Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A bill of health for the IUD: Where do we go from here?

  • Published:
Advances in Contraception

Abstract

Although intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a highly cost-effective contraceptive method, they have been unfortunately associated with increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). However, new studies, including a 1992 World Health Organization (WHO) report, have demonstrated that there is little evidence of a causal link between IUD use and PID. IUD-related risk of PID is increased only during a short period following insertion, and exposure to STDs is probably the major determinant of PID risk for IUD users. Furthermore, no increased risk of PID use has been demonstrated with long-term IUD use. This paper examines the evidence, focusing on the 1992 WHO study, and looks to the future with suggestions for IUD research and programmatic approaches in the hope of vindicating the IUD's reputation and broadening the indications for its use.

Resumé

Bien que les dispositifs intra-utérins (DIU) constituent une méthode contraceptive extrêmement efficace par rapport à son coût, ils ont malheureusement été associés à un risque accru de maladies pelviennes inflammatoires. De nouvelles études, notamment un rapport de l'OMS établi en 1992, ont cependant démontré l'insuffisance des preuves d'une relation de cause à effet entre l'utilisation des stérilets et les inflammations pelviennes. Le risque d'inflammation attribuable aux DIU n'est accru que pendant une courte période après l'insertion, et l'exposition à des MST est probablement le principal facteur déterminant du risque d'inflammation pelvienne chez les utilisatrices de DIU. En outre, l'augmentation du risque de maladie pelvienne inflammatoire n'a nullement été démontrée chez les femmes qui ont, pendant longtemps, porté un, DIU. Le présent article examine les preuves, en s'appuyant sur le rapport de 1992 de l'OMS, et propose qu'à l'avenir on procède à des recherches et à des programmes destinés à justifier la réputation des DIU et à élargir la gamme des cas dans lesquels il convient de les utiliser.

Resumen

Si bien los dispositivos intrauterinos (DIU) son un método anticonceptivo muy eficaz en función de los costos, han estado asociados lamentablemente con un mayor riesgo de enfermedad pélvica inflamatoria (EPI). Sin embargo, nuevos estudios, entre ellos un informe de la OMS de 1992, han demostrado que hay pocas pruebas de una relación de causalidad entre el uso del DIU y la EPI. El riesgo de EPI relacionado con el DIU aumenta sólo durante un período breve despuûs de la inserción y la exposición a las enfermedades transmitidas por contacto sexual es probablemente el determinante principal del riesgo de EPI para las usuarias del DIU. Por otra parte, no se ha demostrado ningún riesgo aumentado de EPI con el uso prolongado de DIU. En este trabajo se examinan las pruebas, concentrándose en el estudio de la OMS de 1992, y se considera el futuro, con sugerencias de investigaciones relativas al DIU y enfoques programáticos en la esperanza de vindicar la reputación del DIU y ampliar sus indicaciones de uso.

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. Eschenbach DA, Harnish JP, Holmes KK. Pathogenesis of acute pelvic inflammatory disease: role of contraception and other risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;128:838–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkman RT. Intrauterine device use and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;138:861–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee NC, Rubin GL, Ory HW et al. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;62:1–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Westrom L, Bengtssen LP, Mardh P. The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease in women using intrauterine contraceptive devices as compared to non-users. Lancet. 1976;2:221–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Osser S, Gullberg B, Liedholm P, Sjoberg N-O. Risk of pelvic inflammatory disease among intrauterine-device users irrespective of previous pregnancy. Lancet. 1980;1:386–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Larsson B, Rodau S, Patek E. Pelvic inflammatory disease among women using Copper IUDs, progestasert, oral contraceptive pills or vaginal contraceptive pills — a 4-year prospective investigation. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1981;2:237–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Edelman D, Porter CW Jr. Pelvic inflammatory disease and the IUD. Adv Contracept. 1986;2:313–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chi I-c. What we have learned from recent IUD studies — a researcher's perspective. Contraception. 1993;48:81–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Struthers BJ. Pelvic inflammatory disease, intrauterine contraception, and the conduct of epidemiologic studies. Adv Contracept. 1985;1:63–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grimes DA. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: recent developments. Contraception. 1987;36:97–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kessel E. Pelvic inflammatory disease with intrauterine device use: a reassessment. Fertil Steril. 1988;51:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lee NC, Rubin GL, Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:1–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Farley TMM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe P, Chen J-H, Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet. 1992;339:785–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tietze C, Lewit S. Evaluation of intrauterine devices: Ninth progress report of the Cooperative Statistical Program. Stud Fam Plann. 1970;55:1–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mishell DR Jr, Bell JH, Good RG, Moyer DL. The intrauterine device: a bacteriological study of the endometrial cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;96:119–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sung S, Qian L-J, Liu X. Comparative clinical experience with 3 IUDs, TCu380Ag, TCu220C, and Mahua Ring, in Tianjin, People's Republic of China. Contraception. 1984;29:229–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Second Clinical Group of National IUD Research. A randomized multicenter comparative study of 3 types of IUD. Reprod Contracept (in Chinese). 1987;7:39.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gao J., Family planning in the People's Republic of China. In: Matsumoto, S., ed. Recent advances in fertility control. Tokyo:Excerpta Medica; 1988: 2: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sivin I., Stern J., Coutinho E et al Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg20) and the copper T380 Ag IUDs. Contraception. 1991;44: 473–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Batar I. Clinical experiences with MLCu250 and MLCu375 IUD. Adv Contracept. 1992;8:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scholes D, Daling, JR, Stergachis AS. Current cigarette smoking and risk of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:1352–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sivin I. Dose- and age- dependent ectopic pregnancy risks with intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:291–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ory HW and the Women's Health Study. Ectopic pregnancy and intrauterine devices: new perspectives. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;57:137–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chow, W.-H., Daling JR, Weiss NS, Moore DE, Soderstrom R, Metch BJ. IUD use and subsequent tubal ectopic pregnancy. Am J Public Health. 1986;76:536–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rossing MA, Daling JR, Voigt LF, Stergachis AS et al. Current use of an intrauterine device and risk of tubal pregnancy. Epidemiology 1993;4:252–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rossing MA, Daling JR, Weiss NS, Voigt LF, Stergachis AS et al. Past use of an intrauterine device and risk of tubal pregnancy. Epidemiology 1993;4:245–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Daling JR, Weiss NS, Metch BJ et al. Primary tubal infertility in relation to the user of an intrauterine device. N Engl J Med 1985;312:934–41.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Daling JR, Weiss NS, Voigt LF et al. The intrauterine device and primary tubal infertility. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:203–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sivin I, Stern J, Diaz S, Pavez M et al. Rates and outcomes of planned pregnancy after use of Norplant capsules, Norplant II rods, or levonorgestrel-releasing or copper TCu 380 Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1208–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Newton J, Tacchi D. Long-term use of copper intrauterine devices. Lancet. 1990:335:1322–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pyorala T, Allonen H, Nygren K-G et al. Return of fertility after removal of Nova T or Copper T 200. Contraception. 1982;26:113–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilson JC. A prospective New Zealand study of fertility after removal of copper intrauterine devices for contraception and because of complications: a four-year study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:391–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Skjeldestad F, Bratt H. Fertility after complicated and non-complicated use of IUDs. A controlled prospective study. Adv Contracept. 1988;4:179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cramer DW. Infertility in relation to the use of IUDs. Safety of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices Symposium. Infect Dis Med Lett Obstet Gynecol. 1989;11:59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sinei SKA, Schultz KF, Lamptey DA et al. Preventing IUD-related pelvic infection the efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at insertion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:412–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lapido OA, Farr G, Otolorin E et al. Prevention of IUD-related pelvic infection: the efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at IUD insertion. Adv Contracept. 1991;7:43–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Westrom L. Effect of acute pelvic inflammatory disease on fertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976;121:707–13.

    Google Scholar 

  38. World Health Organization. PID associated with fertility regulating agents. Contraception. 1984;30:1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tatum HJ, Connell BE, A decade of intrauterine contraception: 1976 to 1986. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:173–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Siddle N. IUDs — a change of approach. Br J Fam Plann 1987;12:138–42.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Luukkainen T, Nielsen N-c, Nygren K-G, Pyorala T. Nulliparous women, IUD and pelvic infection. Annals Clin Res. 1979;11:121–4.

    Google Scholar 

  42. van Os, WA, Thiery M, van der Pas H et al. Comparison of four different models of the multiload copper IUD. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1981;2:275–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Thiery M, van der Pas, H., van Kets H. The MLCu-375 intrauterine device. Adv. Contracept. 1985;1:37–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hatcher RA, Guest F, Stewart K et al. Contraceptive Technology. New York: Printed Matter Inc. 1990:361.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jacob M., Shahmanesh M, Whatley J, Thin N. A forgotten factor in pelvic inflammatory disease: infection in the male partner. Br Med J 1987;294:869.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Edelman, DA, The use of intrauterine contraceptive device, pelvic inflammatory disease, andChlamydial trachomatis infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;158:956–9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Guderian AM, Trobough GE. Residues of pelvic inflammatory disease in intrauterine device users: a result of the intrauterine device orChlamydia trachomatis infection?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154:497–503.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Louve WC, Austin H, Perlman J, Alexander WJ, Oral contraceptives use and risk of chlamydial and gonococcal infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:396–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Washington AE, Gove S, Schachter G, Sweet RL. Oral contraceptives,chlamydial trachomatis infection, and pelvic inflammatory disease: a word of caution about protection. J Am Med Assoc. 1985;253:2246–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sivin I. Should collared Copper T intrauterine devices be replaced before eight years? Br J Fam Plann 1992;18:9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Andolsek L, Kozuh M, Balogh SA. Long-term use of nonmedicated IUDs in women over forty. In: Zatuchni GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Intrauterine contraception — advances and future prospects. Hagerstown: Harper and Row (Program for Applied Research on Fertility Regulation Series on Fertility Regulation). 1984;375–86.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stadel BV, Schlesselman S. Extent of surgery for pelvic inflammatory disease in relation to duration of intrauterine device use. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Toivonen J, Luukkainen T, Allonen H. Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:261–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Luukkainen T. The levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. Br J Fam Plann 1993;19:221–4.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sivin I. Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection (letter to the editor). Obstet Gynecol. 1991:77:960.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Indian Council of Medical Research, Task Force on IUDs. Randomized clinical trials with intrauterine devices: levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG), Cu T 380Ag, Cu T 220C, Cu T 200B. A 36-month study. Contraception 1989;39:37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Buchan H, Vessey M, Goldacre M, Fairweather J. Morbidity following pelvic inflammatory disease Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1993:100:558–62.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Washington AE, Arno PS, Brooks MA. The economic cost of pelvic inflammatory disease. J Am Med Assoc. 1986;255:1735–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Batar I, Lampe LG, Allonen H. Clinical experiences with intrauterine devices inserted with and without tail. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1991;36:137–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Potts DM, Champion CB, Kozuh-Novak M, et al. IUDs and PID: a comparative trial of strings versus stringless devices. Adv Contracept. 1991;7:231–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Grimes DA. Whither the intrauterine device? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1989;32:369–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shelton JD, Angle MA, Jacobstein RA. Medical barriers to access to family planning. Lancet 1992;340:1334–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Family Health International, PO Box 13950, 27709, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    I -C. Chi

Authors
  1. I -C. Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chi, I.C. A bill of health for the IUD: Where do we go from here?. Adv Contracept 10, 121–131 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01978105

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01978105

Keywords

Search

Navigation