-
BMC Oral Health Dec 2021Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic...
BACKGROUND
Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors' declaration on conflict of interest.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Case-Control Studies; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34961495
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-02020-1 -
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Oct 2021Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.
METHODS
We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Methamphetamine; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34635170
DOI: 10.1186/s13722-021-00266-2 -
The Oncologist 2013CD30(+) lymphoproliferative disorders represent a spectrum of diseases with distinct clinical phenotypes ranging from reactive conditions to aggressive systemic... (Review)
Review
CD30(+) lymphoproliferative disorders represent a spectrum of diseases with distinct clinical phenotypes ranging from reactive conditions to aggressive systemic anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)(-) anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). In January 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a possible association between breast implants and ALCL, which was likened to systemic ALCL and treated accordingly. We analyzed existing data to see if implant-associated ALCL (iALCL) may represent a distinct entity, different from aggressive ALCL. We conducted a systematic review of publications regarding ALCL and breast implantation for 1990-2012 and contacted corresponding authors to obtain long-term follow-up where available. We identified 44 unique cases of iALCL, the majority of which were associated with seroma, had an ALK(-) phenotype (97%), and had a good prognosis, different from the expected 40% 5-year survival rate of patients with ALK(-) nodal ALCL (one case remitted spontaneously following implant removal; only two deaths have been reported to the FDA or in the scientific literature since 1990). The majority of these patients received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone with or without radiation, but radiation alone also resulted in complete clinical responses. It appears that iALCL demonstrates a strong association with breast implants, a waxing and waning course, and an overall good prognosis, with morphology, cytokine profile, and biological behavior similar to those of primary cutaneous ALCL. Taken together, these data are suggestive that iALCL may start as a reactive process with the potential to progress and acquire an aggressive phenotype typical of its systemic counterpart. A larger analysis and prospective evaluation and follow-up of iALCL patients are necessary to definitively resolve the issue of the natural course of the disease and best therapeutic approaches for these patients.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Implantation; Female; Humans; Ki-1 Antigen; Lymphoma, Large-Cell, Anaplastic; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Middle Aged
PubMed: 23429741
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0238 -
EuroIntervention : Journal of EuroPCR... Jun 2016Several studies have suggested good procedural and similar clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable stents (BRS) versus conventional... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Several studies have suggested good procedural and similar clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable stents (BRS) versus conventional drug-eluting stents (DES), but the evidence is not definitive. Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of BRS versus conventional drug-eluting and bare metallic stents on the cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality.
METHODS AND RESULTS
The follow-up in the included studies was up to 13 months. The following endpoints were evaluated: all-cause mortality, cardiac death, patient-oriented major adverse cardiac events (POCE), device-oriented major adverse cardiac events (DOCE), any-cause myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI (TVMI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The results of 10 studies with 5,773 subjects showed a statistically significant increase in the risk of TVMI between BRS and conventional stents (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.05, p=0.032). None of the other differences reached statistical significance: all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30-1.49, p=0.333), cardiac death (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.47-2.12, p=0.996), POCE (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.22, p=0.546), DOCE (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86-1.46, p=0.387), any-cause MI (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.98-1.82, p=0.064), TVR (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.73-1.33, p=0.934) and TLR (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.29, p=0.641). Similar results were observed after restricting the meta-analysis to the comparison of BRS vs. EES.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests a significantly higher risk of TVMI with BRS compared with conventional stents and no significant differences in the rates of occurrence of the other outcomes during one-year follow-up. Further studies with larger samples sizes, longer follow-up, different clinical scenarios and more complex lesions are required to confirm or refute our findings.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Thrombosis; Drug-Eluting Stents; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27290677
DOI: 10.4244/EIJY16M06_02 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the implant level and 24% at the patient level. The benefits of adjuvant metronidazole are controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs according to PRISMA and PICOS was performed with an electronic search over the last 10 years in MEDLINE (PubMed), WOS, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.4.1, based on mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals; the random-effects model was selected, and the threshold for statistical significance was defined as < 0.05. A total of 38 studies were collected and five were selected. Finally, one of the studies was eliminated because of unanalyzable results. All studies reached a high methodological quality. A total of 289 patients were studied with follow-up periods from 2 weeks to 1 year. Statistical significance was only found, with respect to the use of adjunctive metronidazole, in the pooled analysis of the studies ( = 0.02) and in the analysis of the radiographic values reported on peri-implant marginal bone levels, in the studies with a 3-month follow-up ( = 0.03). Discrepancies in the use of systemic metronidazole require long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the role of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Bias
PubMed: 37287463
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1149055 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2007To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant carmustine wafers (BCNU-W) and also of adjuvant and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ), compared with surgery with... (Review)
Review
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant carmustine wafers (BCNU-W) and also of adjuvant and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ), compared with surgery with radiotherapy.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched up to August 2005.
REVIEW METHODS
Included trials were critically appraised for key elements of internal and external validity. Relevant data were extracted and a narrative synthesis of the evidence produced. Where possible, data on absolute survival at a fixed time point were meta-analysed using a random effects model. A Markov (state transition) model was developed to assess the cost-utility of the two interventions. The model compared BCNU-W or TMZ separately with current standard treatment with surgery and radiotherapy. The simulated cohort had a mean age of 55 years and was modelled over 5 years.
RESULTS
Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 32, n = 240) and two observational studies of BCNU-W compared with placebo wafers as adjuvant therapy to surgery and radiotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade glioma were identified. All the studies were in adults and provided data on 193 patients who had received BCNU-W. The RCT findings excluded under 65-year-olds and those with a Karnofsky Performance Status of less than 60. The largest multi-centre RCT suggested a possible survival advantage with BCNU-W among a cohort of patients with grade III and IV tumours, adding a median of 2.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.5 to 5.1]. However, analysis using per-protocol, unstratified methods shows this difference to be not statistically significant (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.03, p = 0.08). Long-term follow-up suggests a significant survival advantage using unstratified analysis. No difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was demonstrated. Subgroup analysis of those with grade IV tumours also showed no significant survival advantage with BCNU-W [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.11, p = 0.20, unstratified analysis]. It is estimated that the cost of surgery and radiotherapy, with follow-up, treatment of adverse effects and end of life care is around 17,000 pounds per patient. Treatment with BCNU-W adds an additional 6600 pounds. Across the modelled cohort of 1000 patients, use of BCNU-W costs an additional 6.6 million pounds and confers an additional 122 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). On average, that is 6600 pounds per patient for 0.122 QALYs (6.3 quality-adjusted life-weeks). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 54,500 pounds/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, BCNU-W was not cost-effective in 89% of the simulations assuming a willingness to pay threshold of 30,000 pounds/QALY. In 15% of simulations, BCNU-W was dominated (i.e. did more harm than good, conferring fewer QALYs at greater cost). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) suggests that it is very unlikely to be the most cost-effective option at normal levels of willingness to pay (11% probability at 30,000 pounds/QALY), only becoming likely to be the most cost-effective option at much higher levels of willingness to pay (50% probability at 55,000 pounds/QALY). Two RCTs (n = 130, n = 573) and two observational studies were included, giving evidence for 429 adult patients receiving TMZ. Currently, TMZ is licensed for use in those with newly diagnosed grade IV gliomas only. The RCTs excluded those with lower performance status and, in the larger RCT, those older than 70 years. TMZ provides a small but statistically significant median survival benefit of 2.5 months (95% CI 2.0 to 3.8), giving an HR of 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.75, p < 0.001). At 2 years, 26.5% of patients treated with TMZ were alive compared with 10.4% of those in the control arm. Median PFS is also enhanced with TMZ, giving a median 1.9 months' advantage (95% CI 1.4 to 2.7, p < 0.001). No analysis of the subgroup of patients with confirmed grade IV tumours was undertaken. Subgroup analysis of patients by O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) activity showed a significant treatment advantage for those with reduced MGMT activity but not for those with normal activity, although this analysis was based on a selected sample of patients and the test used has proved difficult to replicate. A median gain of 6.4 (95% CI 4.4 to 9.5) more life-months is seen with TMZ among those with reduced MGMT, giving an HR of 0.51 (p < 0.007). PFS is increased by a median of 4.4 months (95% CI 1.2 to 6.3), giving an HR of 0.48 (p = 0.001). The model shows a cost per patient for being treated with surgery, radiotherapy and including adverse effects of treatment and end of life care of around 17,000 pounds per patient. TMZ in the adjuvant and concomitant phase adds an additional cost of around 7800 pounds. Across the modelled cohort of 1000 patients, use of TMZ costs an additional 7.8 million pounds and confers an additional 217 QALYs. For the average patient this is 7800 pounds for an additional 0.217 QALYs (11 quality-adjusted life-weeks). The base-case ICER is 36,000 pounds/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses shows that TMZ was not cost-effective in 77% of the simulations. The CEAC suggests that there is a 23% chance that TMZ is the most cost-effective option at a willingness to pay level of 30,000 pounds/QALY, rising to be more cost-effective than no TMZ at slightly higher levels (50% probability at 35,000 pounds/QALY).
