Randomized comparison of second trimester pregnancy termination utilizing saline moistened or dry misoprostol

Effect of obesity on the time to a successful medical abortion with misoprostol in first-trimester missed abortion

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of misoprostol used in first-trimester abortion in obese women and to determine whether obesity is associated with time to a successful medical abortion.

METHODS

The records of patients diagnosed with missed abortion at our clinic between 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. All women aged 18 to 45 years who were diagnosed with missed abortion in the first trimester and treated with misoprostol were included in the study. The cases were divided into two groups: obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m2). First, they were simultaneously administered 200 μg misoprostol orally and 400 μg vaginally. After the first misoprostol administration, the dose was repeated vaginally at 400 μg every three hours if necessary. The effect of obesity on the time taken to achieve a medical abortion was evaluated.

RESULTS

A successful medical abortion occurred in 45.2% of the women in the obese group and 69.0% of those in the non-obese group. The time to uterine evacuation was 8.24 ± 4.03 h in the obese group and 6.35 ± 3.54 h in the non-obese group. The relationship between obesity and time to a successful medical abortion was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier curve, which showed a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that obesity affects time to a successful medical abortion. In addition, the rate of successful medical abortion after misoprostol administration was lower in the obese women.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Effect of misoprostol with and without letrozole on the induction of abortion for women with first-trimester missed abortion

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether addition of letrozole to a misoprostol-based abortion regimen can increase the rate of complete abortion.

METHODS

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial enrolled women with missed abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy attending Sadooghi Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, from 2016 to 2018. The women were randomly assigned to the study group, which received 10 mg of letrozole daily for 3 days, followed by two doses of 800 μg of vaginal misoprostol at a 4-hour interval, or the control group, which received a placebo, followed by the same dose of misoprostol. Sonography was performed to check the abortion status.

RESULTS

In total, 120 women completed the study: 60 in the misoprostol plus letrozole group, and 60 in the misoprostol only group. Complete abortion was documented for 93 (77.5%) women: 48 (80.0%) in the misoprostol plus letrozole group and 45 (75.0%) in the misoprostol only group (P=0.80). The mean duration of induction in the misoprostol plus letrozole and misoprostol only groups was 7.35 ± 3.54 hours and 8.2 ± 3.8 4hours, respectively (P=0.21).

CONCLUSION

Administration of misoprostol alone was found to be as effective as the administration of misoprostol plus letrozole for first-trimester missed abortion.

The efficacy of letrozole supplementation for medical abortion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of letrozole supplementation for medical abortion remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of letrozole supplementation for medical abortion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through October 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of letrozole supplementation for medical abortion. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 555 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for pregnant women, letrozole supplementation shows significantly increased complete abortion (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.07-1.78; p = .01), and decreased estradiol (std. MD = -2.86; 95% CI = -4.45 to -1.27; p = .0004), but has no remarkable effect on induction-abortion time (std. MD = -1.03; 95% CI = -2.99-0.93; p = .30), progesterone (std. MD = 0.02; 95% CI = -0.30-0.34; p = .89), vaginal hemorrhage (std. MD = 1.84; 95% CI = 0.05-70.90; p = .74), nausea and vomiting (std. MD = 073; 95% CI = 0.44-1.21; p = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

Letrozole supplementation provides benefits to medical abortion in pregnant women.

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

In most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, from clinical trials, the effectiveness and safety of different medical treatments for the termination of non-viable pregnancies.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 October 2018) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as were studies reported in abstract form, if sufficient information was available to assess eligibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three studies (4966 women) were included. The main interventions examined were vaginal, sublingual, oral and buccal misoprostol, mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost. These were compared with surgical management, expectant management, placebo, or different types of medical interventions were compared with each other. The review includes a wide variety of different interventions which have been analysed across 23 different comparisons. Many of the comparisons consist of single studies. We limited the grading of the quality of evidence to two main comparisons: vaginal misoprostol versus placebo and vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation of the uterus. Risk of bias varied widely among the included trials. The quality of the evidence varied between the different comparisons, but was mainly found to be very-low or low quality.Vaginal misoprostol versus placeboVaginal misoprostol may hasten miscarriage when compared with placebo: e.g. complete miscarriage (5 trials, 305 women, risk ratio (RR) 4.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 5.94; low-quality evidence). No trial reported on pelvic infection rate for this comparison. Vaginal misoprostol made little difference to rates of nausea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.40; low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.06; low-quality evidence) or to whether women were satisfied with the acceptability of the method (1 trial, 32 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether vaginal misoprostol reduces blood loss (haemoglobin difference > 10 g/L) (1 trial, 50 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.12; very-low quality) or pain (opiate use) (1 trial, 84 women, RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.11; very-low quality), because the quality of the evidence for these outcomes was found to be very low.Vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation Vaginal misoprostol may be less effective in accomplishing a complete miscarriage compared to surgical management (6 trials, 943 women, average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.03, I² = 46%; low-quality evidence) and may be associated with more nausea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 21.85, 95% CI 1.31 to 364.37; low-quality evidence) and diarrhoea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 40.85, 95% CI 2.52 to 662.57; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between vaginal misoprostol and surgical evacuation for pelvic infection (1 trial, 618 women, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; low-quality evidence), blood loss (post-treatment haematocrit (%) (1 trial, 50 women, mean difference (MD) 1.40%, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.71; low-quality evidence), pain relief (1 trial, 154 women, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.46; low-quality evidence) or women's satisfaction/acceptability of method (1 trial, 45 women, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsBased on findings from a single trial, vaginal misoprostol was more effective at accomplishing complete miscarriage than expectant management (614 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45). There was little difference between vaginal misoprostol and sublingual misoprostol (5 trials, 513 women, average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10, I² = 871%; or between oral and vaginal misoprostol in terms of complete miscarriage at less than 13 weeks (4 trials, 418 women), average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.03; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.13, I² = 90%). However, there was less abdominal pain with vaginal misoprostol in comparison to sublingual (3 trials, 392 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74). A single study (46 women) found mifepristone to be more effective than placebo: miscarriage complete by day five after treatment (46 women, RR 9.50, 95% CI 2.49 to 36.19). However the quality of this evidence is very low: there is a very serious risk of bias with signs of incomplete data and no proper intention-to-treat analysis in the included study; and serious imprecision with wide confidence intervals. Mifepristone did not appear to further hasten miscarriage when added to a misoprostol regimen (3 trials, 447 women, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from randomised trials suggests that medical treatment with vaginal misoprostol may be an acceptable alternative to surgical evacuation or expectant management. In general, side effects of medical treatment were minor, consisting mainly of nausea and diarrhoea. There were no major differences in effectiveness between different routes of administration. Treatment satisfaction was addressed in only a few studies, in which the majority of women were satisfied with the received intervention. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low for several comparisons, mainly because they included only one or two (small) trials; further research is necessary to assess the effectiveness, safety and side effects, optimal route of administration and dose of different medical treatments for early fetal death.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in the uterus ('evacuation of uterus'). However, medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe, and acceptable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of any medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (13 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery, or alternative methods of medical treatment. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (5577 women). There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). We did not identify any difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Further studies, including long-term follow-up, are clearly needed to confirm these findings. There is an urgent need for studies on women who miscarry at more than 13 weeks' gestation.

The effectiveness of using misoprostol with and without letrozole for successful medical abortion: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background:

In developing countries it is important to the exploration of available and safe regimens for medical abortion. The present study was designed to assess the effect of letrozole compared to placebo pretreatment followed by sublingual misoprostol for therapeutic abortion in eligible women with gestational age less than 17 weeks.

Materials and Methods:

In this randomized control trail, 130 women eligible for legal abortions were randomly divided into two groups of case and controls. Cases received daily oral dose of 10 mg letrozole 10 mg letrozole for three days followed by sublingual misoprostol. Controls received daily oral dose of placebo followed by sublingual misoprostol. The dose of misoprostol was administrated according to ACOG guidelines based on patients’ gestational age. The rate of complete abortion, induction-of-abortion time, and side-effects were assessed as main outcomes.

