Acceptability of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system and etonogestrel implant: One-year results of an observational study

ABSTRACT

Objectives To analyse the acceptability and patterns of use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and the etonogestrel releasing-subdermal implant (ENG implant) among young European women.

Methods A total of 454 women aged 20–35 years opting to switch their method of contraception from oral contraception to the LNG-IUS or ENG implant, were recruited in an observational study in four different European countries (France, Ireland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom). The present paper reports the interim results of the study at 12 months of observation.

Results Data from 311 subjects (211 using the LNG-IUS and 100 using the ENG implant), with at least one follow-up visit after insertion, were analysed. The cumulative continuation rates at 12 months for the LNG-IUS and ENG implant were 93% and 86%, respectively. Most women were satisfied with their method of contraception after one year of follow-up (80% in the LNG-IUS group and 66% in the ENG implant group).

Conclusions Both the LNG-IUS and the ENG implant are highly acceptable contraceptive options among women with previous experience of oral contraceptive use. The highest continuation and satisfaction rates were observed with the LNG-IUS.

KEYWORDS:

• Contraception
• Levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system
• Etonogestrel releasing-subdermal implant
• Continuation rate
• Satisfaction
• Discontinuation
• Bleeding pattern
• Life-table

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable input from all investigators, study nurses and study operational personnel for the success of the study. The study was supported by Bayer HealthCare AG, Berlin, Germany.

Declaration of interest: Mary Short is the principal investigator of the study. She has participated as a speaker in events sponsored by Bayer HealthCare AG, Berlin, Germany. Salmon Omokanye and Dominique Dallay have acted as leading investigators for the study in the UK and France, respectively. They declare no conflicts of interest. Pirjo Inki and Jens-Ulrich Hanisch are employees of the sponsor and have acted as study medical expert and project manager, respectively. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of the paper.