Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The Kyleena™ Satisfaction Study (KYSS) provided the first data on 19.5 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS-19.5 mg) use in routine clinical practice. Here we report results from the German participants in KYSS. Methods This prospective, observational, single-arm cohort study recruited women who independently chose to use LNG-IUS-19.5 mg during routine counseling in Germany. Overall satisfaction and bleeding profile satisfaction, continuation rates, and safety profile were evaluated at 12 months or premature end of observation (EoO). Results In the German study population, LNG-IUS-19.5 mg placement was attempted in 508 women and successful in 506 women. Mean age was 32.3 years, and 60.0% (n = 305/508) were parous. Placement was considered easy and associated with no more than mild pain, even in younger and nulliparous participants. Of those with satisfaction data available, 87.6% (n = 388/443) were satisfied with LNG-IUS-19.5 mg at 12 months/EoO. Satisfaction was similar for parous (86.9%, n = 238/274) and nulliparous (88.8%, n = 150/169) women, and was independent of age, prior contraceptive method, or reason for choosing LNG-IUS-19.5 mg. Most participants (73.6%, n = 299/406) were also satisfied with their bleeding profile at 12 months/EoO, independent of parity, age, prior contraceptive method, presence of amenorrhea or dysmenorrhea severity. The 12-month continuation rate was 84.1% (n = 427/508). Most discontinuations were due to loss to follow-up (8.5%, n = 43/508) or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (4.7%, n = 24/508). TEAEs were reported in 12.6% (n = 64) of participants, with 9.3% (n = 47) considered to have an LNG-IUS-19.5 mg-related TEAE. Conclusion Our real-world findings on LNG-IUS-19.5 mg use in German KYSS participants reflected its suitability for a broad population, including young and nulliparous women. Clinical trial registration NCT03182140 (date of registration: June 2017).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Römer et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: