A randomized prospective trial comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. A randomised trial comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and thermal balloon ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding. A randomized clinical trial of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and a low-dose combined oral contraceptive for fibroid-related menorrhagia. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of CDB-2914 in new users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system shows only short-lived amelioration of unscheduled bleeding. Treatment of menorrhagia with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial resection. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: a randomised trial. Randomized clinical trial of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and a depot GnRH analogue for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain in women with endometriosis. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device versus hysteroscopic endometrial resection in the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Clinical outcomes and costs with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: randomized trial 5-year follow-up. Randomised comparative trial of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and norethisterone for treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia.
Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) was compared with thermal balloon ablation (TBA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).
                A prospective randomized trial comparing the LNG-IUS (n=30 women) and TBA (n=28 women).
                Hemoglobin levels increased (p<.001) and blood loss was reduced (p<.001) in both groups after 1 year of treatment. Menstrual bleeding was less in the LNG-IUS group compared to the TBA group at 6 and 12 months of treatment (p=.035 and p=.048, respectively). Intermenstrual bleeding was significantly less in the TBA group at 6 months compared to the LNG-IUS group (p=.044); however, there was no significant difference at 12 months (p=.129). No difference was found in psychological aspects between pre- and posttreatment variables in either of the groups (p=.537).
                Both the LNG-IUS and TBA appear to be effective in controlling HMB; however, posttreatment uterine bleeding patterns are different.
                Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To compare the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena); Schering Co., Turku, Finland) and thermal balloon ablation (Thermachoice; Gynecare Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
                An open, pragmatic, prospective randomised trial.
                A menstrual disorders clinic at National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
                Seventy-nine women with heavy menstrual bleeding randomised to the LNG-IUS (40 women) or the thermal balloon ablation (39 women).
                Women were randomised to treatment with the LNG-IUS or thermal balloon ablation and followed up by a postal and telephone questionnaire.
                Menstrual loss measured by a pictorial bleeding assessment chart (PBAC) at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Patient satisfaction, quality of life and menstrual symptoms were assessed by questionnaire administered at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Treatment side effects and treatment failures were also recorded.
                Both the treatments resulted in a significant reduction in PBAC scores. At 12 and 24 months, median PBAC scores were significantly lower in women treated with the LNG-IUS compared with women treated by thermal balloon ablation (11.5 versus 60.0 at 12 months [P= 0.002]; 12.0 versus 56.5 [P= 0.002] at 24 months). At 24 months, nine (35%) women still using the LNG-IUS had amenorrhoea compared with one (5%) woman successfully treated by thermal balloon ablation (P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between two treatments during follow up. Treatment failed in 11 (28%) women using the LNG-IUS and in 10 (26%) women treated with thermal balloon ablation. Overall, women in both groups showed an increased quality of life as a result of the treatment, with Short Form-36 scores increasing from 63.7 at randomisation to 76.1 at 24 months.
                At 12 and 24 months of follow up, women with heavy menstrual bleeding treated with the LNG-IUS have significantly lower PBAC scores than women treated with thermal balloon ablation. Both the treatments resulted in a significant increase in overall quality of life, but there were no significant differences between either treatment in quality of life, patient satisfaction or the number of women requesting an alternative treatment during 24 months of follow up. To compare the efficacy of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with that of a low-dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) in reducing fibroid-related menorrhagia.
                In this single-center, open, randomized clinical trial, 58 women with menorrhagia who desired contraception were randomized to receive a LNG-IUS or COC. The outcomes included treatment failure, defined as the need for another treatment; menstrual blood loss (MBL) by the alkaline hematin method and a pictorial assessment chart (PBAC); hemoglobin levels; and "lost days."
                Treatment failed in 6 women (23.1%) in the LNG-IUS group and 11 (37.9%) in the COC group, for a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.17-1.17, P=0.101). Using the alkaline hematin test, the reduction of MBL was significantly greater in the LNG-IUS group (90.9% ± 12.8% vs 13.4% ± 11.1%; P<0.001). Using PBAC scores, the reduction was also significantly greater in the LNG-IUS group (88.0% ± 16.5% vs 53.5% ± 5 1.2%; P=0.02). Moreover, hemoglobin levels increased from 9.7 ± 1.9g/dL to 11.7 ± 1.2g/dL (P<0.001) and lost days decreased from 8.2 ± 3.3 days to 1.3 ± 1.5 days (P=0.003) in the LNG-IUS group.
                Although the rate of treatment failure was similar in both groups, the LNG-IUS was more effective in reducing MBL than the COC in women with fibroid-related menorrhagia.
                Copyright Â© 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a highly effective contraceptive. However, during early months of use unscheduled vaginal bleeding is common, sometimes leading to discontinuation. This study aimed to determine whether intermittent administration of progesterone receptor modulator CDB-2914 would suppress unscheduled bleeding during the first 4 months after insertion of the LNG-IUS.
                CDB-2914 150 mg, in divided doses, or placebo tablets, were administered over three consecutive days starting on Days 21, 49 and 77 after LNG-IUS insertion, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of women aged 19-49 years, newly starting use of LNG-IUS. Daily bleeding diaries were completed for 6 months, and summarized across blocks as percentage days bleeding/spotting (BS%).
                Of 69 women randomized to receive CDB-2914, and 67 placebo, 61 and 55, respectively, completed the trial. BS% decreased with time in both arms, but showed a much steeper treatment-phase gradient in the placebo arm (P < 0.0001), so that a benefit of CDB-2914 in the 28 days after first treatment (-11% points, 95% CI -19 to -2), converted to a disadvantage by 64 days after the third treatment (+10% points, 95% CI 1-18).
                The effect of CDB-2914 on BS% was initially beneficial but then by third treatment was disadvantageous. Nevertheless, only 3% (4/136) of all women discontinued LNG-IUS. These findings give insight into possible mechanisms and suggest future research directions. ISRCTN Trial no. ISRCTN58283041; EudraCT no. 2006-006511-72. Treatment of menorrhagia with levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) and transcervical resection.
                An open, therapeutic, randomized study.
                Central county hospital specializing in hysteroscopy.
                Two parallel groups of 30 subjects each.
                Thirty patients had a LNG IUS inserted within the first 7 days of menses; 29 patients underwent endometrial resection.
                A 12-month follow-up of menstrual blood loss and adverse events were evaluated.
                LNG IUS group: 13 patients reported one or more pelvic adverse events, bleeding disorders (n = 6), abdominal pain (n = 4), breast tenderness (n = 3), headache, acne (n = 2), and mood changes (n = 1). Six patients discontinued treatment because of irregular bleeding (n = 3), pain (n = 2), and acne (n = 1). In both groups, general feeling of genital health increased with Visual Analogue Scale score. Nine patients reported adverse events. This included pelvic pain indicating inflammation (n = 4), bleeding (n = 3), vaginitis (n = 1), and ulceration (n = 1). Treatment success at 12 months was achieved in 20 (67%) of the 30 patients in the LNG IUS group and in 26 (90%) of the 29 patients in the transcervical resection group. Adverse events were more often reported in the LNG IUS group.
                Both treatments effectively reduced the menstrual blood loss. Furthermore, the LNG IUS treatment is reversible and has no operative hazards. Heavy menstrual blood loss is a common reason for women to seek medical care. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) is an effective medical treatment for menorrhagia. We report a randomised comparison of this approach with hysterectomy in terms of the quality of life of women with menorrhagia and cost-effectiveness.
                Of 598 women referred with menorrhagia to five university hospitals in Finland, 236 were eligible and agreed to take part. They were randomly assigned treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS (n=119) or hysterectomy (n=117). The amount of menstrual blood loss was objectively measured. The primary outcome measure was health-related quality of life at 12-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat.
                In the group assigned the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS, 24 (20%) women had had hysterectomy and 81 (68%) continued to use the system at 12 months. Of the women assigned to the hysterectomy group, 107 underwent the operation. Health-related quality of life improved significantly in both the IUS and hysterectomy groups (change 0.10 [95% CI 0.06-0.14] in both groups) as did other indices of psychological wellbeing. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups except that women with hysterectomy suffered less pain. Overall costs were about three times higher for the hysterectomy group than for the IUS group.
                The significant improvement in health-related quality of life highlights the importance of treating menorrhagia. During the first year the levonorgestrel-releasing IUS was a cost-effective alternative to hysterectomy in treatment of this disorder. The objective of this multicentre randomized, controlled clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and a depot-GnRH-analogue in the control of endometriosis-related pain over a period of six months.
                Eighty-two women, 18 to 40 years of age (mean 30 years), with endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea and/or CPP, were randomized using a computer-generated system of sealed envelopes into either LNG-IUS (n = 39) or GnRH analogue (n = 43) treatment groups at three university centres. Daily scores of endometriosis-associated CPP were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), daily bleeding score was calculated from bleeding calendars, and improvement in quality of life was evaluated using the Psychological General Well-Being Index Questionnaire (PGWBI). The pain score diary was based on the VAS in which women recorded the occurrence and intensity of pain on a daily basis. A monthly score was calculated from the result of the sum of the daily scores divided by the number of days in each observation period.
                CPP decreased significantly from the first month throughout the six months of therapy with both forms of treatment and there was no difference between the groups (P > 0.999). In both treatment groups, women with stage III and IV endometriosis showed a more rapid improvement in the VAS pain score than women with stage I and II of the disease (P < 0.002). LNG-IUS users had a higher bleeding score than GnRH-analogue users at all time points of observation with 34% and 71% of patients in the LNG-IUS and GnRH-analogue groups, respectively, reporting no bleeding during the first treatment month, and 70% and 98% reporting no bleeding during the sixth month. No difference was observed between groups with reference to improvement in quality of life.
                Both, the LNG-IUS and the GnRH-analogue were effective in the treatment of CPP-associated endometriosis, although no differences were observed between the two treatments. Among the additional advantages of the LNG-IUS is the fact that it does not provoke hypoestrogenism and that it requires only one medical intervention for its introduction every 5 years. This device could therefore become the treatment of choice for CPP-associated endometriosis in women who do not wish to conceive. To compare the effect of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device with that of endometrial resection on menstrual bleeding, patient satisfaction, and quality of life in menorrhagic women during 12 months of follow-up.
