Reproductive potential and implant loss in female hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas) previously contracepted with melengestrol acetate contraceptive implants at AZA institutions.
MGA
contraception
implant loss
reversibility
survival analysis
Journal
Zoo biology
ISSN: 1098-2361
Titre abrégé: Zoo Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8807837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2024
01 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
29
05
2024
received:
19
01
2024
accepted:
11
06
2024
medline:
1
7
2024
pubmed:
1
7
2024
entrez:
1
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants are a progestin-based reversible contraceptive used to manage fertility in animals. MGA implants are recommended for replacement every 2 years; however, reproduction may be suppressed longer if implants are not removed. In this study, we investigated whether the probability of reproducing (pR) differed among nonimplanted females, females with MGA implants removed, and females whose implants were not removed. In addition, since implant loss in hamadryas baboons is a concern, we explored whether female age, institution, implant placement year, implant location, or implant placement type (intramuscular vs. subcutaneous) differed for females whose implants were lost compared to those that were not. The pR differed significantly across all three treatment conditions with the nonimplanted group having the highest pR. The pR plateaued at 63% after 40 months for the implant-removed group compared to 96% after 84 months in the nonimplanted group. There was no reproduction after contraception if implants were not removed (7.83-45.53 months). In the nonimplanted group, pR was significantly higher for older and parous females. In terms of implant loss, we found that implant placement type was significantly associated with implant loss, such that there were fewer losses when implants were placed intramuscularly (IM) as compared to subcutaneously. Our results suggest that placing MGA implants IM is likely to reduce loss. When loss is prevented, MGA implants are an effective form of contraception and are reliably reversibly in most individuals when removed. However, if not removed, they can prevent reproduction longer than 2 years.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Asa, C., & Porton, I. (2012). Contraception as a management tool for controlling surplus animals. In D. G. Kleiman, K. V. Thompson, & C. K. Baer (Eds.), Wild animals in captivity: Principles & techniques for zoo management (2nd Edn, pp. 469–482). University of Chicago Press.
Asa, C. S., Bauman, K. L., Devery, S., Zordan, M., Camilo, G. R., Boutelle, S., & Moresco, A. (2014). Factors associated with uterine endometrial hyperplasia and pyometra in wild canids: Implications for fertility. Zoo Biology, 33(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21069
Asa, C. S. & Porton, I. J. (Eds.). (2005). Wildlife contraception: Issues, methods and applications. Johns Hopkins University Press.
AZA Baboon Species Survival Plan®. (2020). Hamadryas baboon care manual. Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Chuei, J. Y., Asa, C. S., Hall‐Woods, M., Ballou, J., & Traylor‐Holzer, K. (2007). Restoration of reproductive potential after expiration or removal of melengestrol acetate contraceptive implants in tigers (Panthera tigris). Zoo Biology, 26(4), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20137
DeMatteo, K. E., Porton, I. J., & Asa, C. S. (2002). Comments from the AZA contraception advisory group on evaluating the suitability of contraceptive methods in golden‐headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Animal Welfare, 11, 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600024921
Goblet, C. C., Moresco, A., Garner, M. M., Agnew, D. W., & Newell‐Fugate, A. E. (2019). Retrospective characterization of reproductive tract lesions in relation to age, parity, and contraception in captive suidae and Tayassuidae. Theriogenology, 127, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.01.012
Kim, J. J., Kurita, T., & Bulun, S. E. (2013). Progesterone action in endometrial cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and breast cancer. Endocrine Reviews, 34(1), 130–162. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2012-1043
Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2012). Survival analysis: A self‐learning text. Springer Science + Business Media.
Kollias GV, J. r, Calderwoodmays, M. B., & Short, B. G. (1984). Diabetes‐mellitus and abdominal adenocarcinoma in a jaguar receiving megestrol‐acetate. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 185(11), 1383–1386.
Machin, D., Yin Bun, C., & Parmar, M. (2006). Survival analysis: A practical approach. John Wiley and Sons.
