11606120-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11606120-000000000-00000

Search

Navigation