A randomized trial comparing the 52-mg levonorgestrel system with combination oral contraceptives for treatment of...

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system and combined oral contraceptives are the 2 most commonly used nonsurgical treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding in the United States. However, there are limited data on their relative effectiveness and on their impact on bleeding-specific quality of life.

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system with that of combined oral contraceptives for improving quality of life among individuals who self-report heavy menstrual bleeding. We hypothesized that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system would be more effective than combined oral contraceptives at 6 and 12 months after treatment.

We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial of individuals who self-reported heavy menstrual bleeding. Individuals were eligible if they did not have contraindications to either the levonorgestrel intrauterine system or combined oral contraceptives and were determined to have a nonstructural cause of heavy menstrual bleeding. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system or a monophasic 30- or 35-μg ethinyl estradiol-containing combined oral contraceptive. The main outcome was mean change in bleeding-related quality of life, measured by the 20-question Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire (score range, 0-75) at 6 and 12 months. Differences in group means and confidence intervals for the Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire score were computed by multivariable linear mixed-effects regression; 24 participants per group were needed to detect a 10-point difference in change in mean Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire score between individuals treated with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and those treated with combined oral contraceptives at each follow-up time point.

A total of 62 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment (n=29 allocated to levonorgestrel intrauterine system and n=33 allocated to combined oral contraceptives) and included in the intention-to-treat analyses; 19 of 29 received the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and 31 of 33 received combined oral contraceptives. Eleven percent identified as Black or African American and 44% identified as Hispanic or Latina. Participant characteristics were similar among study groups. Bleeding-related quality of life increased in both study arms, as reflected by a significant decrease in Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire scores beginning at 6-week follow-up. In the main intention-to-treat analyses (n=62), there were no differences in mean change in Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire scores at 6 months (difference=-2.5; 95% confidence interval, -10.0 to +5.0) or 12 months (difference=-1.1; 95% confidence interval, -8.7 to +6.5). Findings were similar in the subsets of participants with any follow-up visits (n=52) and who completed all follow-up visits (n=42). In the per-protocol analyses (n=47), a significantly greater decrease in Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire score was observed in the levonorgestrel intrauterine system arm at 6 months after treatment (difference=-7.0; 95% confidence interval, -13.8 to -0.2) but not at 12 months (difference=-4.8; 95% confidence interval, -11.8 to 2.3) compared with the combined oral contraceptive arm.

No differences in change of bleeding-related quality of life were observed between the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and combined oral contraceptives at 6 or 12 months. Patients should be counseled that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and combined oral contraceptives are both effective options for improving bleeding-related quality of life.