• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

Cochrane Review 2020: Are Progestogen-Releasing IUDs Effective for Managing Heavy Menstrual Bleeding?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) can reduce menstrual blood loss by up to 90%
  • Bofill Rodriguez et al. (Cochrane Systematic Review – Intervention, 2020) determined the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB)

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Inclusion criteria
    • RCTs
    • Trials in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices vs
      • No treatment | Placebo | Other medical/surgical therapy for HMB
  • Study design and data analysis
    • Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and determined certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria  

RESULTS:

  • 25 RCTs were included | Combined total of 2511 women

LNG-IUS vs Other Medical Therapy

  • Other therapies investigated were
    • Norethisterone acetate
    • Medroxyprogesterone acetate
    • Oral contraceptive pill
    • Mefenamic acid
    • Tranexamic acid
    • Usual medical treatment (patient choice of suitable oral treatment)
  • The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, with lower menstrual blood loss using various bleeding assessment tools
    • The alkaline hematin method: Mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL (95% CI, 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low‐certainty evidence)
    • The Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart: MD 55.05 (95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low‐certainty evidence)
  • Uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on women’s satisfaction up to one year
    • RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; very low‐certainty evidence)
  • The LNG‐IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life compared with other medical therapy using the following scales  
    • The SF‐36: MD 2.90 (95% CI, 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate‐certainty evidence)
    • The Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale: MD 13.40 (95% CI, 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate‐certainty evidence)
  • Serious adverse events were similar between LNG-IUS and other medical therapies
    • RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate‐certainty evidence)
  • Compared to LNG-IUS, women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to
    • Withdraw from treatment for any reasons; RR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate‐certainty evidence)
    • Experience treatment failure: RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate‐certainty evidence)

LNG‐IUS vs Endometrial Resection or Ablation (EA)

  • Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent
    • Effect of LNG-IUS vs EA are probably similar when comparing rates for the following  
      • Amenorrhea | Hypomenorrhea | Eumenorrhea
    • Uncertain whether there is a difference in quality of life
  • Women with the LNG-IUS are probably more likely to have any adverse event
    • RR 2.06 (95% CI, 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate‐certainty evidence)
  • Women with the LNG‐IUS may experience more treatment failure (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) at one year follow up
    • RR 1.78 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low‐certainty evidence)
  • Women with LNG-IUS may be more likely to require hysterectomy at one year follow up
    • RR 2.56 (95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low‐certainty evidence)

LNG‐IUS vs Hysterectomy

  • Uncertain whether LNG_IUS had any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy
    • Amenorrhea: RR 0.52 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low‐certainty evidence)
  • It is uncertain whether there is a difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy for the following
    • Satisfaction at five years
    • Quality of life via SF-36
  • Women in the LNG‐IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1‐year follow‐up
    • RR 48.18 (95% CI, 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low‐certainty evidence)

CONCLUSION:

  • LNG-IUS vs other medical therapies may improve heavy menstrual bleeding and quality of life
  • Bleeding outcomes with LNG-IUS were similar to endometrial ablation although LNG-IUS may be associated with more adverse events
  • This study yielded uncertain results when comparing LNG-IUS to hysterectomy

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

Don’t Miss Another Critical Clinical Research Summary!

ObGFirst® – Try It Free »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

How Do Combined Hormonal Contraceptives Compare to Other Treatments for Menorrhagia?
How does TXA Measure Up as a Treatment for Menorrhagia?
How Likely is Amenorrhea during Levonorgestrel IUD Use?
IUD, Hysterectomy or Ablation for Menorrhagia?

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Download Your ObG App
HERE!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site