Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Supplements
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Editorial Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Supplements
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Editorial Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Alerts
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • Follow GHSP on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
EDITORIAL

A better future for injectable contraception?

Global Health: Science and Practice December 2014, 2(4):378-380; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00158
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading
  • Provision of injectables though drug shops appears practicable and can contribute a marked share of family planning services.

  • A potential longer-acting injectable providing at least 6 months of protection appeals to programmatic professionals.

  • Subcutaneous administration of DMPA offers major injectable improvements over the current intramuscular approach.

  • Ironically, while injectable use will inevitably grow, better choice and wider availability of other methods—especially of long-acting and permanent methods—will reduce injectables′ overall share.

PLUSES AND MINUSES OF INJECTABLES

Injectables are a leading method in much of the developing world. They have many advantages for the client, the provider, and the system (Table). All the same, the dominant injectable DMPA (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) in its current intramuscular (IM) form has some pretty important drawbacks—notably, side effects, higher blood levels than needed for most of the 3-month duration, provider bias, possible role in HIV acquisition, and requirement for repeated visits that are a burden to both the system and the client. Despite DMPA's high popularity, continuation rates with DMPA are rather poor. After 1 year of starting DMPA, only about 50% of women, on average, are still using the method—rates similar to those of condom and oral contraceptive users.1

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE. Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Intramuscular DMPA Injectable

PROVISION BY DRUG SHOPS

A number of studies have previously shown that community health workers can provide injectables safely and effectively.2 Thus, it should come as no great surprise, as described in the paper by Akol and colleagues,3 that the same is true when drug shops in peri-urban areas of Uganda are properly enlisted to provide them. In fact, a technical consultation in 2013 concluded that, with appropriate training and monitoring, drug shop operators can screen and counsel clients for DMPA effectively and administer DMPA injections safely.4 What is actually extremely notable, however, is that in the Akol study the convenience and quality of drug shop provision led the drug shops to reach a substantial share of overall family planning users in their areas, apparently mostly injectables users.

VIRTUES OF A 6-MONTH INJECTABLE

One potential major improvement would be a 6-month injectable, which has long been an objective of contraceptive developers. As described by McKenna and colleagues,5 in this issue of Global Health: Science and Practice, renewed efforts are underway to develop such a 6-month product. Using qualitative methods, the authors explore the potential acceptability and program considerations for one. Perhaps not surprisingly, they find a strong interest among providers, policy makers, and program implementers. Moreover, their findings emphasize the issues involved in introduction of even such a minor change in technology, such as regulatory approval, training, and supply chain adjustments. Interestingly, many providers were not aware that the current 3-month DMPA–IM allows for a 1-month “grace period,” during which clients can receive a reinjection. That indicates we need to work harder to achieve better client satisfaction and continuation even with the current DMPA injectable.

SUBCUTANEOUS DMPA APPEARS BETTER THAN THE CURRENT INTRAMUSCULAR APPROACH

How might such a 6-month approach be possible? Readers may be aware that a new approach to the 3-month DMPA is provided by Sayana Press, which is administered subcutaneously via the Uniject one-time-use injection system. Its proprietary DMPA formulation provides a lower hormonal dose (104 mg vs 150 mg), resulting in lower but still highly effective MPA blood levels without such a high initial peak that is seen with DMPA–IM. Notably, based on studies of the impact on ovarian activity, it appears likely that Sayana Press itself, despite the lower dose, is actually effective for 4 months with a 1-month grace period.6 Unfortunately, a major drawback to Sayana Press is its significantly higher cost.

Fortuitously, it appears that a special formulation of DMPA may not be needed for subcutaneous (SQ) administration. Ironically, the current IM formulation when given subcutaneously provides better, more even, and sustained blood levels of the drug.6 So one major approach toward a 6-month injectable is to assess what SQ dosage of the current IM DMPA formulation might be needed to achieve the full 6 months (plus 1-month grace period) duration of action.

The current IM formulation of DMPA when given subcutaneously provides better, more even, and sustained blood levels of the drug.

