Nearly 10 percent of women use a long term version of reversible birth control, including the Mirena IUD, but its side effects are now a major concern among women and doctors. This contraceptive is implanted in the uterus and slowly releases levonorgestrel in the body. This greatly lowers the chance of pregnancy and can provide contraception for several years before it needs to be removed and replaced. However, because it can remain in the body for so long, any problems with placement or after placement can go undetected for years.
What are the most common Mirena IUD side effects?
Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, more than 70,000 adverse event reports have been sent to the FDA. These adverse complications may include:
- Abdominal pain
- Inflammation of the vagina or uterus
- Internal bleeding
- Organ damage
- Ectopic pregnancy (implantation of a fertilized egg outside of the uterus)
- Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
- Device migration and embedment in other organs
- Uterus perforation
Device migration, embedment and uterus perforation are the most serious concerns with the implant and have even caused fatal outcomes in some cases. Over time, the device can punch through the uterine wall and move to other parts of the body. This can cause permanent damage, including scarring of the uterus, possibly resulting in infertility or debilitating pain. If the device migrates out of the uterus, it can puncture other organs or settle in other parts of the body, resulting in dangerous infection or extreme pain.
As of August 2013, about 5,000 women had reported device dislocation. In nearly all cases, surgical removal was required to take the implant out of the body, resulting in significant medical costs and extended hospital stays. Some of these women have been left with permanent pain or organ dysfunction as a result.
How many lawsuits have been filed as a result of Mirena IUD side effects?
As of May 2, 2014, about 2,000 women have failed claims against the device’s manufacturer, Bayer, for various reasons. Most of these cases concern women who experienced an ectopic pregnancy or uterine perforation. These claims assert that Bayer used deceptive marketing to sell the device, failed to properly state the risks associated with the implant device, overstated its benefits, and knowingly produced and sold a defective product.
Bayer’s deceptive marketing was the subject of two warning letters sent to the company from the FDA. The first letter pointed to the product’s sponsored links, as they did not provide any information regarding the implant’s risks. The second warning letter chastised a television commercial produced by the company. In the commercial, Bayer asserted that the implant could help a woman feel and look better, which has not been substantiated by available data.
Any woman who has received this implant and suffered from serious adverse complications should consider speaking to the personal injury lawyers with Terry Bryant as soon as possible.