Does The Use of Menstrual Cups Increase the Risk of Endometriosis?

 Awareness of the growing interest in the use of mentrual cups in 2002 began a cooperative effort by APT and the Endometriosis Research Center to question the safety of these products. A particular focus for these concerns was the absence of product labeling for the possible increased risk of endometriosis in association with the use of mentrual cups. An alternate description of mentrual cups is "menstrual retention devices." As described in detail in the 2003 FDA Citizen's Petition (https://wayback.archive-it.org/20441/20230616000609/http://www.mum.org/fdacups1.htm), a rubber barrier over the cervix produces a closed system in which menstrual fluid and the endometrial cells it contains can be compressed and increase backflow of mentrual fluid into the peritoneum - the chief site where endometriosis occurs. The cups being marketed in 2003 were not required to do new safety research because they were pre-approved based on products marketed from the 1930s to the 1950s.

In the reply by the FDA (https://wayback.archive-it.org/20441/20230616181027/http://www.mum.org/fdacups2.htm), these concerns were characterized as "physiologically plausible," but not supported by research data, which would provide a basis for FDA action. (See FDA Reply, text end of page 1, beginning of page 2). 

Now, 20 years later, you can find assertions online that cups don't increase endometriosis risk, although they're not based on research. The Petition discusses the difficulties of studying the incidence of this relatively common affliction. Given that this “plausible” risk exists, product labelling to warn women – especially those who have family histories of endometriosis, seems like the minimum that manufacturers could do, but without pressure from the FDA, it hasn't happened.

Here is a video that also discusses these concerns: https://youtu.be/xuATeOXsjv8



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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
Read more

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