LNG-IUS 12: a 19.5 levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for prevention of pregnancy for up to five years

References

• United Nations. Trends in contraceptive use worldwide 2015. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/family/trendsContraceptiveUse2015Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• United States medical eligibility criteria (US MEC) for contraceptive use, 2016. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/usmec.html
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. 2015. Available from: http://who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/MEC-5/en/
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. 2016. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/Spr-3/en/
   Google Scholar
• US selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. Mmwr. 2016;65:7–18.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis KM, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(5):461–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnhill MS. The rise and fall and rise of the IUD. Am J Gynecol Health. 1989;3(3–S):6–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zipper JA, Tatum HJ, Medel M, et al. Contraception through the use of intrauterine metals. I. Copper as an adjunct to the “T” device. The endouterine copper “T”. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;109(5):771–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulier R, O’Brien PA, Helmerhorst FM, et al. Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD005347.
   Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Pett A, Jandi S, et al. New visualised anchor for frameless IUD is helpful for checking correct insertion. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(4):310–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Kets H, Van der Pas H, Thiery M, et al. The GyneFix implant systems for interval, postabortal and postpartum contraception: a significant advance in long-term reversible contraception. International Study Group on intrauterine drug delivery. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1997;2(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson CG, Luukkainen T, Diaz J, et al. Intrauterine contraception with levonorgestrel: a comparative randomised clinical performance study. Lancet. 1981;1(8220 Pt 1):577–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez F, Brache V, Fernandez E, et al. New insights on the mode of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices in women. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(5):768–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tredway DR, Umezaki CU, Mishell DR Jr., et al. Effect of intrauterine devices on sperm transport in the human being: preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;123(7):734–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishell DR Jr. Intrauterine devices: mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy. Contraception. 1998;58(3 Suppl):45S–53S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramakrishnan R, Bharaniraja B, Aprem AS. Controlled release of copper from an intrauterine device using a biodegradable polymer. Contraception. 2015;92(6):585–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milsom I, Andersson K, Jonasson K, et al. The influence of the Gyne-T 380S IUD on menstrual blood loss and iron status. Contraception. 1995;52(3):175–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Chen PL, Park S. Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time? Contraception. 2009;79(5):356–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Stern J, Diaz J, et al. Two years of intrauterine contraception with levonorgestrel and with copper: a randomized comparison of the TCu 380Ag and levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day devices. Contraception. 1987 Mar;35(3):245–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apter D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Hauck B, et al. Pharmacokinetics of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and effects on ovulation rate and cervical function: pooled analyses of phase II and III studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1656–1664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moraes LG, Marchi NM, Pitoli AC, et al. Assessment of the quality of cervical mucus among users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at different times of use. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(4):318–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis RA, Taylor D, Natavio MF, et al. Effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on cervical mucus quality and sperm penetrability. Contraception. 2010;82(6):491–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natavio MF, Taylor D, Lewis RA, et al. Temporal changes in cervical mucus after insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2013;87(4):426–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lethaby A, Hussain M, Rishworth JR, et al. Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD002126.pub3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaaban OM, Ali MK, Sabra AM, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus a low-dose combined oral contraceptive for treatment of adenomyotic uteri: a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2015;92(4):301–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdegirmenci O, Kayikcioglu F, Akgul MA, et al. Comparison of levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus hysterectomy on efficacy and quality of life in patients with adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):497–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heliövaara-Peippo S, Hurskainen R, Teperi J, et al. Quality of life and costs of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy in the treatment of menorrhagia: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(6):535.e1-535.e14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machado RB, de Souza IM, Beltrame A, et al. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: its effect on the number of hysterectomies performed in perimenopausal women with uterine fibroids. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(5):492–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurskainen R, Teperi J, Rissanen P, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up. Jama. 2004;291(12):1456–1463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luukkainen T, Toivonen J. Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a method of contraception with therapeutic properties. Contraception. 1995;52(5):269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Petta CA, Fernandes A, et al. Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in women with endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea. Contraception. 2007;75(6 Suppl):S134–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheng J, Zhang WY, Zhang JP, et al. The LNG-IUS study on adenomyosis: a 3-year follow-up study on the efficacy and side effects of the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of dysmenorrhea associated with adenomyosis. Contraception. 2009;79(3):189–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marnach ML, Butler KA, Henry MR, et al. Oral progestogens versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for treatment of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(4):368–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuk JS, Song JY, Lee JH, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems versus oral cyclic medroxyprogesterone acetate in endometrial hyperplasia therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(5):1322–1329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim MK, Seong SJ, Kim YS, et al. Combined medroxyprogesterone acetate/levonorgestrel-intrauterine system treatment in young women with early-stage endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):358.e1-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, et al. comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):280–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg DL, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety of a new 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2015;92(1):10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creinin MD, Jansen R, Starr RM, et al. Levonorgestrel release rates over 5 years with the Liletta® 52-mg intrauterine system. Contraception. 2016;94(4):353–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillebaud J. Intrauterine contraception–what now and what next? Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2001;6(Suppl 1):11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial. Contraception. 1994;49(1):56–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva-Filho AL, Lira J, Rocha AL, et al. Non-hormonal and hormonal intrauterine contraception: survey of patients’ perceptions in four Latin American countries. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(3):213–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teal SB, Sheeder J. IUD use in adolescent mothers: retention, failure and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception. 2012;85(3):270–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, et al. Preventing unintended pregnancy: the contraceptive CHOICE project in review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015;24(5):349–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG. Committee opinion no 672: clinical challenges of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):e69–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AAP. Committee on adolescence. Contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):e1244–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson A, 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):616–623.
   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
• Insler V, Melmed H, Eichenbrenner I, et al. The cervical score. A simple semiquantitative method for monitoring of the menstrual cycle. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1972;10:223–228.
   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
• Bouyer J, Rachou E, Germain E, et al. Risk factors for extrauterine pregnancy in women using an intrauterine device. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(5):899–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenson AB, Tan A, Hirth JM, et al. Complications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagers. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(5):951–958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA highlights of prescribing information. Full prescribing information. NDA 208224 Kyleena. FDA approved 16 Sept. 2016. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/208224s000lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Faustmann TA, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, et al. Efficacy and safety of a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS12) according to age, parity, and body mass index over 5 years of use. Fertility & Sterility. 2016;e232.
   Google Scholar
• The national campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy. Available from: http://thenationalcampaign.org/
   Google Scholar
• Madden T, McNicholas C, Zhao Q, et al. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(4):718–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mestad R, Secura G, Allsworth JE, et al. Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Contraception. 2011;84(5):493–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaislasuo J, Heikinheimo O, Lähteenmäki P, et al. Menstrual characteristics and ultrasonographic uterine cavity measurements predict bleeding and pain in nulligravid women using intrauterine contraception. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(7):1580–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Andrade A, Goldstuck N. Femilis(®) 60 levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system-A review of 10 years of clinical experience. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health. 2016;10:19–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Buhling KJ, Dermout SM, et al. A Phase III, single-arm study of LNG-IUS 8, a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system (total content 13.5 mg) in postmenarcheal adolescents. Contraception. 2016;93(6):507–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apter D, Briggs P, Tuppurainen M, et al. 12-month multicenter, randomized study comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):151–157.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(9):843–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women, 2009-2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar