Letters to the Editor
Safety of and Contraindications for Use of Intrauterine Devices
Am Fam Physician. 2005 Oct 15;72(8):1450.
to the editor: Dr. Johnson’s article1 on the intrauterine device (IUD) corrects some common misconceptions about IUD use. For instance, many physicians insert IUDs only during menses, despite evidence that insertion can occur safely at any point in the menstrual cycle. However, the article1 advises that “a lifestyle placing the woman at risk for sexually transmitted diseases” is a contraindication to IUD use. The article1 also suggests that the ideal candidate for the IUD is a parous woman. These points require clarification. Although current infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia, or other organisms causing purulent cervicitis is indeed an absolute contraindication to IUD insertion, infections that occur after IUD insertion can be treated safely without removing the IUD and do not pose a substantially increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Thus, the World Health Organization2 and the United States Agency of International Development’s Office of Population and Reproductive Health3 advise that increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) should be considered a caution, not a contraindication, for IUD use. Because studies fail to link IUD use to infertility, neither organization suggests restricting IUD use to parous women. Even nulliparous women with multiple sex partners can use IUDs safely, provided that these women protect themselves from STDs by using condoms. Given the high rates of unintended pregnancy and STDs in the United States, all physicians should encourage women to protect themselves against both problems. We should avoid inappropriately restricting women’s access to high-efficacy contraceptive methods.
1. Johnson BA. Insertion and removal of intrauterine devices. Am Fam Physician. 2005;71:95–102.
2. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3d ed.: 2004. Accessed online June 23, 2005, at: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/mec.
3. IUDs: old thinking versus new thinking. Accessed June 23, 2005, at: http://www.maqweb.org/maqtools/iudsoldvsnew.shtml.
editor’s note: This letter was sent to the author of “Insertion and Removal of Intrauterine Devices,” who declined to reply.
Send letters to email@example.com, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.
Copyright © 2005 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions