Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in reducing risk of ovarian cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ovarian carcinoma (OC) is one of the most widespread tumors in the world and is characterized by low survival rates.

Objective

To determine whether the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) can prevent OC.

Search strategy

The literature until December 2020 were systematically reviewed according to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42019137957).

Selection criteria

Studies assessing the impact of LNG-IUS on the risk of OC were included.

Data collection and analysis

Data were extracted independently by two authors to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Main results

A total of 34 323 records were obtained, of which three satisfied the inclusion criteria. In total, 1687 events of OC in a population of 20 461 311 person-years were considered. Data pooling revealed that the use of LNG-IUS did not confer a lower risk of OC relative to the never-use of LNG-IUS, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.41-1.08; I² = 84%; P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The meta-analysis did not demonstrate a preventive role of LNG-IUS on OC. However, it was carried out on a few papers, and a definitive conclusion on the topic still cannot be drawn. Further studies are indicated in the future to define the impact of LNG-IUS on OC. The meta-analysis carried out on three papers did not demonstrate a preventive role of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device on ovarian cancer.

SUBMITTER: D'Alessandro G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9290617 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in reducing risk of ovarian cancer.

D'Alessandro Gloria G Frigerio Matteo M Barra Fabio F Costantini Sergio S Gustavino Claudio C Ferrero Simone S

International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 20210608 3

<h4>Background</h4>Ovarian carcinoma (OC) is one of the most widespread tumors in the world and is characterized by low survival rates.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) can prevent OC.<h4>Search strategy</h4>The literature until December 2020 were systematically reviewed according to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42019137957).<h4>Selection criteria</h4>Studies assessing the impact of LNG-IUS on ...[more]

PMID: 33969485

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsAn 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.InterpretationLNG-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.FundingThe 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).

Project description:ObjectivesLevonorgestrel intrauterine sustained release system (LNG-IUS) is an intrauterine hormonal contraceptive device. Breast cancer (BC) was the most common type of cancer in women in the world in 2020. The relationship between LNG-IUS and BC is controversial. We conducted an updated meta-analysis (larger sample capacity and including Asian data) to explore whether LNG-IUS can increase the risk of BC.Study designWe performed a thorough review of peer-reviewed publications from January 2005 through November 2022 using combinations of search terms for BC risk and LNG-IUS in the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases. Studies reporting BC risk estimates among users of LNG-IUS were included according to the PRISMA criteria. Two authors independently evaluated all studies identified from the databases using Endnote software, and a third author resolved disagreements. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale (NOS). A funnel plot was generated to assess publication bias.ResultsWe identified 3029 studies; 12 studies were included in our systematic review, and 6 studies involving 261,221 women were included in our meta-analysis. Two subgroup analyses were performed for different study designs. A total of 190,475 women were included in the meta-analysis of cohort studies, and the results were RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.57-1.11, Z = 1.33, P = 0.18 > 0.05). The meta-analysis of the case‒control studies included 70,746 women, and the results were OR = 1.38 (95% CI 0.98-1.94, Z = 1.85, P = 0.06 > 0.05).ConclusionsEvidence of an increased risk of BC was not observed among LNG-IUS users.ImplicationsThere are inconsistencies in existing studies that prevent us from confirming whether LNG-IUS can increase the risk of BC. Our updated meta-analysis preliminarily suggested that LNG-IUS did not increase the risk of BC, providing evidence for more clinically safe use and thus providing a better choice for contraception.

Project description:AimsTo compare efficacy and safety of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with systemic medication or blank control in the treatment of dysmenorrhea.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LNG-IUS with systemic medication or blank control among women diagnosed with primary dysmenorrhea or secondary dysmenorrhea (adenomyosis or endometriosis) from inception to 2020.04. Der Simonian-Laird random-effect model was used to pool data.ResultsSeventy-one RCTs (6551 patients) were included. Overall bias risk was medium. Sixty-two articles enrolled patients with adenomyosis; LNG-IUS significantly reduced the visual analogue scale (VAS) score compared with the systemic medication group among adenomyosis women at 3 months (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to -0.40); 6 months (SMD = -1.25, 95%CI: -1.58 to -0.92); 9 months (SMD = -1.23, 95%CI: -1.63 to -0.83); 12 months (SMD = -1.66, 95%CI: -2.14 to -1.18). No difference was found in the incidence of irregular vaginal bleeding (16 RCTs; RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62-1.33, P = 0.63, I 2 = 4%) and other adverse outcomes. Sensitivity analysis regarding randomization methods was robust. Nine RCTs enrolled endometriosis women. Pooling results showed no significant difference between LNG-IUS and systemic medication treatment in terms of VAS at 6 months (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI: -0.97-0.43). Moreover, LNG-IUS was associated with higher risk of irregular vaginal bleeding (26.8% vs. 0).ConclusionsLNG-IUS was associated with a reduced severity of dysmenorrhea compared with systemic medication; it was also beneficial for better control of menstrual blood loss and fewer adverse outcomes. Owing to small sample sizes, further well-designed RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and long-term effects of LNG-IUS in the treatment of dysmenorrhea.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021228343.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.DesignMeta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction.Data sourcesData were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment.ResultsAt around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis.ConclusionsMore women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding affects as many as one in three women and has negative physical, economic, and psychosocial impacts including activity limitations and reduced quality of life. The goal of treatment is to make menstruation manageable, and options include medical therapy or surgery such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. This review examined the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) as a treatment alternative for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence comparing LNG-IUS with usual medical therapy, endometrial ablation, or hysterectomy. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination were searched from inception to August 2015. The quality of the evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LNG-IUS compared with endometrial ablation and with hysterectomy. The economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.ResultsRelevant systematic reviews (n = 18) returned from the literature search were used to identify eligible randomized controlled trials, and 16 trials were included. The LNG-IUS improved quality of life and reduced menstrual blood loss better than usual medical therapy. There was no evidence of a significant difference in these outcomes compared with the improvements offered by endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Mild hormonal side effects were the most commonly reported. The quality of the evidence varied from very low to moderate across outcomes. Results from the economic evaluation showed the LNG-IUS was less costly (incremental saving of $372 per person) and more effective providing higher quality-adjusted life years (incremental value of 0.05) compared with endometrial ablation. Similarly, the LNG-IUS costs less (incremental saving of $3,138 per person) and yields higher quality-adjusted life-years (incremental value of 0.04) compared with hysterectomy. Publicly funding LNG-IUS as an alternative to endometrial ablation and hysterectomy would result in annual cost savings of $3 million to $9 million and $0.1 million to $23 million, respectively, over the first 5 years.ConclusionsThe 52-mg LNG-IUS is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. It improves quality of life and menstrual blood loss, and is well tolerated compared with endometrial ablation, hysterectomy, or usual medical therapies.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in reducing risk of ovarian cancer.

Background

Objective

Search strategy

Selection criteria

Data collection and analysis

Main results

Conclusion

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in reducing risk of ovarian cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets