Contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus copper intrauterine device: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-11-12 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102926
Pan Liu, Jiahao Meng, Yilin Xiong, Yumei Wu, Yifan Xiao, Shuguang Gao
{"title":"Contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus copper intrauterine device: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Pan Liu, Jiahao Meng, Yilin Xiong, Yumei Wu, Yifan Xiao, Shuguang Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, approximately 19.4% of women of reproductive age use intrauterine contraception, encompassing both copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs). Despite current guidelines endorsing intrauterine contraception as a primary method, there remains debate regarding device selection. Notably, the lack of data regarding reasons for discontinuation has limited previous meta-analyses. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the potential differences between intrauterine devices using available multinational data, thereby providing a basis for global policy and healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for primary studies published from inception to January 13, 2024, with no language or geographic restrictions. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496400). We included only randomized controlled trials comparing Cu-IUDs and LNG-IUDs. Data extraction was independently conducted by two reviewers, with unresolved discrepancies referred to a third senior reviewer for consultation. The primary outcome was pregnancy, with secondary outcomes encompassing continuation, reasons for discontinuation, expulsion, satisfaction, and other adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE framework.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>An analysis of 20 trials showed that compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with lower risks of pregnancy (Risk Ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.39), ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.47), discontinuation due to increased bleeding (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85), increased bleeding (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.7), heavy bleeding (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.75), and dysmenorrhea (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48), but they carried a higher risk of discontinuation due to amenorrhea (RR 21.05, 95% CI 8.83-50.00). When comparing LNG (52 mg) IUD with copper (380 mm<sup>2</sup>) IUD, The LNG-IUD showed a lower risk of discontinuation due to increased bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.58) and dysmenorrhea (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34-0.53), but a higher risk of discontinuation due to bleeding issues (RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.47-3.25) and amenorrhea (RR 5.92, 95% CI 2.81-12.49). There were no significant differences between the two terms of continuation, expulsion, non-medical reasons for discontinuation, satisfaction, and other adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>LNG-IUDs and Cu-IUDs are both highly effective contraceptive methods. Compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with a lower risk of pregnancy and adverse reactions. However, LNG-IUDs carry a higher risk of amenorrhea. When recommending contraceptive methods, healthcare providers should fully inform patients of these potential risks and consider patient preferences.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The research was funded by Hunan Provincial Natural Foundation of China (2021JJ30040), the National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University (2021KFJJ06), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81672225).</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"78 ","pages":"102926"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11602564/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102926","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Globally, approximately 19.4% of women of reproductive age use intrauterine contraception, encompassing both copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs). Despite current guidelines endorsing intrauterine contraception as a primary method, there remains debate regarding device selection. Notably, the lack of data regarding reasons for discontinuation has limited previous meta-analyses. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the potential differences between intrauterine devices using available multinational data, thereby providing a basis for global policy and healthcare services.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for primary studies published from inception to January 13, 2024, with no language or geographic restrictions. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024496400). We included only randomized controlled trials comparing Cu-IUDs and LNG-IUDs. Data extraction was independently conducted by two reviewers, with unresolved discrepancies referred to a third senior reviewer for consultation. The primary outcome was pregnancy, with secondary outcomes encompassing continuation, reasons for discontinuation, expulsion, satisfaction, and other adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE framework.

Findings: An analysis of 20 trials showed that compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with lower risks of pregnancy (Risk Ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.39), ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.47), discontinuation due to increased bleeding (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85), increased bleeding (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.7), heavy bleeding (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.75), and dysmenorrhea (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48), but they carried a higher risk of discontinuation due to amenorrhea (RR 21.05, 95% CI 8.83-50.00). When comparing LNG (52 mg) IUD with copper (380 mm2) IUD, The LNG-IUD showed a lower risk of discontinuation due to increased bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.58) and dysmenorrhea (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34-0.53), but a higher risk of discontinuation due to bleeding issues (RR 2.83, 95% CI 2.47-3.25) and amenorrhea (RR 5.92, 95% CI 2.81-12.49). There were no significant differences between the two terms of continuation, expulsion, non-medical reasons for discontinuation, satisfaction, and other adverse outcomes.

Interpretation: LNG-IUDs and Cu-IUDs are both highly effective contraceptive methods. Compared to Cu-IUDs, LNG-IUDs were associated with a lower risk of pregnancy and adverse reactions. However, LNG-IUDs carry a higher risk of amenorrhea. When recommending contraceptive methods, healthcare providers should fully inform patients of these potential risks and consider patient preferences.

Funding: The research was funded by Hunan Provincial Natural Foundation of China (2021JJ30040), the National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University (2021KFJJ06), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81672225).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of strategies for implementing guideline-concordant care in low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension. Contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus copper intrauterine device: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Reporting guidelines for protocols of randomised controlled trials of implantable neurostimulation devices: the SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension. Child outcomes after prenatal exposure to platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy: an unplanned interim analysis of the international network on cancer, infertility, and pregnancy study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1