Bleeding profile satisfaction and pain and ease of placement with levonorgestrel 19.5 mg IUD: findings from the Kyleena^® Satisfaction study

References

• Nelson AL, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1205–1213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):616–622 e1-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. The effect of age, parity and body mass index on the efficacy, safety, placement and user satisfaction associated with two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: subgroup analyses of data from a phase III trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0135309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Dermout S, et al. Evaluation of a new, low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system over 5 years of use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Kubba A, Caetano C, et al. Thirty years of mirena: a story of innovation and change in women’s healthcare. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(4):614–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Family planning: a hand book for providers, Third Edition. 2018; [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/260156.
   Google Scholar
• Temple-Smith M, Sanci L. LARCs as first-line contraception – hat can general practitioners advise young women? Aust Fam Physician. 2017;46(10):710–715.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. Long-acting reversible contraception work group; eve espey, Lisa Hofler. Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Practice bulletin no. 186. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):e251–e269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi R, Khadilkar S, Patel M. Global trends in use of long-acting reversible and permanent methods of contraception: seeking a balance. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl 1):S60–S63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, et al. Canadian Contraception Consensus (part 3 of 4): chapter 7 – intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(2):182–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agostini A, Godard C, Laurendeau C, et al. Two year continuation rates of contraceptive methods in France: a cohort study from the French national health insurance database. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23(6):421–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. FSRH clinical guideline: intrauterine contraception (April 2015, amended September). 2019; [cited 2021 Dec]. Available from: https://www.fsrh.org/standards-and-guidance/documents/ceuguidanceintrauterinecontraception.
   Google Scholar
• Buhling KJ, Hauck B, Dermout S, et al. Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of European/Canadian healthcare providers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;183:146–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter J, Rubin SE, Sherman P. Fear of intrauterine contraception among adolescents in New York City. Contraception. 2014;89(5):446–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brima N, Akintomide H, Iguyovwe V, et al. A comparison of the expected and actual pain experienced by women during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device. Open Access J Contracept. 2015;6:21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNicholas C, Madden T. Meeting the contraceptive needs of a community: increasing access to long-acting reversible contraception. Mo Med. 2017;114(3):163–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caetano C, Bliekendaal S, Engler Y, et al. From awareness to usage of long-acting reversible contraceptives: results of a large European survey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;151(3):366–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laporte M, Peloggia A, Marcelino AC, et al. Perspectives of health care providers regarding the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2022;27(3):208–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asker C, Stokes-Lampard H, Beavan J, et al. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32(2):89–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Jensen JT, Monteiro I, et al. Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: an updated review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(12):1500–1513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickerson LM, Diaz VA, Jordon J, et al. Satisfaction, early removal, and side effects associated with long acting reversible contraception. Fam Med. 2013;45(10):701–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg E, Bateson D, McGeechan K, et al. A three year comparative study of continuation rates, bleeding patterns and satisfaction in Australian women using a subdermal contraceptive implant or progestogen releasing intrauterine system. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(1):5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Brache V, Meirik O, et al. A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled trial of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants, with non-randomized matched copper-intrauterine device controls. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedrich JT, Desai S, Zhao Q, et al. Association of short-term bleeding and cramping patterns with long acting reversible contraceptive method satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):50.e1–e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100(2):128–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert V, Ahlers C, Frenz AK, et al. Bleeding patterns with the 19.5 mg LNG-IUS, with special focus on the first year of use: implications for counselling. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(4):251–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frenz AK, Ahlers C, Beckert V, et al. Predicting menstrual bleeding patterns with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2021;26(1):48–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer AG. Kyleena Product Monograph. 2021; [cited 2022 Sept 11]. Available from: https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/kyleena-pm-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann BM, Apter D, Bitzer J, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetic analysis of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives with oral or subdermal administration route. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(6):417–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastianelli C, Farris M, Rosato E, et al. The use of different doses levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS): real-world data from a multicenter Italian study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2022;27(1):16–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stovall DW, Aqua K, Römer T, et al. Satisfaction and continuation with LNG-IUS 12: findings from the real-world Kyleena® satisfaction study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2021;26(6):462–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert V, Aqua K, Bechtel C, et al. Insertion experience of women and health care professionals in the Kyleena® Satisfaction study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(3):182–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Nickleach DC, Zhang C, et al. Carrying out streamlined routine data analyses with reports for observational studies: introduction to a series of generic SAS® macros. F1000Res. 2018;7:1955.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lohr PA, Lyus R, Prager S. Use of intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2017;95(6):529–537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardeman J, Weiss BD. Intrauterine devices: an update. Am Fam Physician. 2014;89(6):445–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion no. 735: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(5):e130–e139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali MM, Cleland J, Shah IH. Causes and consequences of contraceptive discontinuation: evidence from 60 demographic and health surveys. 2012; [cited 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/9789241504058/en.
   Google Scholar
• Modesto W, Bahamondes MV, Bahamondes L. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1393–1399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellström A, Gemzell Danielsson K, Kopp Kallner H. Trends in use and attitudes towards contraception in Sweden: results of a nationwide survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(2):154–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar