Literature DB >> 9617600

Levonorgestrel subdermal implants. A review of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability.

A J Coukell1, J A Balfour.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Levonorgestrel 6-capsule subdermal implants (Norplant) are an effective form of reversible contraception. When implanted under the skin of the upper arm, they release drug into the circulation at a relatively constant rate over 5 years. Generally, the cumulative pregnancy rate at the end of 5 years' levonorgestrel implant use is less than 2 per 100 users. The implants provide contraceptive efficacy equivalent to, or better than, that provided by other reversible methods (including oral contraceptives). Younger women are more likely than older women to become pregnant while using levonorgestrel implants. Bodyweight was positively correlated with risk of pregnancy in a number of studies, but may not be a factor with the currently available 6-capsule implant formulation. Limited data suggest that a new 2-rod levonorgestrel subdermal system (Jadelle) is as effective as the more extensively studied 6-capsule system and has a similar tolerability profile. Fertility returns rapidly after the implants are removed. Use of levonorgestrel subdermal implants is compatible with breast-feeding. In several studies, discontinuation rates were 2 to 15% during the first year of use; cumulative 5-year discontinuation rates ranged from 22 to 64 per 100 women. Despite a substantial incidence of adverse events during therapy, levels of user satisfaction are generally high. Menstrual abnormalities (increased or decreased menstrual flow, spotting, irregularity and amenorrhoea) affect most women at some time during therapy and are the most frequent reason for discontinuing levonorgestrel implants before the end of 5 years' treatment (incidence of 4.2 to 30.7 per 100 users). Mood changes and headache also may lead to discontinuation. Other reported adverse events include skin reactions (including acne), dizziness and weight gain. Serious adverse events (such as stroke, thrombotic thrombocytopenia and idiopathic intracranial hypertension) have been reported during levonorgestrel implants therapy, but the population incidence is difficult to calculate and causality is unclear. According to 3 pharmacoeconomic analyses from an institutional or managedcare perspective, all contraceptive interventions result in net cost savings. It is not clear whether levonorgestrel implants provide greater or smaller economic benefits than combined oral contraceptives.
CONCLUSION: Levonorgestrel subdermal implants provide effective long term contraception. Despite a high incidence of menstrual adverse events, overall levels of user satisfaction are high, and 1-year continuation rates are better than those for combined oral contraceptives. Levonorgestrel subdermal implants are a good choice of contraceptive method in women who desire effective contraception, but who are unable to, or prefer not to, comply with an oral regimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9617600     DOI: 10.2165/00003495-199855060-00019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drugs        ISSN: 0012-6667            Impact factor:   9.546


  142 in total

Review 1.  Skin damage associated with the Norplant contraceptive.

Authors:  T J Zuber; D E DeWitt; D D Patton
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 2.  Modern oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  L Rosenberg; J R Palmer; M I Sands; D Grimes; U Bergman; J Daling; A Mills
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  A comparison of "U" and standard techniques for Norplant removal.

Authors:  M J Rosenberg; F Alvarez; M A Barone; M S Waugh; V Brache; A E Pollack
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Use of needle localization for difficult Norplant removal.

Authors:  J F Lang; M W Heine; T F Purdon
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Neurovascular injury during removal of levonorgestrel implants.

Authors:  S P Sarma; R P Hatcher
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  The effect of husband counseling on NORPLANT contraceptive acceptability in Bangladesh.

Authors:  R Amatya; H Akhter; J McMahan; N Williamson; D Gates; Y Ahmed
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 7.  The role of triphasic levonorgestrel in oral contraception: a review of metabolic and hemostatic effects.

Authors:  U Lachnit-Fixson
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.260

8.  Immediate postpartum insertion of the norplant contraceptive device.

Authors:  J R Molland; D B Morehead; D M Baldwin; V D Castracane; B Lasley; C A Bergquist
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 9.  Norplant neuropathy: peripheral neurologic symptoms associated with subdermal contraceptive implants.

Authors:  W J Hueston; K T Locke
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 0.493

10.  Carbohydrate metabolism before and after Norplant removal.

Authors:  J C Konje; O A Odukoya; E O Otolorin; P D Ewings; O A Ladipo
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Optimisation of treatment by applying programmable rate-controlled drug delivery technology.

Authors:  Yie W Chien; Senshang Lin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Development and validation of an acceptability and satisfaction questionnaire for a contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing.

Authors:  Annoesjka Novák; Christine de la Loge; Linda Abetz
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Ulnar nerve ligation after removal of Norplant: a case report.

Authors:  Joshua M Adkinson; Jay S Talsania
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2013-03

Review 4.  Contraception across transgender.

Authors:  Ilaria Mancini; Stefania Alvisi; Giulia Gava; Renato Seracchioli; Maria Cristina Meriggiola
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.896

5.  Enhanced activity of punicalagin delivered via polymeric implants against benzo[a]pyrene-induced DNA adducts.

Authors:  Farrukh Aqil; Manicka V Vadhanam; Ramesh C Gupta
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Benefit-risk assessment of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in contraception.

Authors:  Tiina Backman
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  A pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic evaluation of contraceptive implants and antiretroviral therapy among women in Kenya and Uganda.

Authors:  Rena C Patel; Randy M Stalter; Katherine K Thomas; Bani Tamraz; Steven W Blue; David W Erikson; Christina J Kim; Edward J Kelly; Kavita Nanda; Athena P Kourtis; Jairam R Lingappa; Nelly Mugo; Jared M Baeten; Kimberly K Scarsi
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.177

8.  Prevention of cisplatin-induced hearing loss by extended release fluticasone propionate intracochlear implants.

Authors:  Erik Pierstorff; Wan-Wan Yang; Yen-Jung Angel Chen; Shirley Cheung; Federico Kalinec; William H Slattery
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 1.675

9.  In vitro and in vivo evaluations of biodegradable implants for hormone replacement therapy: effect of system design and PK-PD relationship.

Authors:  S Lin; P Y Chao; Y W Chien; S Sayani; S Kuma; M Mason; T Wes; A Yang; D Monkhouse
Journal:  AAPS PharmSciTech       Date:  2001-09-21       Impact factor: 3.246

Review 10.  Risks and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants.

Authors:  Irving Sivin
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.