A 12-month comparative clinical investigation of a levonorgestrel-releasing intracervical device situated in the uterine cavity or cervical canal

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System as a Contraceptive Method in Nulliparous Women: A Systematic Review

The aim of this review was to summarize the available evidence about the use of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a contraceptive method in nulliparous women. For this purpose, studies evaluating the efficacy, safety, bleeding pattern, satisfaction and discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulliparous women were analyzed. Only original research articles published in English between 1990–27th March 2020 were considered eligible. Reviews, book chapters, case studies, conference papers, opinions, editorials and letters were excluded. The systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library databases identified 816 articles, 23 of which were analyzed. The available evidence indicates that LNG-IUS is an effective and safe contraceptive method for nulliparous women that achieves high levels of satisfaction among patients. Moreover, nulliparous women seem to experience fewer expulsions than parous ones. Bleeding pattern is acceptable for the majority of patients, and bleeding disorders mainly occur in the first months after the insertion. More in-depth, long-term prospective studies are needed in this patient group to determine risk factors for the occurrence of side effects and associated discontinuations, which should not, however, delay the wider use of the method in this group, given the number of advantages.

A viable caesarean scar pregnancy in a woman using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: a case report

BACKGROUND

Although the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) is one of the most reliable methods of contraception, it is associated with an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in case of unintended pregnancy. A rare form of ectopic pregnancy is the caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), with a high risk of serious maternal morbidity, such as uterine rupture, massive haemorrhage and resulting infertility. This report describes the first case of a viable CSP at 13 weeks of gestation in association with the use of a LNG-IUD. Case-presentation: A 36-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to our outpatient clinic because of suspicion of a CSP. The pregnancy was unintended and was diagnosed during replacement of the LNG-IUD after five years. The patient had undergone two caesarean sections in the past. Ultrasound investigation showed an intact pregnancy of approximately 13 weeks of gestation located in the uterine scar. Because of the size of the gestational sac, a laparotomy was performed under general anaesthesia using a Joel-Cohen incision. The procedure was complicated by a total blood loss of 1500 mL, mostly caused by diffuse bleeding from the placental bed.

CONCLUSION

Unintended pregnancies in women using a LNG-IUD are frequently ectopic pregnancies with a preponderance to nidate outside the fallopian tube. Therefore, early diagnosis and location of the pregnancy in women using a LNG-IUD is essential.

Clarification of the role of the Jaydess(Skyla) LNG- IUS 13.5mg and Kyleena LNG-IUS 19.5mg as intrauterine contraceptive systems

INTRODUCTION

Jaydess/Skyla and Kyleena are 'low dose' levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine systems(LNG-IUS). They differ from Mirena and other similar LNG-IUSs in terms of pharmacological properties and physical dimensions. There are currently no defined guidelines to decide when to use Jaydess or Kyleena or Mirena. Areas covered: MEDLINE, POPLINE, PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched using the terms 'Jaydess', 'Skyla', LNG-IUS 13.5mg and 'Kyleena' LNG-IUS 19.5mg. Only clinical research articles as opposed to generalised reviews and opinion papers on the newer LNG-IUSs were considered for review. There were 10 clinical research articles and 11 clinical research abstracts relating to Jaydess/Skyla(LNG-IUS13.5mg) and Kyleena(LNG-IUS 19.5mg). All the studies were sponsored by the manufacturer. There were no independent clinical research studies. Expert commentary: The clinical research information from studies on Jaydess/Skyla and Kyleena does not adequately inform the clinician when and where these IUSs should be used in preference to other LNG-containing IUSs. The terminology used for describing the new low dose LNG-IUSs is inconsistent. The clinical differences between Jaydess, Kyleena and Mirena and the clinical differences in parity of subjects using Jaydess or Kyleena is used to generate an algorithm for helping clinicians choose between Mirena and Jaydess/Skyla or Kyleena.

The benefits and risks of using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for contraception

The contraceptive profile of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena®) is well established, with efficacy similar to that achieved with sterilization and rapid return to fertility after discontinuation of use. The LNG-IUS is typically associated with transient menstrual disturbance during the first few months of use, but this usually settles with continued use, with a concomitant decrease in menstrual blood loss. Overall, the safety profile of the LNG-IUS has been well established across a wide population of women, and the available data do not suggest that the LNG-IUS adversely affects bone health or increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events or breast and uterine cancers. This article reviews the literature to provide updated information on the risks and benefits associated with the LNG-IUS, particularly focusing on its use in contraception.

Insertion of the Mirena intrauterine system for treatment of adenomyosis-associated menorrhagia: a novel method

OBJECTIVE

Insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system Mirena is difficult in women with adenomyosis, and the device is often subsequently expelled. We used a novel insertion technique (Yang's method) to overcome this problem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 273 patients with adenomyosis who were receiving Mirena for treatment of menorrhagia and/or dysmenorrhea between 2001 and 2008. Clinical outcomes and expulsion rates were compared between patients treated using conventional insertion and those treated using Yang's insertion methods.

RESULTS

Expulsion occurred in 25.3% of patients with the conventional method, compared with 10.2% of patients with Yang's method. Hemoglobin levels and dysmenorrhea improved greatly in both groups after Mirena insertion.

CONCLUSION

Yang's insertion method for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is more reliable in some difficult cases, such as patients with severe adenomyosis. This method ensures correct positioning, thus reducing the risks of uterine perforation and/or expulsion.

Intrauterine contraception: the pendulum swings back

Intrauterine contraception is the most widely used method of reversible fertility regulation in the world. Finally, IUC is undergoing a renaissance in the US and it's role will expand as new devices and systems are developed and as old biases among clinicians and women are erased. Successful fertility regulation is a defining factor of the overall health of a population; the expanded use of IUC can help achieve that public health success.

Five years' experience with a small intracervical/intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing device

OBJECTIVE

A randomized study was performed to compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of a new model of an intracervical/intrauterine contraceptive device (ICD) releasing 20 microg of levonorgestrel (LNG) per day.

METHODS

The LNG-ICD was inserted in Group I into the cervical canal and in Group II into the uterine cavity. Group I included 151 women (age, 18-43 years) whereas Group II included 147 (age, 19-43 years). The number of nulliparous women was 145.

RESULTS

The 5-year results are presented here. The results showed a total continuation rate of 50%; the continuation rate in the cervical group and that in the uterine group were 53.6% and 46.3%, respectively--the difference being statistically insignificant (p=.3593). The main reason for termination was a wish for pregnancy, which is explained by the relatively young age and degree of nulliparity of the study population. During the first year, two pregnancies occurred in both groups. Two of these were ectopic, one in each group. The other two occurred after unnoticed expulsions. Thereafter, no pregnancies occurred. The cumulative gross rate for pregnancy was 1.3 and the Pearl index at 5 years was 0.425. The total expulsion rate was relatively high (11.1%). Expulsions occurring during the first few months of the first year were related to insertion. Removals because of bleeding and because of amenorrhea were low, the combined gross rate being 5.7 and the Pearl rate 1.8 at 5 years. Also, the gross rate of infection was low (0.7). The continuation was high in spite of a high rate of removals for planning pregnancy (15.4).

CONCLUSIONS

The method is safe and effective. There were only minor differences between the groups. There were no perforations and the incidence of infection was low. The device can also be used by young nulliparous women.

Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy

BACKGROUND

In the 1970s a new approach to the delivery of hormonal contraception was researched and developed. It was suggested that the addition of a progestogen to a non-medicated contraceptive device improved its contraceptive action. An advantage of these hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUS) is that they are relatively maintenance free, with users having to consciously discontinue using them to become pregnant rather than taking a proactive daily decision to avoid conception.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Literature was identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the field. Searches covered the period from 1972 to November 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing IUSs with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. The primary outcomes were pregnancy due to method/user failure and continuation rate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two blinded reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors which could bias results. Events per women months and single decrement life table rates were extracted where possible for pregnancy, continuation, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Events per total number of women at follow up were collected for hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance. When appropriate, data were pooled at the same points of follow up to calculate rate ratios in order to determine the relative effectiveness of one method compared to another. For the single decrement life table rates, the rate differences were pooled to determine the absolute difference in effectiveness of one method compared to another. Interventions were only combined if the contraceptive methods were similar. Non-hormonal IUDs were divided into three categories for the purpose of comparison with IUSs: IUDs >250mm2 (i.e. CuT 380A IUD and CuT 380 Ag IUD), IUDs <=250mm2 (i.e. Nova-T, Multiload, CuT 200 and CuT 220 IUDs) and non-medicated IUDs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs comparing hormonally impregnated IUSs to a reversible contraceptive method met the inclusion criteria and it was possible to include eight of these in the meta-analyses, four comparing LNG-20 IUSs with non-hormonal IUDs, one comparing the LNG-20 IUS with Norplant-2 and three comparing Progestasert with non-hormonal IUDs. No significant difference was observed between the pregnancy rates for the LNG-20 users and those for the IUD >250mm2 users. However, women using the LNG-20 IUS were significantly less likely to become pregnant than those using the IUD <=250mm2. Women using the LNG-20 IUS were more likely to experience amenorrhoea and device expulsion than women using IUDs >250mm2. LNG-20 users were significantly more likely than all the IUD users to discontinue because of hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance, which on further breakdown of the data was due to amenorrhoea. When the LNG-20 IUS was compared to Norplant-2, the LNG-20 users were significantly more likely to experience amenorrhoea and oligomenorrhoea, but significantly less likely to experience prolonged bleeding and spotting. No other significant differences were observed. Progestasert users were significantly less likely to become pregnant and less likely to continue on the method than non-medicated IUD users after one year, but no significant difference was noted for these two outcomes when Progestasert users were compared to IUD<=250mm2 users. The only other significant differences found in the meta-analyses were that Progestasert users were less likely to expel the device and more likely to discontinue the method because of menstrual bleeding and pain than users of IUDs <=250mm2. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONl the device and more likely to discontinue the method because of menstrual bleeding and pain than users of IUDs <=250mm2.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests LNG-20 IUS users are no more or less likely to have unwanted pregnancies than IUD >250mm2 and Norplant-2 users. The LNG-20 IUS was more effective in preventing either intrauterine or extrauterine pregnancies than IUDs <=250mm2. The contraceptive effectiveness of Progestasert was significantly better than non-medicated IUDs, but no difference was observed when compared to IUDs<=250mm2. Continuation of LNG-20 IUS use was similar to continuation of the non-hormonal IUDs and Norplant-2. Amenorrhoea was the main reason for the discontinuation for the LNG-20 IUS and women should be informed of this prior to starting this method.

Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs), versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Literature was identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing IUSs with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. The primary outcomes were pregnancy due to method/user failure and continuation rate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two blinded reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors which could bias results. Events per women months and single decrement life table rates were extracted where possible for pregnancy, continuation, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Events per total number of women at follow up were collected for hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance. When appropriate, data were pooled at the same points of follow up to calculate rate ratios in order to determine the relative effectiveness of one method compared to another. For the single decrement life table rates, the rate differences were pooled to determine the absolute difference in effectiveness of one method compared to another. Interventions were only combined if the contraceptive methods were similar. Non-hormonal IUDs were divided into three categories for the purpose of comparison with IUSs: IUDs >250mm2 (i.e. CuT 380A IUD and CuT 380 Ag IUD), IUDs <=250mm2 (i.e. Nova-T, Multiload, CuT 200 and CuT 220 IUDs) and non-medicated IUDs.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs comparing hormonally impregnated IUSs to a reversible contraceptive method met the inclusion criteria and it was possible to include eight of these in the meta-analyses, four comparing LNG-20 IUSs with non-hormonal IUDs, one comparing the LNG-20 IUS with Norplant-2 and three comparing Progestasert with non-hormonal IUDs. No significant difference was observed between the pregnancy rates for the LNG-20 users and those for the IUD >250mm2 users. However, women using the LNG-20 IUS were significantly less likely to become pregnant than those using the IUD <=250mm2. Women using the LNG-20 IUS were more likely to experience amenorrhoea and device expulsion than women using IUDs >250mm2. LNG-20 users were significantly more likely than all the IUD users to discontinue because of hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance, which on further breakdown of the data was due to amenorrhoea. When the LNG-20 IUS was compared to Norplant-2, the LNG-20 users were significantly more likely to experience amenorrhoea and oligomenorrhoea, but significantly less likely to experience prolonged bleeding and spotting. No other significant differences were observed. Progestasert users were significantly less likely to become pregnant and less likely to continue on the method than non-medicated IUD users after one year, but no significant differences was noted for these two outcomes when Progestasert users were compared to IUD<=250mm2 users. The only other significant differences found in the meta-analyses were that Progestasert users were less likely to expel the device and more likely to discontinue the method because of menstrual bleeding and pain than users of IUDs <=250mm2.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests LNG-20 IUS users are no more or less likely to have unwanted pregnancies than IUD >250mm2 and Norplant-2 users. The LNG-20 IUS was more effective in preventing either intrauterine or extrauterine pregnancies than IUDs <=250mm2. The contraceptive effectiveness of Progestasert was significantly better than non-medicated IUDs, but no difference was observed when compared to IUDs<=250mm2. Continuation of LNG-20 IUS use was similar to continuation of the non-hormonal IUDs and Norplant-2. Amenorrhoea was the main reason for the discontinuation for the LNG-20 IUS and women should be informed of this prior to starting this method.