MORE CHOICE AND DIVERSITY OF METHODS REMAIN CRUCIAL

Whatever the advances toward a better injectable, it remains clear that practical access to a wide variety of methods remains limited for many women and couples. That is particularly true for the long-acting and permanent methods of implants, IUDs, and sterilization, but it is also true of emergency contraception and the Standard Days Method. The fact that use of implants is growing by leaps and bounds7 shows the field is making progress. Continuing to expand access to such a broad variety of methods remains the lynchpin of achieving the Family Planning 2020 goals.8 –Global Health: Science and Practice

Notes

Cite this article as: A better future for injectable contraception?. Glob Health Sci Pact. 2014;2(4):378-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00158.

  • © Global Health: Science and Practice. 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 properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00158.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Blanc AK,
    2. Curtis SL,
    3. Croft TN
    . Monitoring contraceptive continuation: links to fertility outcomes and quality of care. Stud Fam Plann. 2002;33(2): 127–140. pmid:12132634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Malarcher S,
    2. Meirik O,
    3. Lebetkin E,
    4. Shah I,
    5. Spieler J,
    6. Stanback J
    . Provision of DMPA by community health workers: what the evidence shows. Contraception. 2011;83(6): 495–503. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.08.013. pmid:21570545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Akol A,
    2. Chin-Quee D,
    3. Wamala-Mucheri P,
    4. Namwebya JH,
    5. Mercer SJ,
    6. Stanback J
    . Getting closer to people: family planning provision by drug shops in Uganda. Glob Health Sci Pract. Epub 2014 Nov 13. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00085
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Stanback J,
    2. Lebetkin E,
    3. Orr T,
    4. Malarcher S,
    5. Bixiones C,
    6. Brunner B,
    7. et al
    . Sale and provision of injectable contraceptives in drug shops in developing countries: conclusions from a technical consultation. Contraception. Forthcoming 2014. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. McKenna K,
    2. Arcara J,
    3. Rademacher KH,
    4. Mackenzie C,
    5. Ngabo F,
    6. Munyambanza E,
    7. et al
    . Policy and programmatic considerations for introducing a longer-acting injectable contraceptive: perspectives of stakeholders from Kenya and Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. Epub 2014 Oct 15. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00106
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Shelton JD,
    2. Halpern V
    . Subcutaneous DMPA: a better lower dose appraoch. Contraception. 2013;89(5): 341–343. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.010. pmid:24267634
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Duvall S,
    2. Thurston S,
    3. Weinberger M,
    4. Nuccio O,
    5. Fuchs-Montgomery N
    . Scaling up delivery of contraceptive implants in sub-Saharan Africa: operational experiences of Marie Stopes International. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(1): 72–92. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00116. pmid:25276564
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Family Planning 2020. FP2020 partnership in action: 2012–2013. Washington (DC): Family Planning 2020, United Nations Foundation; 2013. Available from: http://progress.familyplanning2020.org/
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 2 (4)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 2, No. 4
December 01, 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A better future for injectable contraception?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A better future for injectable contraception?
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2014, 2 (4) 378-380; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00158

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A better future for injectable contraception?
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2014, 2 (4) 378-380; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00158
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • PLUSES AND MINUSES OF INJECTABLES
    • PROVISION BY DRUG SHOPS
    • VIRTUES OF A 6-MONTH INJECTABLE
    • SUBCUTANEOUS DMPA APPEARS BETTER THAN THE CURRENT INTRAMUSCULAR APPROACH
    • MORE CHOICE AND DIVERSITY OF METHODS REMAIN CRUCIAL
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Let’s Make Life Easier for Health Workers, Not More Complicated
  • COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
  • A Call to Action: Reinvigorating Interest and Investments in Health Infrastructure
Show more EDITORIAL

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • Family Planning and Reproductive Health
US AIDJohns Hopkins Center for Communication ProgramsUniversity of Alberta

Follow Us On

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • GH Journals Database

About

  • About GHSP
  • Editorial Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2022 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire