Teenage girl and implant.

[Anonymous]

Lots of misinformation on this thread. Of course these things can have side effects so if you are experiencing them you should get it removed. But LARCs - long acting reversible contraceptives - including implant and IUD - are what you want for a sexually active teenager who doesn’t want to get pregnant. There isn’t user error (forgetting pills) so they are most effective.

[Anonymous]

The implant works well for a lot of women, but your daughter isn’t one of them. Get it out and try something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our 16 year old got the implant 3 months ago and she literally cries 3 hours a day. She has also lost 11 pounds. She has had her period all the time except for one week. We went back to her OBG and they told her this is normal. Does anyone Have any experience with this. I have another appointment to get it removed because I don’t think it’s healthy for her.

What is wrong with you? Get some parenting skills!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were never meant for middle or upper class women in the highly industrialized world. It was expedited so that it could be given to poor US women and women in the developing world because someone decided the side effects were worth fewer poor babies.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Implants are really not recommended for teens for just te reasons you mentioned. I’m surprised the doctor did this, and that you would go along with it.

You might want to switch doctors.

I had the same issues at age 30. They shouldn’t be recommended to anyone.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation on this thread. Of course these things can have side effects so if you are experiencing them you should get it removed. But LARCs - long acting reversible contraceptives - including implant and IUD - are what you want for a sexually active teenager who doesn’t want to get pregnant. There isn’t user error (forgetting pills) so they are most effective.

You are correct. I think an IUD would probably be a great choice, but the people suggesting low hormone mini-pills for a teen are nuts. That's fine if you're a breastfeeding mom having sex once a month, but a sexually active teen needs something way more effective. Even if taken 100% correctly they're less effective than condoms. YIKES. Set and forget it was the right sentiment.

[Anonymous]

My friend's DD had it and ended up pregnant because she forgot to get it replaced. For many teens, their brains are not up to speed on this form of bc

[Anonymous]

This is child abuse. Get it the F out. You would let her go through this so some teenage boy could have his way with her? Seriously what is wrong with parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were never meant for middle or upper class women in the highly industrialized world. It was expedited so that it could be given to poor US women and women in the developing world because someone decided the side effects were worth fewer poor babies.

Source?

TABLE B-1 Trials Undertaken in Development of Norplant

Clinical Trials in 15 Countries:
1975-1979
Phase III multinational trials in Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Jamaica (PC/ICCR)
1980-1982
Trials begin in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Indonesia. Thailand (PC)
1982
Phase II/III studies begin in the United States
Another multinational Phase III clinical trial begins in Chile. Dominican Republic, Finland, Sweden, and the United States (PC/ICCR)
1990-1995
Phase III clinical trials of soft tubing Norplant capsules and reformulated Norplant with two rods in Chile, Dominican Republic. Egypt, Finland, Singapore, Thailand, United States
Preintroduction Studies in 30 Countries (start dates):
1984
Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria
1985
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Zambia
1988
Colombia, El Salvador, Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, South Korea, Tunisia, Venezuela, Zambia
1989
Bahamas, Rwanda, Zaire
1990
Bolivia, Madagascar
Private Sector Training in 7 Countries (Leiras Oy):
1988
Belgium, Bulgaria, former Soviet Union, France, Israel. West Germany, Taiwan
Postmarketing Surveillance in 8 Countries (WHO/HRP, PC, FHI):
1988-present
Bangladesh, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand
Training Curriculum Testing:

Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya
International Training Centers:

Dominican Republic, Egypt, Indonesia
Regional Training Center:

Kenya
>70 Acceptability Studies in 20 Countries (FHI, PC, PATH, clinics, health ministries):
1987-present
Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador. Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines. Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United States, Zambia
NOTE: FHI = Family Health International; ICCR = International Committee for Contraception Research; PATH = Program for Appropriate Technologies in Health: PC = Population Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were never meant for middle or upper class women in the highly industrialized world. It was expedited so that it could be given to poor US women and women in the developing world because someone decided the side effects were worth fewer poor babies.

Source?

TABLE B-1 Trials Undertaken in Development of Norplant

Clinical Trials in 15 Countries:
1975-1979
Phase III multinational trials in Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Jamaica (PC/ICCR)
1980-1982
Trials begin in Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Indonesia. Thailand (PC)
1982
Phase II/III studies begin in the United States
Another multinational Phase III clinical trial begins in Chile. Dominican Republic, Finland, Sweden, and the United States (PC/ICCR)
1990-1995
Phase III clinical trials of soft tubing Norplant capsules and reformulated Norplant with two rods in Chile, Dominican Republic. Egypt, Finland, Singapore, Thailand, United States
Preintroduction Studies in 30 Countries (start dates):
1984
Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria
1985
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Zambia
1988
Colombia, El Salvador, Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, South Korea, Tunisia, Venezuela, Zambia
1989
Bahamas, Rwanda, Zaire
1990
Bolivia, Madagascar
Private Sector Training in 7 Countries (Leiras Oy):
1988
Belgium, Bulgaria, former Soviet Union, France, Israel. West Germany, Taiwan
Postmarketing Surveillance in 8 Countries (WHO/HRP, PC, FHI):
1988-present
Bangladesh, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand
Training Curriculum Testing:

Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya
International Training Centers:

Dominican Republic, Egypt, Indonesia
Regional Training Center:

Kenya
>70 Acceptability Studies in 20 Countries (FHI, PC, PATH, clinics, health ministries):
1987-present
Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador. Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines. Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United States, Zambia
NOTE: FHI = Family Health International; ICCR = International Committee for Contraception Research; PATH = Program for Appropriate Technologies in Health: PC = Population Council.

I'm glad this was studied, but once again, I need a source to back up your conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy crap. How does such a device pass FDA muster with that kind of "normal" side effects?

Because the side effects differ from person to person. I have massive trouble with most hormonal BC (these side effects sounded very familiar), but there are a few where it’s “not bad”. Every body reacts to these things differently.

No, OP said the doctors said these side effects are "normal" for this device. If this is normal, there is a serious flaw in the device.

[Anonymous]

Same thing happened to my sister. She got it removed and decided to go on the pill where you get your period every 3 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation on this thread. Of course these things can have side effects so if you are experiencing them you should get it removed. But LARCs - long acting reversible contraceptives - including implant and IUD - are what you want for a sexually active teenager who doesn’t want to get pregnant. There isn’t user error (forgetting pills) so they are most effective.

You are correct. I think an IUD would probably be a great choice, but the people suggesting low hormone mini-pills for a teen are nuts. That's fine if you're a breastfeeding mom having sex once a month, but a sexually active teen needs something way more effective. Even if taken 100% correctly they're less effective than condoms. YIKES. Set and forget it was the right sentiment.

Don’t IUDs carry the risk of infertility? I thought they weren’t recommended for teenagers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Implants are really not recommended for teens for just te reasons you mentioned. I’m surprised the doctor did this, and that you would go along with it.

You might want to switch doctors.

Why switch? The doctor in question is giving accurate and up to date recommendations.

1) The AAP recommends LARCs (either IUD or implant, both at same level of recommendation) as first line birth control for teenagers:

New in this report is the recommendation that the first-line contraceptive choice for adolescents who choose not to be abstinent is a Long Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC), which is an intrauterine device or a subdermal implant. The past decade has demonstrated that LARCs, which provide 3 to 10 years of contraception, are safe for adolescents. Pediatricians should be familiar with counselling, insertion, and /or referral for LARCs.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/AAP-Updates-Recommendations-on-Teen-Pregnancy-Prevention.aspx

2) Same for OB/Gyn recommendations through ACOG:

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) have higher efficacy, higher continuation rates, and higher satisfaction rates compared with short-acting contraceptives among adolescents who choose to use them.
Complications of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and contraceptive implants are rare and differ little between adolescents and women, which makes these methods safe for adolescents.

https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misinformation on this thread. Of course these things can have side effects so if you are experiencing them you should get it removed. But LARCs - long acting reversible contraceptives - including implant and IUD - are what you want for a sexually active teenager who doesn’t want to get pregnant. There isn’t user error (forgetting pills) so they are most effective.

You are correct. I think an IUD would probably be a great choice, but the people suggesting low hormone mini-pills for a teen are nuts. That's fine if you're a breastfeeding mom having sex once a month, but a sexually active teen needs something way more effective. Even if taken 100% correctly they're less effective than condoms. YIKES. Set and forget it was the right sentiment.

Don’t IUDs carry the risk of infertility? I thought they weren’t recommended for teenagers.

No, it does not increase infertility. Actually the reverse. AAP and ACOG recommend them as first line birth control. The Mirena increases the thickness of cervical mucus and DECREASES the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which can lead to infertility.

There isn't a risk of increased infertility with current IUD (Mirena or Paragard). The Dalkan Shield, which hasn't been available for decades, was one of the first IUDs, first available in 1970. It did probably cause increased infections (pelvic inflammatory disease), in part because it had a thick string -- very different from current IUDs. It was introduced BEFORE the legislation of 1976: the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which mandated (for the first time) testing and approval of "medical devices" like IUDs.