McDonald, M. M., Agnew, M. K., Asa, C. S., & Powell, D. M. (2020). Melengestrol acetate contraceptive implant use in colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza): Patterns through time and differences in reproductive potential and live births. Zoo Biology, 40(2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21581
Mechak, L., Wiley, J., Knobbe, J., Ness, T., & Phillips, R. (2016). Hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas) AZA animal program population viability analysis report. Lincoln Park Zoo.
Möhle, U., Heistermann, M., Einspanier, A., & Hodges, J. K. (1999). Efficacy and effects of short‐ and medium‐term contraception in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) using melengestrol acetate implants. Journal of Medical Primatology, 28(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0684.1999.tb00087.x
Moresco, A., Munson, L., & Gardner, I. A. (2009). Naturally occurring and melengestrol acetate‐associated reproductive tract lesions in zoo canids. Veterinary Pathology, 46(6), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.08-VP-0293-M-FL
Munson, L. (2006). Contraception in felids. Theriogenology, 66(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.03.016
Munson, L., Gardner, I. A., Mason, R. J., Chassy, L. M., & Seal, U. S. (2002). Endometrial hyperplasia and mineralization in zoo felids treated with melengestrol acetate contraceptives. Veterinary Pathology, 39(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.39-4-419
Munson, L., & Moresco, A. (2007). Comparative pathology of mammary gland cancers in domestic and wild animals. Breast Disease, 28, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.3233/bd-2007-28102
Munson, L., Moresco, A., & Calle, P. (2005). Adverse effects of contraceptives. In C. Asa & I. Porton (Eds.), Wildlife contraception: Issues, methods, and application (pp. 66–82). Johns Hopkins University Press.
NCSS 11 Statistical Software. (2016). www.ncss.com/software/ncss.
Portugal, M. M., & Asa, C. S. (1995). Effects of chronic melengestrol acetate contraceptive treatment on perineal tumescence, body weight, and sociosexual behavior of hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas). Zoo Biology, 14(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430140306
Seal, U. S., Barton, R., Mather, L., Olberding, K., Plotka, E. D., & Gray, C. W. (1976). Hormonal contraception in captive female lions (Panthera leo). The Journal of Zoo Animal Medicine, 7, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/20094382
Straub, S. G., Sharp, G. W. G., Meglasson, M. D., & De Souza, C. J. (2001). Progesterone inhibits insulin secretion by a membrane delimited, non‐genomic action. Bioscience Reports, 21(5), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014773010350
De VIeeschouwer, K., Leus, K., & Van Elsacker, L. (2000). An evaluation of the suitability of contraceptive methods in golden‐headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas), with emphasis on melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants: (I) effectiveness, reversibility and medical side‐effects. Animal Welfare, 9(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600022739
De Vleeschouwer, K., Van Elsacker, L., Heistermann, M., & Leus, K. (2000). An evaluation of the suitability of contraceptive methods in golden‐headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas), with emphasis on melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants: (II) endocrinological and behavioural effects. Animal Welfare, 9(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600022971
De Vleeschouwer, K., Leus, K., & Van Elsacker, L. (2004). Re‐assessing the reversibility of melengestrol acetate (MGA) implants in golden‐headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas): A comparison with golden lion tamarins (L‐rosalia). Animal Welfare, 13(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600026920
Wallace, P., Asa, C., Agnew, M., & Cheyne, S. (2016). A review of population control methods in captive‐housed primates. Animal Welfare, 25(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.1.007
Wiley, J., & Bladow, R. (2020). Hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas) AZA species survival plan yellow program population analysis & breeding and transfer plan. AZA Population Management Center.
Wiley, N. J. (2020). AZA regional hamadryas baboon studbook (Papio hamadryas). North Carolina Zoo.
Wood, C., Ballou, J. D., & Houle, C. S. (2001). Restoration of reproductive potential following expiration or removal of melengestrol acetate contraceptive implants in golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 32(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1638/1042-7260(2001)032[0417:RORPFE]2.0.CO;2