← All drugs
Drug · FAERS side-effect profile with label screen

Etonogestrel side effects: what 47,442 FDA adverse event reports show

Etonogestrel · Nexplanon · 1,030 reaction terms · 136,865 drug–reaction co-reports · data 2026-09-14
Share: X Facebook Reddit Email

Drug class

Progestin

FDA label (Established Pharmacologic Class) · compare the class

Brand names

Nexplanon

openFDA label

Who reports

47,442 reports · 29% serious · 109 with death outcome · 100% female

openFDA FAERS counts, all years, deduplication not applied

Used for

NEXPLANON ® is indicated for prevention of pregnancy in women of reproductive potential for up to 5 years. NEXPLANON is a progestin indicated for prevention of pregnancy in women of reproductive potential for up to 5 years. ( 1 )

FDA label, Indications and Usage

What it is

NEXPLANON is a radiopaque, progestin-only, soft, flexible implant preloaded in a sterile, disposable applicator for subdermal use. The implant is white/off-white, non-biodegradable and 4 cm in length with a diameter of 2 mm (see Figure 19 ).

FDA label, Description section

Boxed warning

RISK OF COMPLICATIONS DUE TO IMPROPER INSERTION and REMOVAL Improper insertion of NEXPLANON increases the risk of complications [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) ] . Proper training prior to first use of NEXPLANON can minimize the risk of improper NEXPLANON insertion [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) ] .

FDA label
How to read this page. FAERS is a spontaneous-reporting system: counts are not incidence rates and a signal is not proof of causation. Each reaction below is run through an automated screen — is the term in the FDA label (known), in the indications (the disease being treated), an administrative/coding term, or none of these (unlabeled)? That screen is mechanical text matching, not a causality assessment. The 30 hand-written Bradford Hill assessments are on the causality assessment page. Not medical advice.

Causality screen of the 40 strongest signals

Labeled (related wording) 22Reporting / coding artifact 4Not in label — unassessed 14
What the badges mean

Strongest disproportionality signals

Flagged terms (PRR ≥ 2, χ² ≥ 4, n ≥ 10), ranked by PRR; infinite PRRs (no comparator reports) excluded. The EBGM column is a second, shrinkage-based estimate (MGPS) with its 5th percentile EB05 and the BCPNN IC025; a pair flagged by PRR alone is marked PRR-only and should be read as fragile. The strata column recomputes the PRR on serious reports only (and, for the 300 most-reported drugs, adjusted for age band), and flags pairs whose reports are unusually skewed by sex or come mostly from consumers. Each row also shows the PRR against the other drugs of the same FDA class, which removes most confounding by the condition being treated, and a calibrated p-value: on validation, known non-causes average an ROR of about 2, so significance is judged against that empirical null (✓ = p < 0.05 after calibration). 990 further terms are in the interactive explorer. Reaction links open the term's cross-drug page.

Show:
ReactionReportsPRR 95% CI · ROR · χ²/pEBGM EB05 · IC025Label screenSerious-only & strataTrial cross-check
Implant site hypoaesthesia1583,437.6
2,159.1–5,473.2ROR 3,449.1 · calibrated p 4e-22 ✓
369.8 EB05 323.8 · IC025 +7.2
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=36not reported in cached trials
Implant site papules141,523.0
501.3–4,626.8ROR 1,523.4 · calibrated p 9e-13 ✓
232.1 EB05 146.9 · IC025 +3.8
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=5not reported in cached trials
Migration of implanted drug4081,491.9
1,216.6–1,829.5ROR 1,504.8 · calibrated p 4e-19 ✓
332.4 EB05 306.2 · IC025 +7.7
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=100not reported in cached trials
Implant site pustules391,414.2
740.5–2,700.7ROR 1,415.4 · calibrated p 4e-16 ✓
286.6 EB05 218.8 · IC025 +5.5
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=17not reported in cached trials
Implant site discolouration941,239.5
833.8–1,842.6ROR 1,241.9 · calibrated p 3e-17 ✓
302.9 EB05 254.9 · IC025 +6.6
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=24not reported in cached trials
Implant site vesicles94973.9
677.0–1,401.0ROR 975.8 · calibrated p 3e-16 ✓
284.0 EB05 239.0 · IC025 +6.5
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=19not reported in cached trials
Device embolisation195922.3
719.9–1,181.6ROR 926.1 · calibrated p 2e-16 ✓
288.0 EB05 255.6 · IC025 +7.2
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=195not reported in cached trials
Implant site induration63761.5
505.7–1,146.7ROR 762.5 · calibrated p 7e-15 ✓
256.0 EB05 207.2 · IC025 +6.0
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=22not reported in cached trials
Implant site cellulitis134757.3
572.2–1,002.1ROR 759.4 · calibrated p 2e-15 ✓
266.5 EB05 230.7 · IC025 +6.8
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=63not reported in cached trials
Device kink1,997676.8
631.3–725.5ROR 706.5 · calibrated p 1e-15 ✓
264.8 EB05 255.2 · IC025 +7.9
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=216not reported in cached trials
Implant site mass102591.8
439.3–797.2ROR 593.1 · calibrated p 3e-14 ✓
240.1 EB05 203.4 · IC025 +6.5
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=14not reported in cached trials
Implant site warmth74503.1
360.1–703.0ROR 503.9 · calibrated p 2e-13 ✓
220.6 EB05 181.5 · IC025 +6.1
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=19not reported in cached trials
General anaesthesia238497.9
413.5–599.6ROR 500.4 · calibrated p 9e-14 ✓
228.5 EB05 205.1 · IC025 +7.1
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=232not reported in cached trials
False negative pregnancy test15466.2
225.1–965.8ROR 466.4 · calibrated p 4e-11 ✓
175.6 EB05 112.9 · IC025 +3.9
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=10not reported in cached trials
Implant site haemorrhage179403.6
329.4–494.5ROR 405.1 · calibrated p 8e-13 ✓
205.3 EB05 181.3 · IC025 +6.8
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=52not reported in cached trials
Menstruation normal149390.6
313.1–487.2ROR 391.8 · calibrated p 1e-12 ✓
201.0 EB05 175.3 · IC025 +6.7
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=34not reported in cached trials
Implant site inflammation113298.0
234.6–378.5ROR 298.7 · calibrated p 2e-11 ✓
172.2 EB05 147.1 · IC025 +6.3
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: only this drug
Not in label — unassessedserious n=52not reported in cached trials
Medical device site discomfort255278.8
238.3–326.2ROR 280.3 · calibrated p 2e-11 ✓
168.2 EB05 151.6 · IC025 +6.8
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 4.2 (3.2–5.5)
Not in label — unassessedserious n=74not reported in cached trials

Trial evidence (ClinicalTrials.gov)

✓ Trial adverse-event data found on ClinicalTrials.gov

Largest completed trials with posted results that list Etonogestrel as a study intervention. The right-hand column of the signal table shows whether each FAERS term was also recorded in these trials, with a real denominator (0 of 40 signal terms matched).

Caveats: trial populations, doses and follow-up differ from the reporting population; AE terms are sponsor-coded and matched here by wording; absence from a trial list means the term was not reported above the sponsor's frequency threshold, not that it cannot occur.

Most frequently reported reactions

By raw co-report count, regardless of disproportionality. Common terms here are often the illness itself or generic outcomes.

