Browsing by Subject "data linkage"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Association Between Intrauterine Device Type and Risk of Perforation and Device Expulsion: Results From the APEX-IUD Study
    (ScienceDirect, 2022) Gatz, Jennifer L.; Armstrong, Mary Anne; Postlethwaite, Debbie; Raine-Bennett, Tina; Chillemi, Giulia; Alabaster, Amy; Merchant, Maqdooda; Reed, Susan D.; Ichikawa, Laura; Getahun, Darios; Fassett, Michael J.; Shi, Jiaxiao M.; Xie, Fagen; Chiu, Vicki Y.; Im, Theresa M.; Takhar, Harpreet S.; Wang, Jinyi; Saltus, Catherine W.; Ritchey, Mary E.; Asiimwe, Alex; Pisa, Federica; Schoendorf, Juliane; Wahdan, Yesmean; Zhou, Xiaolei; Hunter, Shannon; Anthony, Mary S.; Peipert, Jeffrey F.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. Study Design The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente–integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. Results Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53–1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13–0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44–0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63–14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44–14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24–2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40–4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18–2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56–5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25–1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65–0.73) for expulsion. Conclusion After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Association Between Menorrhagia and Risk of Intrauterine Device-Related Uterine Perforation and Device Expulsion: Results from the APEX-IUD Study
    (ScienceDirect, 2022) Getahun, Darios; Fassett, Michael J.; Gatz, Jennifer; Armstrong, Mary Anne; Peipert, Jeffrey F.; Raine-Bennett, Tina; Reed, Susan D.; Zhou, Xiaolei; Schoendorf, Juliane; Postlethwaite, Debbie; Shi, Jiaxiao M.; Saltus, Catherine W.; Wang, Jinyi; Xie, Fagen; Chiu, Vicki Y.; Merchant, Maqdooda; Alabaster, Amy; Ichikawa, Laura E.; Hunter, Shannon; Im, Theresa M.; Takhar, Harpreet S.; Ritchey, Mary E.; Chillemi, Giulia; Pisa, Federica; Asiimwe, Alex; Anthony, Mary S.; Regenstrief Institute, School of Medicine
    Background Intrauterine devices are effective contraception, and one levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). Objective To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the 12 months before device insertion. Study Design Retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States, using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (e.g., levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001–2018 without a delivery in the prior 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (i.e., recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Study outcomes—device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial)—were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in data sources. Cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. Results Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with vs. without a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device expulsion rate (40.01 vs. 10.92 per 1,000 person-years), especially evident in the few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70%, 7.32%] at 1 year, 12.03% [11.52%, 12.55%] at 5 years) vs. without (1.77% [1.70%, 1.84%] at 1 year, 3.69% [3.56%, 3.83%] at 5 years). Risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs. without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval: 2.66, 3.03]). Perforation rate was low overall (<1/1,000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs. without (0.98 vs. 0.63 per 1,000 person-years). Cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06%, 0.14%] at 1 year, 0.39% [0.29%, 0.53%] at 5 years) vs. without (0.07% [0.06%, 0.08%], at 1 year, 0.28% [0.24%, 0.33%] at 5 years). Risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs. without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10, 2.13). Conclusion The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. Increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely due to causal factors of menorrhagia.