» Articles » PMID: 27016644

A 12-month Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System with the Etonogestrel Subdermal Implant

Overview
Journal Fertil Steril
Date 2016 Mar 27
PMID 27016644
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS 8), which has an average levonorgestrel release rate of ∼8 μg/24 hours during the first year (total levonorgestrel content 13.5 mg; Jaydess/Skyla), with the etonogestrel (ENG) subdermal implant (total content, 68 mg) with regard to the 12-month discontinuation rate (primary outcome).

Design: Randomized, open-label, phase III study.

Setting: Thirty-eight centers in six European countries.

Patient(s): Study population of 766 healthy nulliparous and parous women aged 18-35 years.

Intervention(s): The LNG-IUS 8 or the ENG implant.

Main Outcome Measure(s): Discontinuation rate, by treatment group, at Month 12.

Result(s): The 12-month discontinuation rates were 19.6% and 26.8% in the LNG-IUS 8 and ENG implant groups, respectively. The -7.2% difference was statistically significant (95% confidence interval -13.2%, -1.2%). Fewer women in the LNG-IUS 8 group than in the ENG implant group discontinued because of increased bleeding (3.2% vs. 11.3%) or adverse events (14.3% vs. 21.8%). At 12 months, more women in the LNG-IUS 8 group than in the ENG implant group were "very/somewhat satisfied" with their bleeding pattern (60.9% vs. 33.6%) and reported a preference to use their study treatment after study completion (70.1% vs. 58.5%).

Conclusion(s): The LNG-IUS 8 was associated with a significantly lower 12-month discontinuation rate compared with the ENG implant; mainly because ENG implant users frequently discontinued due to increased bleeding. More LNG-IUS 8 users than ENG implant users reported being "very/somewhat satisfied" with their bleeding pattern, and reported a preference to continue using their study treatment after the study.

Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01397097.

Citing Articles

Subdermal implants vs. levonorgestrel intrauterine devices outcomes in reproductive-aged women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oliveira J, Neves G, Pinhati M, de Oliveira F, Filho A Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025; .

PMID: 40069520 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-025-07943-6.


Management of pulmonary arterial hypertension:before, during and after pregnancy.

Teng Y, Zong L, Ding J, Wu M, Li X Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev. 2024; 21:200252.

PMID: 38549736 PMC: 10972799. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200252.


Outcomes of etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implants: A single center cross-sectional study.

Shams T, Alhashemi H, Fallatah A, Alkhalid A, Alhazmi F, Bin Yunus M Saudi Med J. 2024; 45(3):261-266.

PMID: 38438213 PMC: 11115393. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2024.45.3.20230840.


Early removal of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant in Spanish women: a prospective cohort study.

Ruiz de Vinaspre-Hernandez R, Garrido-Santamaria R, Urra-Martinez R, Saenz-Cabredo P, Garrido-Rivas A, Juarez-Vela R Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1172793.

PMID: 38323032 PMC: 10844390. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1172793.


Head-to-head IUS comparison needed.

Plante S Can Fam Physician. 2022; 68(10):717-718.

PMID: 36241400 PMC: 9833133. DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6810717_1.