CONCLUSIONS
BCNU-W has not been proven to confer a significant advantage in survival for patients with grade III tumours when treated with the drug, compared with placebo. There does not appear to be a survival advantage for patients with grade IV tumours. No increase in PFS has been shown. Limited evidence suggests a small but significant advantage in both overall survival and PFS with TMZ among a mixed population with grade IV and grade III (7-8%) tumours. However, it remains unclear whether this is true in grade IV tumours alone. On the basis of best available evidence, the authors consider that neither BCNU-W nor TMZ is likely to be considered cost-effective by NHS decision-makers. However, data for the model were drawn from limited evidence of variable quality. Tumour type is clearly important in assessing patient prognosis with different treatments. Grade IV tumours are commonest and appear to have least chance of response. There were too few grade III tumours included to carry out a formal assessment, but they appear to respond better and drive results for both drugs. Future use of genetic and biomarkers may help identify subtypes which will respond, but current licensing indications do not specify these. Further research is suggested into the effectiveness of these drugs, and also into areas such as genetic markers, chemotherapy regimens, patient and carer quality of life, and patient views on survival advantages vs treatment disadvantages.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Brain Neoplasms; Carmustine; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dacarbazine; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Implants; Female; Glioma; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Econometric; Neoplasm Staging; Quality of Life; Temozolomide
PubMed: 17999840
DOI: 10.3310/hta11450 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jan 2019Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
BACKGROUND
Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
OBJECTIVES
To review the contraceptive efficacy during extended use of progestin implants.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles in any language, 1996-2017, utilizing terms for devices and contraceptive efficacy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies were included; abstracts, posters, and presentations were excluded. Studies evaluating Norplant and implants currently in pre-marketing trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Titles and abstracts of articles were reviewed; those that met inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent full text review and data abstraction.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 2951 articles; six met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated the etonogestrel implant (Implanon), and one the levonorgestrel implant (Jadelle). One RCT randomized to method, not duration; the remaining studies were prospective cohort studies. Three studies analyzed efficacy among women beyond currently approved duration separately. All studies were of poor to fair quality by United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPTF) grading. Limitations include lack of generalizability and control of important confounders.
CONCLUSION
These studies provide limited data for extended duration of contraceptive implants.
Topics: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Desogestrel; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30343503
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12696 -
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics Dec 2011Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that blocks the reinforcing effects of opioids and reduces alcohol consumption and craving. It has no abuse potential, mild... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that blocks the reinforcing effects of opioids and reduces alcohol consumption and craving. It has no abuse potential, mild and transient side effects, and thus appears an ideal pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence. Its effectiveness in alcohol dependence is less evident, but compliance with naltrexone combined with psychosocial support has been repeatedly shown to improve drinking outcomes. Limited compliance with oral naltrexone treatment is a known drawback. Several naltrexone implant and injectable depot formulations are being investigated and provide naltrexone release for at least 1 month. Studies among opioid-dependent patients indicate significant reductions in heroin use, but sample sizes are usually small. In alcohol dependence, two large multicenter trials report alcohol and craving reductions for naltrexone and placebo groups, indicating a significant but moderate effect. The pharmacokinetic profile of the injectable formulation indicates reliable naltrexone release over 1 month at therapeutic levels. Implant formulations releasing naltrexone up to 7 months are reported. Findings on safety and tolerability confirm the generally mild adverse effects described for naltrexone tablets. However, further research on therapeutic levels (i.e., opioid blocking) is warranted. The majority of naltrexone implants lacks approval for regular clinical use and larger longitudinal studies are needed. The available naltrexone depot formulations have the potential to significantly improve medication compliance in opioid and alcohol dependence. In certain circumstances, they may constitute a promising new treatment option.
Topics: Alcoholism; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Implants; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21554565
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2010.00194.x -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.
METHODS
This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.
RESULTS
Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.
DISCUSSION
Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Glucocorticoids; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 38586457
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1342530 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Implantable methods of contraception offer long-acting reversible contraception. Their uptake rate in comparison to other contraceptive methods, particularly in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implantable methods of contraception offer long-acting reversible contraception. Their uptake rate in comparison to other contraceptive methods, particularly in developed countries, has historically been low.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the contraceptive effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of subdermal implants in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Literature were identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the contraceptive field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and controlled trials comparing subdermal implants with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. Primary outcomes were pregnancy and continuation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors. Study authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to provide additional data.Data were collected on pregnancy rates, continuation, side effects and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
All nine identified trials compared different types of contraceptive implant. Eight, involving 1578 women, compared Implanon with Norplant , and one, involving 1198 women, compared Jadelle with Norplant. There was no difference between Implanon and Norplant for contraceptive effectiveness rates or continuation over 4 years. Both were highly effective methods of contraception with no pregnancies occurring in any of the trials during 26,972 and 28,108 women months of follow up respectively. The most common side-effect with Implanon and Norplant was changes in bleeding pattern. The pattern with Implanon was initially more variable, bleeding with both implants became less frequent with duration of use. After two years use the amenorrhoea rate was significantly higher with Implanon. The trials reported no significant difference in hormonal side-effects or adverse events. Implanon was significantly quicker to insert and remove than Norplant. There was no difference in contraceptive effectiveness and in continuation rates between Jadelle and Norplant. Jadelle was significantly quicker to remove than Norplant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Implanon, Norplant and Jadelle are highly effective contraceptive methods. No significant differences were found in contraceptive effectiveness or continuation. The most common side-effect with all implants was unpredictable vaginal bleeding. Time taken for removal of Implanon and Jadelle was less than that for Norplant.Although this systematic review was unable to provide a definitive answer on relative effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of contraceptive implants in comparison to other contraceptive methods, it has raised issues around the conduct of contraceptive research.
Topics: Contraception; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Desogestrel; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Menstruation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17636668
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001326.pub2