Insertion experience of women and health care professionals in the Kyleena® Satisfaction Study.

Purpose: The Kyleena® Satisfaction Study (KYSS) is a prospective, observational study conducted to assess satisfaction with LNG-IUS 12 (Kyleena®) in clinical practice and aims to provide adequate information for counselling women on what to expect regarding insertion and satisfaction.Materials and methods: Women deciding to use LNG-IUS 12 during routine counselling were informed of the study and provided informed consent. A baseline analysis was conducted to evaluate demographics, ease of insertion assessed by investigators, pain at insertion rated by women, additional interventions for insertion, and adverse events.Results: 1,110 women (536 parous, 574 nulliparous) had an insertion attempt and were included. Insertion was rated as easy in 494 (92.2%) parous and 516 (89.9%) nulliparous women. Pain was assessed as none or mild by 475 (88.6%) parous and 387 (67.4%) nulliparous women. Additional interventions were not required for most insertions (705; 63.6%). Overall 111 (10.0%) women reported adverse events at the time of baseline analysis.Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that LNG-IUS 12 insertion is easy and associated with no or mild pain in most women. Additional interventions for insertion are not required in most cases. After 3 months, the number of adverse events is low.Implications: The present baseline analysis of the Kyleena® Satisfaction Study (KYSS) demonstrates that most women rate insertion pain of LNG-IUS 12 as none or mild and clinicians consider insertion easy in the majority of cases.

Spanish post-menopausal women's viewpoints on hormone therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify women's socio-demographic and climacteric factors, as well as other variables related to health care, associated with the prescription of the treatment during menopause and to investigate the prevalence of certain conditioning factors in early discontinuation in women aged 40-65 years in a population of post-menopausal women in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Four of the most inhabited cities in Spain (Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Valencia). POPULATION: A total of 270 symptomatic post-menopausal women. METHODS: A personal interview with a semi-structured questionnaire specifically designed to collect information on treatments for climacteric-related complaints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The reasons for HRT, the evaluation of alternative therapies, the reasons for choosing one therapy or another and reasons for discontinuation. RESULTS: Of all the subjects included, 180 were still taking any type of treatment and 90 were former HRT users or had never used HRT. Among the latter, 43% of women expressed fear of the side effects and 38% gave the risk of breast cancer as the main reason for not using HRT. Of them, 58% receive phytoestrogens. Media and negative data from medical journals influenced this attitude in 67% of the women. On the other hand, only 9.4% of HRT users were reluctant to receive the therapy and the main reasons for maintaining HRT were its efficacy against climacteric symptoms, medical prescription and life quality. CONCLUSIONS: Side effects and fear of cancer were the most common reasons for not using HRT; and medical prescription, symptomatic improvement and quality of life were the main reasons for using it. Negative data from journals have an important effect on women's attitudes to HRT.

The prescription of hormone replacement therapy in Spain: differences between general practitioners and gynaecologists.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was prescribed and to identify physician-related factors associated with the prescription of HRT in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional survey based on a personal interview with a structured questionnaire was conducted in April 2005 with physicians aged 25-65 years. A total of 2700 doctors were asked to participate in this prospective study (1350 GY and 1350 GP). This number included 270 gynaecologists (GY group) and 270 general practitioners (GP group). RESULTS: Only 10% of gynaecologists and 19.4% of GPs had never prescribed HRT. The reasons given for not prescribing HRT were adverse effects and the fear of cancer among GPs and adverse effects and social alarm in the GY group. Phytoestrogens were the most commonly used alternative; however, GPs were more willing to use antidepressants and benzodiazepines than GYs. The frequency of HRT prescription in symptomatic women was significantly higher among GYs. The main reasons for prescribing HRT were climacteric complaints and improvement in life quality for GYs and, climacteric complaints and the prevention of osteoporosis for GPs. Seventy-eight percent of GYs prescribing hormones referred a high degree of satisfaction with HRT, whereas only 50% of GPs expressed a similar attitude. CONCLUSIONS: Concern for HRT prescription in Spain is high. Adverse effects and the fear of cancer are negative conditioning factors in the prescription of HRT, whereas climacteric complaints, quality of life and the prevention of osteoporosis are positive conditioning factors. GYs are more willing to use HRT than GPs. This contrast may reflect the indecision of GPs regarding the preventive value of HRT.