Mirena IUD Not Designed to Travel Inside the Body

Washington, DCWith some two million women in the US using Mirena birth control, it’s little wonder there are so many reports of Mirena birth control side effects. What’s more, such incidence of Mirena migration and other adverse events could be on the rise, given an expanded availability and affordability of Mirena birth control through the auspices of the Affordable Care Act.

The Mirena IUD, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, is inserted by a physician and is designed to provide birth control for a period of five years. The device releases a daily dose of progestin levonorgestrel. The T-shaped device is placed at a certain position for optimum performance. The device is also intended to stay put.

But it often doesn’t, as many Mirena plaintiffs suing manufacturer Bayer over Mirena side effects, can attest. The device has been known to migrate away from the placement point, which can not only affect the effectiveness of birth control, but also negatively impact the woman’s health.

According to Lawyers Weekly USA (4/5/13), the Mirena IUD has been found in some cases to migrate from the insertion point as far away as the rib cage. Mirena uterine perforation has also been reported. Two strings that hang from the bottom of the T-shaped device, designed to allow the attending physician to verify the correct placement of the device, have been found in some cases to wrap around and constrict organs when the device migrates, requiring surgical removal.

Some women have discovered their Mirena IUD has migrated years after insertion. For others, it can be just weeks or months. In the case of one Mirena plaintiff, the alleged migration of her Mirena birth control occurred after only a few days.

The plaintiff, Susan Harp, alleges in her Mirena IUD lawsuit that just days after receiving her IUD she felt intense abdominal pain and succumbed to frequent vomiting. Upon examination with the aid of a CT scan, it was determined her IUD was no longer in her uterus at all but was found to be moving freely within her pelvis.

The device required removal, a process that was reportedly complicated by a kidney infection.

Plaintiffs and their lawyers have taken exception to Bayer Mirena warnings, which are alleged to be lax. For example, according to one plaintiff attorney, the product label for Mirena references the potential risk for Mirena uterine perforation during insertion, but not afterwards.

According to the report there were no fewer than 25,000 adverse event reports citing various Mirena birth control side effects as of 2010, the 10th anniversary of the introduction of Mirena IUD to the market. Lawyers expect Mirena to be a very large tort.