Safety of the contraceptive sponge

updated 7/2/24

When the Rely tampon was test marketed in Rochester, NY in the 1970s, one of its absorbents was a polyurethane compound. Because of the absence of safety data on the intravaginal use of polyurethanes, Procter & Gamble removed that polyurethane from the tampon before it was marketed nationally.

When the Today Contraceptive Sponge went on the market in the early 1980s, it was the polyurethane (PU) sponge that initially seemed like an unaddressed concern for this vaginal contraceptive product. However, the product consisted of a PU sponge saturated with the detergent, Nonoxynol 9 (N9), which can act as a spermicide. The irritation caused by N9 to sensitive tissues was common knowledge, and this product was intended to be left in the vagina for several hours at a time.

APT petitioned the FDA about safety concerns with the Today Sponge in 1983 and again in 2000. Both petitions contained similar concerns about the frequent incidence of irritation that had been shown in premarketing tests, and the relatively high rate of contraceptive failure associated with the product. Soon after it was introduced, the Sponge was shown to increase the risk of toxic shock syndrome, and by 2000, it was shown to increase the risk of HIV infection.

Currently, readers can find these concerns discussed in the Planned Parenthood website on the TodaySponge.

Because of its many adverse effects and limited effectiveness,the APT petitions called on the FDA to ban the Sponge from being sold.

In 2005, the FDA reply to the 2000 APT petition did not agree that the product should be banned.

The Sponge has gone off the market a few times, because women who use it readily suffer vaginal irritation (and some of their partners experience penile irritation). The inclusion of the Sponge as a comedic item on the then very popular show, Seinfeld, led to one of the cycles of resale.

The Today Sponge is still being sold. Women should review the common problems that are associated with the Sponge and beware the more severe health risks that may come with its use.

APT has tried to play a role in getting these matters more widely discussed and evaluated by the FDA. This seems to be a sad case where the consumer is left with the burden of injury and risk, for a variety of social and political reasons.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What You'll Find on This Blog

  This blog contains the documents on the key topics discussed in the previous website for APT, assocpharmtox.org. They include: Aluminum and dementia risk; Safety of the contraceptive sponge; Safey of menstrual cups. Who We Are Associated Pharmacologists & Toxicologists (APT) was a Tax-Exempt Private Foundation (990PF) until 2015. At that time the tax status, which was not being used for financial support, was dissolved to simplify operations. Mission APT is dedicated to promoting biomedical research and education in the public interest. APT provided an organizational setting in which pharmacologists, toxicologists and other biomedical scientists could develop their professional expertise, as well as direct their teaching talents to the complex social issues that involve therapeutic and toxic chemicals. Armand Lione, Ph.D. armandlione@gmail.com President APT Washington, DC
Read more

The Risk of Dementia Associated With The Aluminum Salts Added to Foods and Drugs

One of the earliest major projects of Associated Pharmacologists & Toxicologists (APT) was petitioning the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to reevaluate the safety of aluminum salts as components of over-the-counter (OTC) products. The APT petition to the FDA was submitted in 1981. At that time antacid products, such as Rolaids, were primarily aluminum salts. Detailed concerns about the potential safety risks with loading consumers, especially elderly consumers, with aluminum were described in detail in a 1985 paper (Lione, 1985). The origins of the concern with the potential toxicity of aluminum had come from the identification of dementias (and blood pathologies) that had developed in dialysis patients who had been dialyzed with tap water that had residual aluminum in it (Alfrey, 1980). The source of that aluminum was the residual water content from the use of aluminum salts in the treatment of tap water. As we get older, it is not uncommon for renal function to declin...
Read more