. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 21;223(1):103.e1–103.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.12.273

TABLE 2.

Treatment response per progestin delivery route (inverse probability of treatment weighting model)

Outcome	Progestin route	Event number	1-year rate	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	Adjusted HR (95% CI)
CR	Systemic	67 / 203	46.7%	1	1
CR	LNG-IUD	107 / 127	78.4%	2.66 (1.95–3.62)	3.32 (2.39–4.62)
CR + PR	Systemic	97 / 203	57.0%	1	1
CR + PR	LNG-IUD	108 / 127	78.7%	1.82 (1.34–2.40)	2.14 (1.60–2.86)
Cancer	Systemic	25 / 203	15.7%	1	1
Cancer	LNG-IUD	5 / 127	4.5%	0.27 (0.11–0.68)	0.28 (0.11–0.73)

A total of 203 women in the LNG-IUD group were compared to 127 women in the systemic therapy group. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for analysis. The association of progestin delivery route (IUD therapy vs systemic therapy) was adjusted for age, year of diagnosis, body mass index, and diabetic status.

CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; LNG-IUD, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device; PR, partial response.