ReactionReportsPRR 95% CI · ROR · χ²/pEBGM EB05 · IC025Label screenSerious-only & strataTrial cross-check
No adverse event9,91126.1
25.6–26.6ROR 32.8 · calibrated p 2e-4 ✓
24.7 EB05 24.3 · IC025 +4.6
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 11.4 (10.6–12.2)
Reporting / coding artifactserious PRR 56.5not reported in cached trials
Product quality issue5,55519.0
18.5–19.4ROR 21.3 · calibrated p 0.001 ✓
18.2 EB05 17.8 · IC025 +4.1
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 16.6 (14.9–18.5)
Reporting / coding artifactserious PRR 6.8not reported in cached trials
Device difficult to use4,56332.7
31.8–33.7ROR 36.1 · calibrated p 9e-5 ✓
30.5 EB05 29.8 · IC025 +4.9
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 1.1 (1.1–1.2)
Reporting / coding artifactserious PRR 35.7not reported in cached trials
Device breakage4,51757.4
55.7–59.1ROR 63.3 · calibrated p 3e-6 ✓
50.8 EB05 49.6 · IC025 +5.6
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 1.4 (1.3–1.5)
Reporting / coding artifactserious PRR 28.0not reported in cached trials
Incorrect product administration duration3,67897.9
94.6–101.3ROR 106.0 · calibrated p 7e-8 ✓
80.1 EB05 77.9 · IC025 +6.3
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 169.2 (112.3–254.9)
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=1,026not reported in cached trials
Unintended pregnancy3,645237.4
228.3–247.0ROR 257.1 · calibrated p 4e-11 ✓
153.8 EB05 149.7 · IC025 +7.2
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 51.4 (40.9–64.6)
Labeled — boxed warning
exact term
serious PRR 323.2not reported in cached trials
Device deployment issue3,377173.5
166.9–180.4ROR 186.7 · calibrated p 7e-10 ✓
124.2 EB05 120.8 · IC025 +6.9
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 3.5 (3.3–3.8)
Reporting / coding artifactserious n=733NCT02616146: 1/1,504 (0.1%) on Etonogestrel (serious AE)
Device dislocation2,68029.0
28.0–30.2ROR 30.7 · calibrated p 2e-4 ✓
27.3 EB05 26.4 · IC025 +4.7
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 0.1 (0.1–0.1)
Reporting / coding artifactserious PRR 58.2not reported in cached trials
Menorrhagia (heavy periods)2,44361.7
59.2–64.3ROR 65.0 · calibrated p 2e-6 ✓
54.2 EB05 52.4 · IC025 +5.7
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 0.5 (0.5–0.6)
Not in label — unassessedserious PRR 27.8not reported in cached trials
Vaginal haemorrhage2,31925.4
24.4–26.5ROR 26.7 · calibrated p 5e-4 ✓
24.1 EB05 23.3 · IC025 +4.5
3/3 methods agree
vs other Progestins: PRR 0.2 (0.2–0.2)
Not in label — unassessedserious PRR 44.1not reported in cached trials

Unlabeled candidate signals

These flagged terms were not found in the FDA label text and do not match an artifact pattern. They are the pairs that would merit a structured assessment (temporality, dose-response, biological plausibility, consistency across databases, trial or cohort evidence). The screen has not done that; string-matching misses label wording, and a strong PRR can still be stimulated reporting, co-medication, or the disease itself.

Want to assess one of these properly? The runbook describes the Bradford Hill / trial-evidence workflow used on the assessment page, and handoff_top1000_signals.csv lists the strongest unassessed pairs across all drugs.

Common questions

What are the most reported side effects of Etonogestrel?

In FDA FAERS, the most frequently co-reported reaction terms for Etonogestrel are complication associated with device, unintended pregnancy, pregnancy with implant contraceptive, complication of device removal, complication of device insertion, implant site pain. These are report counts, not rates: FAERS has no denominator, reporting is voluntary and uneven, and a term can be reported because of the illness being treated rather than the drug.

Does Etonogestrel have an FDA boxed warning?

Yes. The current FDA label carries a boxed warning: RISK OF COMPLICATIONS DUE TO IMPROPER INSERTION and REMOVAL Improper insertion of NEXPLANON increases the risk of complications [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) ] . Proper training prior to first use of NEXPLANON can minimize the risk of improper NEXPLANON insertion [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) ] .

Do FAERS signals prove that Etonogestrel causes these side effects?

No. A disproportionality signal (PRR, ROR) means a reaction is reported more often with this drug than with others in the database. That can reflect a real effect, but also the disease being treated, stimulated reporting after news or litigation, co-medications, or how reports are coded. Causality needs temporality, dose-response, biological plausibility, consistency across data sources and, ideally, trial or cohort evidence. This page screens each term against the FDA label and ClinicalTrials.gov results; it does not establish causation.

Sources & methods

Page generated 2026-10-14. Label and PubChem text are retrieved automatically and may lag the current label; always check the current prescribing information. OpenPV is a beta research tool of the Open Source Medicine Foundation.