Dataset Information

Therapy of heavy menstrual bleeding in Korea: Subanalysis and results from a multinational clinical trial in the Asian region investigating the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus conventional therapy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare real-life clinical outcomes with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and conventional medical therapies (CMTs), including combined oral contraceptives and oral progestins in the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in South Korea. METHODS:This prospective, observational cohort study recruited a total of 647 women aged 18 to 45 years, diagnosed with HMB from 8 countries in Asia, including 209 women from South Korea (LNG-IUS, 169; CMTs, 40), who were followed up to one year. The primary outcome was cumulative continuation rate (still treated with LNG-IUS and CMTs) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included bleeding pattern, assessment of the treatment efficacy by treating physician and safety profile. RESULTS:The continuation rate at 12 months was significantly higher with the LNG-IUS than CMTs (85.1% vs. 48.5%, respectively; P<0.0001). The 51.5% of CMTs patients discontinued treatment and 18.8% of LNG-IUS patients discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation for CMTs were switching to another treatment and personal reasons. When compared to CMTs, the LNG-IUS offered better reduction in subjectively assessed menstrual blood loss and the number of bleeding days, tolerability and with better efficacy in HMB, as assessed by physician's final evaluation. CONCLUSION:This study provides novel information on the real-life treatment patterns of HMB in South Korea. The efficacy of CMTs was inferior compared to the LNG-IUS in the clinical outcomes measured in this study. Due to the better compliance with LNG-IUS, the cumulative continuation rate is higher than CMTs. We conclude that the LNG-IUS should be used as the first-line treatment for HMB in Korean women, in line with international guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Lee BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366870 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Therapy of heavy menstrual bleeding in Korea: Subanalysis and results from a multinational clinical trial in the Asian region investigating the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus conventional therapy.

Lee Byung Seok BS Ling Xu X Asif Shaheena S Kraemer Peter P Hanisch Jens Ulrich JU Inki Pirjo P Lee Jung Eun JE

Obstetrics & gynecology science 20150316 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare real-life clinical outcomes with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and conventional medical therapies (CMTs), including combined oral contraceptives and oral progestins in the treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in South Korea.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective, observational cohort study recruited a total of 647 women aged 18 to 45 years, diagnosed with HMB from 8 countries in Asia, including 209 women from South Korea (LNG- ...[more]

PMID: 25798431

Similar Datasets

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: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 one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. Ulipristal acetate is prescribed to treat symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. We compared the effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of the presence of fibroids.MethodsThis randomised, open-label, parallel group phase III trial enrolled women over 18 years with heavy menstrual bleeding from 10 UK hospitals. Participants were centrally randomised, in a 1:1 ratio, to either three, 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was quality of life measured by the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and liver function. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 20426843.FindingsBetween June 5th, 2015 and February 26th, 2020, 236 women were randomised, either side of a recruitment suspension due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate led to early cessation of recruitment but the trial continued in follow-up. The primary outcome substantially improved in both groups, and was 89, (interquartile range [IQR] 65 to 100, n = 53) and 94, (IQR 70 to 100, n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.17; p = 0.12) in the ulipristal and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system groups. Rates of amenorrhoea at 12 months were higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (64% versus 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% CI 2.29-22.2). Other outcomes were similar between the two groups and there were no cases of endometrial malignancy or hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use.InterpretationOur findings suggested that both treatments improved quality of life. Ulipristal was more effective at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal has been demonstrated to be an effective medical therapeutic option but currently its use has restrictions and requires liver function monitoring.FundingUK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research EME Programme (12/206/52).

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: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.

Dataset Information

Therapy of heavy menstrual bleeding in Korea: Subanalysis and results from a multinational clinical trial in the Asian region investigating the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus conventional therapy.

Publications

Therapy of heavy menstrual bleeding in Korea: Subanalysis and results from a multinational clinical trial in the Asian region investigating the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus conventional therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets