Contraception
Volume 79, Issue 5 , Pages 356-362 , May 2009

Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time?

Received 21 October 2008 ,Revised 7 November 2008 ,Accepted 18 November 2008.

References 

  1. Sivin I. Utility and drawbacks of continuous use of a copper T IUD for 20 years. Contraception. 2007;75:S70–S75
  2. In:  Trieman K,  Liskin L,  Kols A,  Rinehart W editor. IUDs — an update. Population reports, Series B, No. 6.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Population Information Program; 1995;
  3. Farr G, Amatya R. Contraceptive efficacy of the Copper T380A and the Multiload Cu250 IUD in three developing countries. Adv Contracept. 1994;10:137–149
  4. Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril. 1994;61:70–77
  5. Suvisaari J, Lahteenmaki P. Detailed analysis of menstrual bleeding patterns after postmenstrual and postabortal insertion of a copper IUD or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 1996;54:201–208
  6. Belsey EM, Machin D, d'Arcangues C. The analysis of vaginal bleeding patterns induced by fertility regulating methods. World Health Organization Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Contraception. 1986;34:253–260
  7. Improved utilization of spacing methods — intrauterine devices (IUDs) and low-dose combined oral contraceptives (OCs) — through re-orientation training for improving quality of services. Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on IUD and Hormonal Contraceptives. Contraception. 1994;50:215–228
  8. Sivin I, Alvarez F, Diaz J, et al. Intrauterine contraception with copper and with levonorgestrel: a randomized study of the TCu 380Ag and levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day devices. Contraception. 1984;30:443–456
  9. Pizarro E, Gomez-Rogers C, Rowe PJ. A comparative study of the effect of the Progestasert TM and Gravigard IUDs on dysmenorrhoea. Contraception. 1979;20:455–466
  10. Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, et al. Preventing copper intrauterine device removals due to side effects among first-time users: randomized trial to study the effect of prophylactic ibuprofen. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1467–1472
  11. Breslow NE, Clayton DG. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assn. 1993;88:9–25
  12. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–130
  13. The GLIMMIX Procedure. http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/papers/glimmix.pdf2006;Accessed on January 10, 2008
  14. Mallinckrodt CH, Clark SW, Carroll RJ, Molenbergh G. Assessing response profiles from incomplete longitudinal clinical trial data under regulatory considerations. J Biopharm Stat. 2003;13:179–190
  15. Machin D, Farley TM, Busca B, Campbell MJ, d'Arcangues C. Assessing changes in vaginal bleeding patterns in contracepting women. Contraception. 1988;38:165–179
  16. Andrade AT, Pizarro Orchard E. Quantitative studies on menstrual blood loss in IUD users. Contraception. 1987;36:129–144
  17. Larsson G, Milsom I, Jonasson K, Lindstedt G, Rybo G. The long-term effects of copper surface area on menstrual blood loss and iron status in women fitted with an IUD. Contraception. 1993;48:471–480
  18. Grimes DA, Hubacher D, Lopez LM, Schulz KF. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD006034
  19. O'Brien PA, Kulier R, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, d'Arcangues C. Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2008;77:318–327
  20. Trussell J. Choosing a contraceptive: efficacy, safety, and personal considerations. In:  Hatcher RA,  Trussell J,  Nelson AL editor. Contraceptive Technology. New York: Ardent Media, Inc.; 2007;p. 24

☆ This secondary analysis was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Duramed Research, Inc. The original study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

☆☆ The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of Family Health International or the funding entity.

PII: S0010-7824(08)00540-4

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.012

Contraception
Volume 79, Issue 5 , Pages 356-362 , May 2009

Article Tools