G Aishwarya¹, Shatrunajay Shukla², Vivekanandan Kalaiselvan²*, Ramesh K Goyal¹, Arun K Agarwal³ Ashish Sharma¹, Shubhang Arora⁴, Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi² and Rajani Mathur¹

¹Delhi Pharmaceutical Science and Research University, New Delhi, India
²Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Uttar Pradesh, India
³Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India
⁴Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

*Corresponding Author: Aishwarya G, Post Graduate Clinical Research (M. Pharm), Delhi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research (DPSRU), New Delhi, India..

Received: February 28, 2024; Published: March 07, 2024

Abstract

Aim: The primary objective of this study is to provide safety data, using the case reports from the Asian population, and understand if co-variables of patients and intrauterine contraceptive devices have any influence on the number of adverse events. The secondary objective is to perform a meta analysis of the prevalent adverse events further to interpret whether there was any significant difference between their occurrences.

Methods: The PubMed database and cochrane library were searched for published case reports and series using the medical subject heading term “Intrauterine Devices/adverse effects”. Further seriousness analysis and casualty assessment was also performed. A forest plot was obtained for comparing the two of the most commonly occurring adverse events.

Results: Based on the twenty-six studies included, the majority were in the age group of 25-44 years. The highest number of adverse events was observed with the copper intrauterine contraceptive devices, and the practice of post-partum insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices affected the number of adverse events. The most common adverse event was migration, followed by the failure of contraception for which a meta-analysis was performed. Results of meta-analysis also favoured migration.

Conclusions: This systematic review analysed the intrauterine contraceptive devices related adverse events, creating a knowledge base for sensitizing the healthcare workers.

Keywords: Adverse Events; Intrauterine Contraceptive Device (IUCD); Contraception; Public Health; Asian Population

