Objective
Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) and copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) offer long-acting contraception; however, some women may discontinue use within the first year due to bleeding pattern changes, limiting their potential. This systematic literature review investigated whether differences in bleeding profiles influence continuation rates in women in America, Europe and Australia.
Methods
Searches performed in PubMed and Embase were screened to identify publications describing bleeding patterns and rates of early IUC removal/discontinuation or continuation, descriptions of bleeding patterns, reasons for discontinuation, and patient satisfaction, acceptability and tolerability for LNG-IUDs and Cu-IUDs published between January 2010 and December 2019. The results were further restricted to capture citations related to ‘Humans’ and ‘Females’. The review was limited to studies published from 2010 onwards, as changing attitudes over time mean that results of studies performed before this date may not be generalizable to current practice.
Results
Forty-eight publications describing 41 studies performed principally in the USA (n = 17) and Europe (n = 13) were identified. Publications describing bleeding patterns in LNG-IUD users (n = 11) consistently observed a reduction in bleeding in most women, whereas two of three studies in Cu-IUD users reported heavy bleeding in approximately 40% of patients. Rates of discontinuation for both devices ranged widely and may be as high as 50% but were lower for LNG-IUDs versus Cu-IUDs. Discontinuation rates due to bleeding were consistently higher for Cu-IUDs versus LNG-IUDs.
Conclusions
Bleeding is a common reason for discontinuation of Cu-IUDs and LNG-IUDs. The more favourable bleeding pattern observed in LNG-IUD users may be associated with a lower rate of early discontinuation of LNG-IUDs versus Cu-IUDs.
Background
Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPaC) has a poor prognosis and available treatments provide only moderate improvements in survival. Preserving or improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is therefore an important treatment outcome for patients with mPaC. This systematic review identified HRQoL data in patients with mPaC before and after treatment, compared these with data from the general population, and reported the effects of different mPaC treatments on HRQoL.
Methods
Searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from January 2008 to May 2021, and the articles identified were screened for HRQoL data in patients with mPaC. Abstracts from relevant congresses were also manually searched. Publications included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies written in English that reported HRQoL data for adult patients with non-resectable mPaC who were on or off treatment.
Results
Thirty relevant publications were identified and HRQoL scores were collected. Overall, baseline mean scores from the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), 5-dimension EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) for newly diagnosed and previously treated patients with mPaC were worse than those of the general population. Baseline scores were generally better for previously treated patients than for newly diagnosed patients, indicating that mPaC treatments preserve or improve HRQoL. Identified publications also reported changes in HRQoL following first- or subsequent-line chemotherapy. When reported, 10 studies found improvements in overall HRQoL compared with baseline scores, four reported no changes in overall HRQoL after treatment, and six found deteriorations in overall HRQoL.
Conclusion
Patients with mPaC had worse HRQoL than the general population. Available anti-cancer therapies can improve or preserve HRQoL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.