Dataset Information

Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) called Levosert(®) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in comparison to the reference product Mirena(®). METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, in non-menopausal women diagnosed with functional HMB (defined as menstrual blood loss [MBL] ? 80 mL) randomised to either Levosert(®) or Mirena(®) and followed for up to one year. MBL was evaluated using a validated modified version of the Wyatt pictogram. RESULTS: A total of 280 women were randomised (141 to Levosert(®) and 139 to Mirena(®)). During the one-year treatment period, both Levosert(®) and Mirena(®) dramatically decreased MBL and increased haemoglobin and ferritin levels. There were no statistically significant differences between Levosert(®) and Mirena(®) regarding any of the parameters evaluated during the study. Similar bleeding patterns were observed in both groups. Levosert(®) was inserted with the same ease as Mirena(®). Both treatments were associated with identical expulsion rates and no perforations occurred in either treatment group. CONCLUSION: Levosert(®), a new LNG-IUS designed to release the same daily amount of LNG as Mirena(®), is highly effective in the treatment of HMB. No differences were observed between Levosert(®) and Mirena(®) regarding all evaluated outcomes, including safety profile.

SUBMITTER: Mawet M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4133966 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial.

Mawet Marie M Nollevaux Fabrice F Nizet Dominique D Wijzen Fabienne F Gordenne Valérie V Tasev Niso N Segedi Dimitrije D Marinescu Bogdan B Enache Andreea A Parhomenko Vadim V Frankenne Francis F Foidart Jean-Michel JM

The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception 20140326 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) called Levosert(®) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in comparison to the reference product Mirena(®).<h4>Methods</h4>A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, in non-menopausal women diagnosed with functional HMB (defined as menstrual blood loss [MBL] ≥ 80 mL) randomised to either Levosert(®) or Mirena(®) and followed for up to one year. MBL was evaluated using a validated modified ve ...[more]

PMID: 24666176

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate heavy menstrual bleeding treatment outcomes with levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device (IUD) use in participants without body mass index (BMI) or parity restrictions.MethodsInvestigators included participants aged 18-50 years with no pelvic or systemic pathology causing heavy menstrual bleeding at 29 U.S. centers in a prospective trial. Participants had up to three screening cycles with menstrual product collection for alkaline hematin blood-loss measurements. Investigators enrolled those with two menses with blood loss of 80 mL or more (values averaged for baseline blood loss), placed the IUD, and followed participants for up to six 28-day cycles. Participants collected any menstrual products used during cycles 3 and 6 for blood-loss measurement. We evaluated outcomes in participants with at least one follow-up assessment for the primary outcome of median absolute blood-loss change and, secondarily, treatment success , defined as the proportion with a final measured blood loss less than 80 mL and at least 50% reduction from baseline. We evaluated exploratory outcomes of differences in blood-loss changes by BMI and parity using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsOf 105 enrolled participants, 47 (44.8%) had obesity (BMI 30.0 or higher) and 29 (27.6%) were nulliparous. Baseline mean blood loss ranged from 73 to 520 mL (median 143 mL, interquartile range 112-196 mL). Eighty-nine (84.8%) had at least one evaluable follow-up evaluation. Participants had median (interquartile range) absolute blood-loss decreases at cycles 3 (n=86) and 6 (n=81) of 93.3% (86.1-97.7%) and 97.6% (90.4-100%), respectively. At cycle 6, participants without obesity (n=43) and with obesity (n=38) had similar median [interquartile range] decreases (97.6% [91.8-100%] and 97.5% [90.3-100%], respectively; P =.89), with comparable findings for nulliparous (n=25) and parous (n=56) participants (97.0% [91.7-99.1%] and 98.1% [89.9-100%], respectively; P =.43). Treatment success occurred in 81.8% (95% CI 74.2-89.4%) of 99 participants, excluding those with no outcomes due to lost to follow-up or consent withdrawal, and did not vary by BMI or parity. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation were bleeding or cramping (n=6 [5.7%]) and expulsion (n=5 [4.8%]).ConclusionThis levonorgestrel 52-mg IUD reduces blood loss by more than 90% over 6 months compared with baseline for most users with heavy menstrual bleeding.Funding sourceMedicines360.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03642210.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.ResultsRelevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years.ConclusionsThe 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Project description:Background It is estimated that between 12 to 25% of women who undergo an endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) are dissatisfied after two years because of recurrent menstrual bleeding and/or cyclical pelvic pain, with around 15% of these women ultimately having a hysterectomy. The insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) immediately after endometrial ablation may inactivate residual untreated endometrium and/or inhibit the regeneration of endometrial tissue. Furthermore, the LNG-IUS may prevent agglutination of the uterine walls preventing intrauterine adhesion formation associated with endometrial ablation. In these ways, insertion of an LNG-IUS immediately after endometrial ablation might prevent subsequent hysterectomies because of persisting uterine bleeding and cyclical pelvic pain or pain that arises de novo. Hence, we evaluate if the combination of endometrial ablation and an LNG-IUS is superior to endometrial ablation alone in terms of reducing subsequent rates of hysterectomy at two years following the initial ablative procedure. Methods/design We perform a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 35 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation and without contraindication for an LNG-IUS are eligible. After informed consent, participants are randomly allocated to either endometrial ablation plus LNG-IUS or endometrial ablation alone. The primary outcome is the hysterectomy rate at 24 months following endometrial ablation. Secondary outcomes include women’s satisfaction, reinterventions, complications, side effects, menstrual bleeding patterns, quality of life, societal costs. Discussion The results of this study will help clinicians inform women with HMB who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation about whether concomitant use of the LNG-IUS is beneficial for reducing the need for hysterectomy due to ongoing bleeding and/or pain symptoms. Trial registration Dutch Trial registration: NL7817. Registered 20 June 2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7817. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01843-6.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.DesignMeta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction.Data sourcesData were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment.ResultsAt around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis.ConclusionsMore women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the bleeding pattern during second consecutive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) use?Summary answerConsecutive use of LNG-IUS is associated with a predictable bleeding pattern, characterized by the absence of the initial period of irregular bleeding seen after interval insertion of an LNG-IUS and a non-bleeding pattern in the vast majority of women.What is known alreadyWith increased popularity of the LNG-IUS for long-term birth control and treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), consecutive use of the system is becoming more frequent. One previous study showed 60% amenorrhea rate in consecutive IUS users; however, the sample size was small.Study design, size, durationA prospective multicenter study in four European countries recruited women who wished to continue with LNG-IUS use immediately after the first 5-year period. A total of 204 women were followed up until the end of the first year of the second IUS. Thereafter 170 women continued into the extension phase of the study up to the full 5 years of use of the second IUS and 144 women continued to the end of the study.Participants, setting, methodsA total of 170 women (mean age 39 years) who had been using their first LNG-IUS for between 4 years 3 months and 4 years 9 months, either for contraception or for treatment of HMB, and who planned to replace the device with a new LNG-IUS, were recruited and followed up to 5 years of the second IUS use. A total of 17 centers in four European countries were involved in the study. Bleeding patterns were analyzed using daily bleeding diaries using 90-day reference periods (RP) for the first year of the second IUS use and for the last RP of each year during Years 2-5 of use.Main results and the role of chanceApproximately 70% of women were free of bleeding during Years 2-5 and up to 49% were amenorrheic. There was a slight increase in the number of bleeding/spotting days of ∼3 days during the first RP immediately after the placement of the second IUS, whereafter the number of bleeding/spotting days returned to the level preceding the second IUS insertion or below that. Absence of bleeding was associated with high overall satisfaction and continuation rates. No serious adverse events assessed as related to the LNG-IUS use occurred during the 5-year period. The cumulative expulsion rate during the 5-year study period was 1.2%. The sample size was large enough to study bleeding patterns, and subjects are likely to represent typical consecutive IUS users, and therefore, the role of chance is small.Limitations, reasons for cautionThe women represent a selected group as they had already successfully used their first IUS for almost 5 years and were willing to continue its use-however, this is currently a common clinical situation. The results may therefore not be extrapolated to first-time users of the LNG-IUS.Wider implications of the findingsThese data are of importance when counseling women who are making decisions concerning long-term contraception.Study funding/competing interest(s)This study was funded by Bayer Pharma AG. P.I. and T.S. are full-time employees of Bayer Pharma AG. O.H. and K. G-D. have received consultancy fees from Bayer Pharma AG. The publication was developed jointly by all authors without third-party involvement and no honoraria were paid for any authors for their contribution to this manuscript.Trial registration numberNCT00393198.

Dataset Information

Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets