Experiences of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device for heavy menstrual bleeding: Device discontinuation rates and reasons for discontinuation among users at a regional hospital in the Western Cape - A seven-year review

Main Article Content

A Swanepoel
T D Leong
T Esterhuizen
G S Gebhardt

Abstract




Background. Medical management for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in low- and middle-income countries is limited. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) as first-line management for HMB. However, since 2019, South Africa’s (SA) Essential Medicines List (EML) guidelines have listed it as the last medical treatment option in the public health sector. An economic analysis conducted from a payer’s perspective found the LNG-IUD dominant at 5 years and more cost-effective at 1 year than other medical treatment options. However, it would no longer be dominant if the 5-year discontinuation rate exceeded 40%. Assumptions about continuation rates of the LNG-IUD for HMB were made, as no local SA data are available.


Objectives. To assess the discontinuation rate of the LNG-IUD for HMB after 1 year and explore the reasons for discontinuation.


Methods. This was a retrospective, folder-based study of patients who received the LNG-IUD for HMB at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, SA between 2014 and 2020.


Results. The hospital records of all women who received the LNG-IUD were reviewed. Incomplete records, duplications or prescriptions for contraception were excluded. Complete records were available for 100 patients, of whom 68 reported symptom improvement after 1 year and continued use. Thirty-two patients discontinued use, of whom eight experienced spontaneous expulsions and 24 requested removals. Reasons for discontinuation included ongoing symptoms (n=18), adverse effects (n=4) and the desire for fertility (n=2). Fourteen of the 24 patients who requested removal had a hysterectomy. The study showed a 68% continuation rate for the LNG-IUD, which is lower than in higher-income countries (82 - 88%). This rate is considered sufficient to endorse the affordability of LNG-IUD for HMB over 5 years.


Conclusion. Offering LNG-IUD as the primary treatment may potentially improve the continuation rate. Further research is needed to assess the feasibility of recommending LNG-IUD as the first-line treatment in national policy, following patient discussion.




Article Details

How to Cite
Experiences of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device for heavy menstrual bleeding: Device discontinuation rates and reasons for discontinuation among users at a regional hospital in the Western Cape - A seven-year review. (2024). Southern African Journal of Public Health, 7(3), e2007. https://doi.org/10.7196/SHS.2024.v7.i3.2007
Section
Original Articles
Author Biographies

A Swanepoel, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

Specialist, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

T Esterhuizen, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

How to Cite

Experiences of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device for heavy menstrual bleeding: Device discontinuation rates and reasons for discontinuation among users at a regional hospital in the Western Cape - A seven-year review. (2024). Southern African Journal of Public Health, 7(3), e2007. https://doi.org/10.7196/SHS.2024.v7.i3.2007

References

1. Harlow SD, Campbell OMR. Epidemiology of menstrual disorders in developing countries: A systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111(1):6-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-0528.2004.00012.x

2. Miot J. LNG-IUD- health economics and budget impact analysis. Department of Health: South Africa; 2018:07-20. https://www.knowledgehub.org.za/system/files/ elibdownloads/2020- 07/LNG-IUD%20_EconomicEvaluationReport_1December2018.pdf (accessed 13 July 2023).

3. Joo JK, Shin JH, Lee JR, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use in perimenopausal women. J Menopausal Med 2021;27(2):49-57. https://doi.org/10.6118/ jmm.20038

4. Luukkainen T, Toivonen J. Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a method of contraception with therapeutic properties. Contracep 1995;52(5):269-276. https://doi.org/10.1097/ aog.0000000000005466

5. Bayer. Mirena® IUD Effectiveness. Mirena US. https://www.mirena-us.com/about-mirena/ mirena-effectiveness/ (accessed 10 January 2022).

6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Heavy menstrual bleeding: assessment and management | Guidance | NICE. NICE; 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng88 (accessed 18 August 2023)

7. Chen BA, Eisenberg DL, Schreiber CA, et al. Bleeding changes after levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system insertion for contraception in women with self-reported heavy menstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;S888(e1-S888.e6). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1288

8. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa | South African Government. 1996.

https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-1

9. National Department of Health. HTA Methods Guide, September 2023. https://

knowledgehub.health.gov.za/ (accessed September 2024).

10. National Department of Health. Adult Hospital Medicine review: LNG-IUS for endometriosis. 2015. https://www.knowledgehub.org.za/ (accessed)

11. Department of Health. Hospital-Level (Adults) Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List 2nd Edition - 2019: Department of Health Knowledge Hub. 2019 https://knowledgehub.health.gov.za/elibrary/hospital-level-adults-standard-treatment- guidelines-and-essential-medicines-list-2nd (accessed 20 June 2023).

12. Andersson JK, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97(8):690-694. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb16240.x

13. Berenson AB, Tan A, Hirth JM. Complications and continuation rates associated with 2 types of long-acting contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212(6):761.e1-761.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.028

14. Saloranta TH, Gyllenberg FK, But A, et al. Free-of-charge long-acting reversible contraception: Two-year discontinuation, its risk factors, and reasons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223(6):886.e1-886.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.023

15. Bachofner M, Blickenstorfer K, Hutmacher J, et al. Intrauterine device continuation rates and reasons for discontinuation in a Central European clinic with a high standard of care and ultrasound follow-up: A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Contracept; Reprod Health Care 2018;23(6):407-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2018.1539164

16. Harada T, Ota I, Kitawaki J, et al. Real-world outcomes of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding or dysmenorrhea in Japanese patients: A prospective observational study (J-MIRAI). Contracep 2022;116:22-28. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.contraception.2022.08.006

17. Beelen P, Den BMJ, Herman MC, et al. Predictive factors for failure of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. BMC Women’s Health 2021;9:21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01210-x

18. Brull E, Machado HC, Bahamondes L, Juliato CRT. Expulsion and continuation rates of the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system was similar among nulligravid and parous users. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet 2022;158(2):318-324. https://doi. org/10.1002/ijgo.13998

19. Miranda L, de SMH, Faundes A, Juliato C. Continuation rates of the 52-mg levonorgestrel- releasing intrauterine system according to the primary reason for its use. Rev Bras Ginecol E Obstetrícia 2021;43:291-296. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726056

20. Todd CS, Jones HE, Langwenya N, et al. Safety and continued use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system as compared with the copper intrauterine device among women living with HIV in South Africa: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 2020;17(5):e1003110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003110

21. Danna K, Jaworski G, Rahaivondrafahitra B, et al. Introducing the hormonal intrauterine device in Madagascar, Nigeria, and Zambia: Results from a pilot study. Reprod Health 2022;19(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01300-x

22. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Broder MS, Fraser IS, FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011;113(1):3- 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011

23. Brull E, Machado HC, Bahamondes L, Juliato CRT. Expulsion and continuation rates of the 52mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system in adolescents and adult women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care Off J Eur Soc Contracept 2023;28(4):210-215. https://doi. org/10.1080/13625187.2023.2215366

24. Lethaby A, Hussain M, Rishworth JR, Rees MC. Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(4):CD002126. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub3

25. Bhattacharya S, Middleton LJ, Tsourapas A, et al. Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl 2011;15(19):iii–xvi, 1-252. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20173145