                Seventy premenopausal women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding were enrolled in a prospective, open, parallel-group, controlled trial. They were randomized to either insertion of an intrauterine system releasing 20 micrograms/day of levonorgestrel (n = 35) or endometrial resection (n = 35). The women were evaluated at baseline, and thereafter, uterine bleeding was assessed monthly with a pictorial blood loss assessment chart. Clinical gynecologic examination was performed bimonthly, and the hematologic variables were measured at 6 and 12 months. On the latter occasion, the women were requested to rate the degree of satisfaction with the effect of their treatment and to complete the Short Form 36 General Health Survey questionnaire.
                Recurrent menorrhagia was observed at 12 months in four women in the intrauterine device group (including two with partial expulsion of the device) and in three women in the resection group. Compared with baseline values, at 1 year, the pictorial blood loss assessment chart score was reduced by 79% in the former group and by 89% in the latter. Amenorrhea or hypomenorrhea at 12 months was reported by 65% of the women with an intrauterine device compared with 71% who underwent endometrial resection. The degree of satisfaction with treatment was high in both groups, with 29 of 34 (85%) women being satisfied or very satisfied in the intrauterine device group versus 33 of 35 (94%) in the resection group. Health-related quality of life perception was not significantly different in the two treatment groups.
                Somewhat less satisfactory results were obtained with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared with endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding at 1 year of follow-up. Because menorrhagia is often a reason for seeking medical attention, it is important to consider outcomes and costs associated with alternative treatment modalities. Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and hysterectomy have proven effective for treatment of menorrhagia but there are no long-term comparative studies measuring cost and quality of life.
                To compare outcomes, quality-of-life issues, and costs of the LNG-IUS vs hysterectomy in the treatment of menorrhagia.
                Randomized controlled trial conducted between October 1, 1994, and October 6, 2002, and enrolling 236 women (mean [SD] age, 43 [3.4] years) referred to 5 university hospitals in Finland for complaints of menorrhagia.
                Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with the LNG-IUS (n = 119) or hysterectomy (n = 117) and were monitored for 5 years.
                Health-related quality of life (HRQL) as measured by the 5-Dimensional EuroQol and the RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, other measures of psychosocial well-being (anxiety, depression, and sexual function), and costs.
                After 5 years of follow-up, 232 women (99%) were analyzed for the primary outcomes. The 2 groups did not differ substantially in terms of HRQL or psychosocial well-being. Although 50 (42%) of the women assigned to the LNG-IUS group eventually underwent hysterectomy, the discounted direct and indirect costs in the LNG-IUS group (2817 dollars [95% confidence interval, 2222 dollars-3530 dollars] per participant) remained substantially lower than in the hysterectomy group (4660 dollars [95% confidence interval, 4014 dollars-5180 dollars]). Satisfaction with treatment was similar in both groups.
                By providing improvement in HRQL at relatively low cost, the LNG-IUS may offer a wider availability of choices for the patient and may decrease costs due to interventions involving surgery. To compare the efficacy and acceptability of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and norethisterone for the treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia.
                A randomised comparative parallel group study.
                Gynaecology outpatient clinic in a teaching hospital.
                Forty-four women with heavy regular periods and a measured menstrual blood loss exceeding 80 ml.
                Twenty-two women had a levonorgestrel intrauterine system inserted within the first seven days of menses, and 22 women received norethisterone (5 mg three times daily) from day 5 to day 26 of the cycle for three cycles.
                The main outcome measure was the change in objectively assessed menstrual blood loss after three months of treatment.
                When menstrual blood loss at three months was expressed as a percentage of the control, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system reduced menstrual blood loss by 94% (median reduction 103 ml; range 70 to 733 ml), and oral norethisterone by 87% (median reduction 95 ml; range 56 to 212 ml). After three cycles of treatment 76% of the women in the levonorgestrel intrauterine system group wished to continue with the treatment, compared with only 22% of the norethisterone group.
                Both the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and oral norethisterone in this regimen provided an effective treatment for menorrhagia in terms of reducing menstrual blood loss to within normal limits. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was associated with higher rates of satisfaction and continuation with treatment, and thus offers an effective alternative to currently available medical and surgical treatments for menorrhagia.
The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than cyclical norethisterone (for 21 days) as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Women with an LNG IUS are more satisfied and willing to continue with treatment but experience more side effects, such as intermenstrual bleeding and breast tenderness. 
The LNG IUS results in a smaller mean reduction in menstrual blood loss (as assessed by the PBAC chart) than endometrial ablation but there is no evidence of a difference in the rate of satisfaction with treatment. Women with an LNG IUS experience more progestogenic side effects compared to women having TCRE for treatment of their heavy menstrual bleeding but there is no evidence of a difference in their perceived quality of life. 
The LNG IUS treatment costs less than hysterectomy but there is no evidence of a difference in quality of life measures between these groups. 
There are no data available from randomised controlled trials comparing progesterone-releasing intrauterine systems to either placebo or other commonly used medical therapies for heavy menstrual bleeding.