References

1. “Contraception | Reproductive Health”. CDC (2021).
2. L Bahamondes., et al. “Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARCs) methods”. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 66 (2020): 28-40.
3. “APAC Intrauterine Devices Market Size to Grow USD 500.4 Mn By 2025 | India, China, Japan, ANZ, South Korea” (2021).
4. M Ali., et al. “Expanding choice and access in contraception : an assessment of intrauterine contraception policies in low and middle-income countries”. BMC Public Health 19 (2019): 1-6.
5. AB Berenson., et al. “Complications and Continuation of Intrauterine Device Use Among Commercially Insured Teenagers”. Obstetrics and Gynecology5 (2013): 951-958.
6. K McCune-smith., et al. “Differential Effects of the Hormonal and Copper Intrauterine Device on the Endometrial Transcriptome”. Scientific Report 1 (2020): 1-8.
7. H Takahashi., et al. “Sigmoid Colon Penetration by an Intrauterine Device : A Case Report and Literature Review”. Military Medicine 179 (2014): 127-129.
8. “CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21” (2021).
9. Drug Controller General (India), List of Medical Device and in vitro diagnostics along with their risk class as per the provisions of rule 4 of The Medical Devices Rules. New Delhi: Drug Controller General, (2017).
10. “VigiAccess” (2021).
11. WHO UMC. “The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment”.
12. IF Gareen., et al. “Intrauterine Devices and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease : Meta-Analyses of Published Studies, 1974 - 1990”. Epidemiology5 (2000): 589-597.
13. CL Roepke and E A Schaff. “Long Tail Strings : Impact of the Dalkon Shield 40 Years Later”. Obstetrics and Gynecology 4 (2014): 996-1005.
14. “PRISMA”.
15. NN Zhang., et al. “An Effective Method Combining Various Endoscopes in the Treatment of Intravesical Migrated Intrauterine Device”. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 3 (2020).
16. A Basiri., et al. “Removal of intramural trapped intrauterine device by cystoscopic incision of bladder wall”. International Brazilian Journal of Urology 2 (2019): 408-409.
17. C Magudapathi., et al. “Vesicocervical fistula: rare complication secondary to intrauterine device (Lippes loop) erosion”. International Urogynecology Journal 6 (2015): 927-929.
18. T Shimizu., et al. “Primary uterine diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in a patient with prolonged insertion of intrauterine device (IUD)”. International Journal of Hematology 1 (2017): 138-140.
19. PB Mal., et al. “CASE REPORT Pelvic abscess caused by a slow growing anaerobic bacterium, Eggerthella lenta : First case report from Pakistan”. (2015): 1604-1605.
20. TIW Sheng-Feng Lin and JE L Chia-Lang Fang. “Intraabdominal and Pelvic actinomycosis in association with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES): A case report”. Journal of Neuroradiology (2018).
21. A Gül., et al. “An unusual complication of LEEP cervical conisation with a retained intrauterine device (IUD): a case report”. Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 5 (2019): 718-719.
22. Y Taira and Y Aoki. “Tube-ovarian abscess caused by Rothia aeria”. BMJ Case Report 1-3 (2019).
23. S Yamamoto., et al. “Fusobacterium necrophorum septic pelvic thrombophlebitis after intrauterine device insertion”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1 (2019): 122-124.
24. Y Han., et al. “A Case Report of Pelvic Actinomycosis and a Literature Review”. American Journal of Case Reports 21 (2020): e922601.
25. A Kaleem., et al. “Transmigration of an intrauterine device into sigmoid colon-surgical management: A case report”. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association 11 (2018): 1716-1718.
26. A Nigam., et al. “Malpositioned IUCD: The menace of postpartum IUCD insertion”. BMJ Case Report 1-4 (2015).
27. United nation. “Provisional guidelines on standard international age classification”.
28. “RevMan_5_4_windows”. (2020).
29. United nation children fund, World Health Organization, and The world bank. “Annex Regional Classifications”.
30. United nation security council. “Asia | United Nations Security Council” (2021).
31. C Jin., et al. “Removal of foreign bodies embedded in the urinary bladder wall by a combination of laparoscopy and carbon dioxide cystoscopic assistance: Case report and literature review”. Investigative and Clinical Urology 6 (2016): 449-452.
32. T Lo., et al. “The case for routine Gram stain following invasive prenatal procedures with retained intrauterine device”. Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1-2 (2018).
33. H Ye., et al. “Migration of a foreign body to the rectum”. Medicine (Baltimore)28 (2018).
34. X Li., et al. “Migration of an intrauterine device causing severe hydronephrosis progressing to renal failure”. Medicine (Baltimore)3 (2019).
35. MA Al Sahaf., et al. “Endoscopic removal of an incidentally discovered intrauterine contraceptive device eroding into the rectum”. BMJ Case Report 9 (20195): 10-13.
36. A Davoodabadi., et al. “Invading of intrauterine contraceptive device into the sigmoid colon through uterine perforation caused by a blunt trauma”. Chinese Journal of Traumatology - Engl. Ed 4 (2015): 235-237.
37. S Kumar., et al. “When an Intrauterine Device Is Not Intrauterine”. Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics Can 5 (2016): 423-424.
38. TS Chandrasekar., et al. “A new endoscopic method of retrieval of a migrated and transmurally embedded intrauterine contraceptive device in the rectum”. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 6 (2016): 489-491.
39. XX Zhou., et al. “Sigmoid colon translocation of an intrauterine device misdiagnosed as a colonic polyp: A case report”. U. S 97.6 (2018): 4-7.
40. H Niu., et al. “Successful removal of an intrauterine device perforating the uterus and the bladder with the aid of a transurethral nephroscope”. International Urogynecology Journal 2 (2019): 325-326.
41. X Huang., et al. “Chronic nodules of sigmoid perforation caused by incarcerated intrauterine contraception device”. Medicine (Baltimore)4 (2019).
42. MS Bolat and C Aydın. “Bladder stone on an intra-vesical intrauterine contraceptive device detected 12 years after intrauterine contraceptive device insertion”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2 (2020).
43. WSL De Silva., et al. “A large bladder stone caused by the intravesical migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device : a case report”. 11.1 (2017): 1-4.
44. W Chai., et al. “Vesical transmigration of an intrauterine contraceptive device”. U. S 96.40 (2017): 4-6.
45. European union. “Safety reporting in clinical investigations of medical device under the Regulation (EU) 2017/745” (2020).
46. Indian pharmacopoeia commission. “Guidance document materiovigilance programme of india (MvPI) version 1.2”. (2015).
47. “9.5.2 Identifying and measuring heterogeneity”.
48. “12.4.1 Confidence intervals”.
49. T Madden., et al. “Association of Age and Parity With Intrauterine Device Expulsion”. Obstetrics and Gynecology4 (2014): 718-726.
50. H E Boortz., et al. “Migration of Intrauterine Devices : Radiologic Findings and Implications for Patient Care 1”. RadioGraphics2 (2012): 335-353.
51. J Trussell. “Contraceptive failure in the United States”. Contraception5 (2011): 397-404.
52. D Mansour., et al. “Efficacy of contraceptive methods : A review of the literature”. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 1 (2010): 4-16.
53. Z Majdfar., et al. “Comparing the adverse outcomes of contraception failure between IUD and withdrawal methods”. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology 3 (2014): 631-635.
54. J Aoun., et al. “Effects of Age, Parity, and Device Type on Complications and Discontinuation of Intrauterine Devices”. Obstetrics and Gynecology3 (2014): 585-592.
55. A R Taras and J A Kaufman. “Laparoscopic Retrieval of Intrauterine Device Perforating the Sigmoid Colon”. Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeons 14 (2010): 453-455.
56. F Akpinar., et al. “Sigmoid Colon Migration of an Intrauterine Device”. Obstetrics and Gynecology (2014).
57. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and the Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Work Group. “Long-Acting Reversible Contraception : Implants and Intrauterine Devices”. (2017).
58. F J Rwegoshora., et al. “A one-year cohort study of complications, continuation, and failure rates of postpartum TCu380A in Tanzania”. Reproductive Health1 (2020): 150.
59. A Sier. “Analysis of comorbid condition associated with intrauterine device removal within an inpatient population”. (2018).
60. E Pohjoranta., et al. “Intrauterine contraception after medical abortion : factors affecting success”. Contraception (2016).

Citation

Citation: Aishwarya G., et al. “Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices (IUCDs) in Asian Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences 8.4 (2024): 27-42.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Aishwarya G., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.