Results:

Complete abortion was observed in 46 (76.7%) letrozole group and 26 (42.6%) controls (P < 0.0001). Also, in 14 subjects of letrozole group and 35 subjects in placebo group, the placenta was not delivered during follow-up and curettage was performed. The mean interval induction-to-abortion was 5.1 h in letrozole group and 8.9 h in control (P < 0.0001). The cumulative rates of the induction-of-abortion time were a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.0001). The incidence and severity of side-effects was comparable for the two groups (P = 0.9).

Conclusion:

Letrozole could be a quite beneficial adjuvant to misoprostol for induction of complete abortion in those who are candidates for legal medical abortion.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in the uterus ('evacuation of uterus'). However, medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe and acceptable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2012) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery or alternative methods of medical treatment. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (4208 women) were included. There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no statistically significant difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; two studies, 150 women, random-effects), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; two studies, 308 women, random-effects). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'.Twelve studies involving 2894 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (six studies used oral administration, four studies used vaginal, one study sub-lingual, one study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99, 11 studies, 2493 women, random-effects) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 11 studies, 2654 women, random-effects) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.82, 95% CI 2.93 to 11.56; nine studies, 2274 women, random-effects). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.03; nine studies, 2179 women, random-effects).Five trials compared different routes of administration and/or doses of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice. Future studies should include long-term follow-up.

Vaginal acidity enhancement with a 3% acetic acid gel prior to misoprostol treatment for pregnancy termination in the midtrimester

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether enhancing vaginal acidity improves the success of medical abortions in the midtrimester.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 48 women with missed midtrimester abortions. Twice daily, the study participants (n=24) were treated with a 3% acetic acid gel and the controls (n=24) with a placebo gel, starting 2 days prior to initiating the misoprostol treatment. The primary outcome measures were the rates of successful abortion within 24 and 48 hours. Secondary measures included gel tolerability and adverse effects of the misoprostol treatment.

RESULTS

The success rates were higher in the study group, within both 24 hours (11/23 vs 3/24; P=0.011) and 48 hours (18/23 vs 6/24; P<0.001). Among the women with a vaginal pH of 5 or higher at baseline, acidic gel was also associated with higher success rates within 24 hours (8/13 vs 2/15; P<0.01) and 48 hours (13/13 vs 3/15; P<0,001). The vaginal gels were well tolerated and the misoprostol treatment produced no serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

A 3% acetic acid gel appears to be an effective and safe preparatory adjuvant to vaginal misoprostol treatment for midtrimester medical abortions, especially in women with a vaginal pH of 5 or higher. www.controlledtrials.com: ISRCTN75746444.

A randomized comparative study on vaginal administration of acetic acid-moistened versus dry misoprostol for mid-trimester pregnancy termination

PURPOSE

Absorption and effectiveness of vaginally administered misoprostol tablets may vary according to the medium in which it is placed. This study was directed to compare the outcomes of vaginal administrations of acetic acid-moistened misoprostol tablets with those of dry tablets for induction of second-trimester abortion.

METHODS

A randomized comparative trial where 322 women at 13-20 weeks gestation, requiring medical abortion, were randomly assigned to vaginal administration of either acetic acid-moistened or dry misoprostol tablets with a dose schedule of 400 μg three-hourly, up to a maximum five doses over 24 h. The same doses were repeated for another 24 h in nonresponders. Primary outcome measure was complete abortion rate at 24 and 48 h, and the secondary outcome measures were induction-abortion interval, failure rate and side effects. A difference of 15% in success rates at 24 h was used to calculate the sample size required with a power of 0.8 at the 5% significance level.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in the complete abortion rates were observed at 24 h (70.95 vs. 68.71%, P = 0.675) and at 48 h (86.49 vs. 84.35%, P = 0.604) when both groups were compared. The difference in mean induction-abortion interval was also statistically insignificant between the groups (12.5 ± 1.6 vs. 12.8 ± 1.5 h, P = 0.97). Other outcome measures were also comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Moistening misoprostol tablets with 5% acetic acid before vaginal application creates no difference in outcomes when compared with those after the vaginal application of dry tablets for the termination of second-trimester pregnancy.

Clinical guidelines. Labor induction abortion in the second trimester

Labor induction abortion is effective throughout the second trimester. Patterns of use and gestational age limits vary by locality. Earlier gestations (typically 12 to 20 weeks) have shorter abortion times than later gestational ages, but differences in complication rates within the second trimester according to gestational age have not been demonstrated. The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is the most effective and fastest regimen. Typically, mifepristone 200 mg is followed by use of misoprostol 24-48 h later. Ninety-five percent of abortions are complete within 24 h of misoprostol administration. Compared with misoprostol alone, the combined regimen results in a clinically significant reduction of 40% to 50% in time to abortion and can be used at all gestational ages. However, mifepristone is not widely available. Accordingly, prostaglandin analogues without mifepristone (most commonly misoprostol or gemeprost) or high-dose oxytocin are used. Misoprostol is more widely used because it is inexpensive and stable at room temperature. Misoprostol alone is best used vaginally or sublingually, and doses of 400 mcg are generally superior to 200 mcg or less. Dosing every 3 h is superior to less frequent dosing, although intervals of up to 12 h are effective when using higher doses (600 or 800 mcg) of misoprostol. Abortion rates at 24 h are approximately 80%-85%. Although gemeprost has similar outcomes as compared to misoprostol, it has higher cost, requires refrigeration, and can only be used vaginally. High-dose oxytocin can be used in circumstances when prostaglandins are not available or are contraindicated. Osmotic dilators do not shorten induction times when inserted at the same time as misoprostol; however, their use prior to induction using misoprostol has not been studied. Preprocedure-induced fetal demise has not been studied systematically for possible effects on time to abortion. While isolated case reports and retrospective reviews document uterine rupture during second-trimester induction with misoprostol, the magnitude of the risk is not known. The relationship of individual uterotonic agents to uterine rupture is not clear. Based on existing evidence, the Society of Family Planning recommends that, when labor induction abortion is performed in the second trimester, combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol is the ideal regimen to effect abortion quickly and completely. The Society of Family Planning further recommends that alternative regimens, primarily misoprostol alone, should only be used when mifepristone is not available.

Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

With the improvement of ultrasound technology, the likelihood of detection of major fetal structural anomalies in mid-pregnancy has increased considerably. Upon the detection of serious anomalies, women typically are offered the option of pregnancy termination. Additionally, there are still many reasons other than fetal anomalies why women seek abortion in the mid-trimester.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different methods of second trimester medical termination of pregnancy for their efficacy and side-effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Popline and reference lists of retrieved papers and other sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining medical regimens for termination of pregnancy of a singleton living fetus between 12-28 weeks' gestation were analysed. The outcome measures were the induction to abortion interval, abortion rate within 24 hours, need for surgical evacuation, blood loss, uterine rupture, pain, and side-effects.Trials including >20% fetal death, multiple pregnancies, previous uterine scars and regimens which involved cervical preparation were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors selected the trials and three authors extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourty RCTs were included, addressing various agents for pregnancy termination and methods of administration. When used alone, misoprostol was an effective inductive agent, though it appeared to be more effective in combination with mifepristone. However, the evidence from RCTs is limited.Misoprostol was preferably administered vaginally, although among multiparous women sublingual administration appeared equally effective. A range of doses of vaginally administered misoprostol has been used. No randomised trials comparing doses of misoprostol were identified; however low doses of misoprostol appear to be associated with fewer side-effects while moderate doses appear to be more efficient in completing abortion. Four RCTs showed that the induction to abortion interval with 3-hourly vaginal administration of prostaglandins is shorter than 6-hourly administration without an increase in side-effects.Many studies reported the need for surgical evacuation. Indications for surgical evacuation include retained products of the placenta and heavy vaginal bleeding. Fewer women required surgical evacuation when misoprostol was administrated vaginally compared with women receiving intra-amniotical PGF(2a) . Mild, self-limiting diarrhoea was more common among women who received misoprostol compared to other agents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medical abortion in the second trimester using the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol appeared to have the highest efficacy and shortest abortion time interval. Where mifepristone is not available, misoprostol alone is a reasonable alternative. The optimal route for administering misoprostol is vaginally, preferably using tablets at 3-hourly intervals. Apart from pain, the side-effects of vaginal misoprostol are usually mild and self limiting. Conclusions from this review are limited by the gestational age ranges and variable medical regimens, including dosing, administrative routes and intervals of medication, of the included trials.