Levonorgestrel-releasing (20 microgram/day) intrauterine systems (Mirena) compared with other methods of reversible contraceptives

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative contraceptive effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of the levonorgestrel-releasing (20 microg per day) intrauterine system (LNG-20) compared with reversible contraceptive methods in women of reproductive age.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

IDENTIFICATION

Studies were identified through seven databases, and by contacting investigators and organisations working in the contraceptive field.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Unplanned pregnancy and continuation of contraceptive method.

RESULTS

Five of the seven randomised controlled trials which met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analyses; four were comparisons of the LNG-20 intrauterine system with nonhormonal intrauterine devices. LNG-20 intrauterine systems were compared with intrauterine devices divided into two categories, those > 250 mm3 (Copper T 380 Ag and Copper T 380A intrauterine devices) and those < or = 250 mm3 (Nova-T, Copper T 220C and Copper 200 intrauterine devices). Pregnancy rates for the LNG-20 intrauterine system users were significantly less likely to become pregnant compared with users of intrauterine devices < or = 250 mm3, and significantly less likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. LNG-20 intrauterine system users were more likely to experience amenorrhoea and device expulsion than women using intrauterine devices > 250 mm3. LNG-20 intrauterine system users were significantly more likely than all the intrauterine device users to discontinue because of hormonal side effects and amenorrhoea. When the LNG-20 intrauterine system was compared with Norplant-2, the LNG-20 users were significantly more likely to experience oligo-amenorrhoea, but significantly less likely to experience prolonged bleeding and spotting.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of the LNG-20 intrauterine system was similar to or better than other contraceptive methods with which it was compared. Amenorrhoea was the main reason for the discontinuation of the LNG-20 intrauterine system, usually unnecessarily, since this end-organ suppression of bleeding is benign, associated with normal oestrogen levels. Women choosing this method should be informed of potential amenorrhoea when having pre-contraceptive counselling and that absent bleeding may be viewed as a positive outcome.

Intracervical and fundal administration of levonorgestrel for contraception: endometrial thickness, patterns of bleeding, and persisting ovarian follicles

OBJECTIVE(S)

To study the prevalence of persisting ovarian follicles and to assess the endometrial changes and patterns of vaginal bleeding over 1 year of use of a 20 micrograms/24 h levonorgestrel-releasing intracervical contraceptive device.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Two family planning clinics in Helsinki, Finland.

PATIENT(S)

Women requesting intrauterine hormonal contraception.

INTERVENTION(S)

Insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intracervical contraceptive device into the cervical canal (group 1, n = 151) or fundally into the uterine cavity (group 2, n = 147) for contraception.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Transvaginal ultrasonography of the ovaries and endometrium at insertion and 3, 6, and 12 months after insertion. Data on bleeding were collected using menstrual diary cards.

RESULTS

Persisting ovarian follicles were found in < 8% of women. In both groups, the amount of endometrial tissue decreased significantly in 3 months. The incidence of amenorrhea during the 1st year was higher in the fundal insertion group.

CONCLUSION(S)

The number of persisting follicles was low. Follicles resolved within 6 to 8 weeks. No association was found between persisting follicles and problems of bleeding. Compared with intracervical insertion, fundal insertion resulted in more uniform endometrial suppression and fewer days of bleeding and spotting.