Low Dose Vaginal Misoprostol in the Management of Women with Intrauterine Fetal Death

Objectives

The study was conducted to assess the effectiveness and side effects of vaginal misoprostol (Vagiprost® tablet) in termination of second and third trimester pregnancy complicated with intrauterine fetal death.

Design

A prospective observational cohort study.

Setting

Tanta University Hospital.

Patients

The study was carried out on 324 women with fetal demise in the second and third trimesters. Cases were collected during the period from January 2008 to December 2009.

Intervention

All patients were subjected to history taking, physical examination, Bishop Scoring. Application of 25 μg misoprostol in the posterior fornix of the vagina, this will be repeated every 4 hours over 24 hours. The adverse effects, progress, and outcomes were assessed.

Results

the success rate was 90% and 45% in women with third and second trimesters respectively. The mean induction-termination interval was 8.95 ± 2.63 and 15.3 ± 5.37 hours for women with third and second trimesters respectively. The induction termination interval correlated negatively with the duration of gestation. Approximately, 90% of second trimester and 55% of third trimester women required oxytocin augmentation. The mean value of total required dose of misoprostol was 166.3 ± 7.5 and 120 ± 28.79 μg for women with second and third trimesters respectively.

Conclusion

Vagiprost appears to be a safe, effective, practical, and inexpensive method for termination of third trimester pregnancy complicated with of intrauterine fetal death (IUFD), its effects increase with parity and duration of gestation.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining pregnancy tissues in the uterus. However, it has been suggested that drug-based medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe and acceptable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies (2750 women) were included, there were no studies on women over 13 weeks' gestation. Studies addressed a number of comparisons and data are therefore limited.Three trials compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no significant difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; two studies, 150 women), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; two studies, 308 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'.Nine studies involving 1766 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (four oral, four vaginal, one vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was no statistically significant difference in complete miscarriage (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00, eight studies, 1377 women) with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; eight studies, 1538 women) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.90 to 13.77; six studies, 1158 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice.

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

In most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment before 14 weeks has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early pregnancy failure (anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic and fetal deaths before 24 weeks).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-random studies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted unblinded.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four studies (1888 women) were included. Vaginal misoprostol hastens miscarriage (complete or incomplete) when compared with placebo: e.g. miscarriage less than 24 hours (two trials, 138 women, relative risk (RR) 4.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.70 to 8.28), with less need for uterine curettage (two trials, 104 women, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60) and no significant increase in nausea or diarrhoea. Lower-dose regimens of vaginal misoprostol tend to be less effective in producing miscarriage (three trials, 247 women, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00) with similar incidence of nausea. There seems no clear advantage to administering a 'wet' preparation of vaginal misoprostol or of adding methotrexate, or of using laminaria tents after 14 weeks. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than vaginal prostaglandin E in avoiding surgical evacuation. Oral misoprostol was less effective than vaginal misoprostol in producing complete miscarriage (two trials, 218 women, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). Sublingual misoprostol had equivalent efficacy to vaginal misoprostol in inducing complete miscarriage but was associated with more frequent diarrhoea. The two trials of mifepristone treatment generated conflicting results. There was no statistically significant difference between vaginal misoprostol and gemeprost in the induction of miscarriage for fetal death after 13 weeks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from randomised trials supports the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment to terminate non-viable pregnancies before 24 weeks. Further research is required to assess effectiveness and safety, optimal route of administration and dose. Conflicting findings about the value of mifepristone need to be resolved by additional study.