Comparison of Mifepristone Followed by Misoprostol with Misoprostol Alone for Treatment of Early Pregnancy Failure: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Comparing letrozole and mifepristone pre-treatment in medical management of first trimester missed miscarriage: a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether letrozole pre-treatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pre-treatment, followed by misoprostol, for complete evacuation in the medical treatment of first-trimester missed miscarriage.

DESIGN

Prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

A university-affiliated hospital.

POPULATION

We recruited 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage who opted for medical treatment.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to: (i) the mifepristone group, who received 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 h later by 800 μg misoprostol vaginally; or (ii) the letrozole group, who received 10 mg letrozole orally once-a-day for 3 days, followed by 800 μg misoprostol vaginally on the third (i.e. last) day of letrozole administration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the rate of complete evacuation without surgical intervention at 42 days post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included induction-to-expulsion interval, adverse effects, women's satisfaction, number of doses of misoprostol required, duration of vaginal bleeding, pain score on the day of misoprostol administration and other adverse events.

RESULTS

The complete evacuation rates were 97.8% (95% CI 95.1%-100%) and 97.2% (95% CI 94.4%-99.9%) in the letrozole and mifepristone groups, respectively (p ≤ 0.001 for non-inferiority). The mean induction-to-tissue expulsion interval in the letrozole group was longer compared with the mifepristone group (15.4 vs 9.0 h) (p = 0.03). The letrozole group had less heavy post-treatment bleeding and an earlier return of menses. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of doses of misoprostol required, the duration of vaginal bleeding, the pain score on the day of misoprostol administration and the rate of other adverse events between the two groups. The majority of the women (91.2% and 93.9% in the letrozole and mifepristone groups, respectively) were satisfied with their treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Letrozole is non-inferior to mifepristone as a pre-treatment, followed by misoprostol, for the medical treatment of first-trimester missed miscarriage.

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Misoprostol in the Treatment of Incomplete Miscarriage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of misoprostol in the treatment of incomplete miscarriage.

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases (clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for the relevant articles, and search strategies were developed using a combination of thematic Medical Subject Headings terms and text words. The last search was conducted on July 4, 2022. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

 Randomized clinical trials with patients of gestational age up to 6/7 weeks with a diagnosis of incomplete abortion and who were managed with at least 1 of the 3 types of treatment studied were included. A total of 8,087 studies were screened.

DATA COLLECTION

 Data were synthesized using the statistical package Review Manager V.5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). For dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived for each study. Heterogeneity between the trial results was evaluated using the standard test, I2 statistic.

DATA SYNTHESIS

 When comparing misoprostol with medical vacuum aspiration (MVA), the rate of complete abortion was higher in the MVA group (OR = 0.16; 95%CI = 0.07-0.36). Hemorrhage or heavy bleeding was more common in the misoprostol group (OR = 3.00; 95%CI = 1.96-4.59), but pain after treatment was more common in patients treated with MVA (OR = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.52-0.80). No statistically significant differences were observed in the general acceptability of the treatments.

CONCLUSION

 Misoprostol has been determined as a safe option with good acceptance by patients.

The role of mifepristone on first trimester miscarriage treatment - A double-blind randomized controlled trial - MiFirsT

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of combined mifepristone and misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in outpatient medical treatment of first trimester miscarriage. Additionally, the study intends to compare the rate of complications, adverse effects, and treatment acceptability between groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial including women with diagnosis of missed first trimester miscarriage up to 9 weeks of gestation.

RESULTS

Between April 2019 and November 2021, 216 women diagnosed with first trimester miscarriage up to 9 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to mifepristone group or to misoprostol-alone group. Data from 105 women in mifepristone group and 103 women in misoprostol-alone group were analyzed, with no differences in baseline characteristics. The median time between medications (oral mifepristone/placebo and vaginal misoprostol) was nearly 43 h in both groups (p = 0.906). The median time to first follow-up was 2.6 weeks (IQR 1.0) in mifepristone group and 2.4 weeks (IQR 1.0) in misoprostol-alone group (p = 0.855). The overall success rate of medical treatment was significantly higher in the mifepristone-group comparing to misoprostol-alone group (94.3% vs. 82.5%, RR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.03-1.26; p = 0.008). Accordingly, the rate of surgical treatment was significantly lower in the mifepristone-group (5.7% vs.14.6%, RR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.16-0.97; p = 0.034). The composite complication rate was similar and lower than 4% in both groups. No case of complicated pelvic infection, hemodynamic instability or inpatient supportive treatment was reported. There were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events, median score for vaginal bleeding intensity or analgesics use. Despite the same median value, the score of abdominal pain intensity was significantly higher in the mifepristone-group (p = 0.011). In both groups, more than 65% of the women classified the treatment as "good" and 92% would recommend it to a friend on the same clinical situation.

CONCLUSION

The mifepristone plus vaginal misoprostol combined treatment for medical resolution of first trimester miscarriage resulted in significant higher success rate and lower rate of surgical uterine evacuation comparing to misoprostol-alone treatment, with no relevant differences in adverse events or treatment acceptability.

Mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators among OB/GYNS in Massachusetts, USA

CONTEXT

Early pregnancy loss (EPL) affects 1 million patients in the United States (US) annually, but integration of mifepristone into EPL care may be complicated by regulatory barriers, practice-related factors, and abortion stigma.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews among obstetrician-gynecologists in independent practice in Massachusetts, US on mifepristone use for EPL. We recruited participants via professional networks and purposively sampled for mifepristone use, practice type, time in practice, and geographic location within Massachusetts until we reached thematic saturation. We analyzed interviews using inductive and deductive coding under a thematic analysis framework to identify facilitators of and barriers to mifepristone use.

RESULTS

We interviewed 19 obstetrician-gynecologists; 12 had used mifepristone for EPL and 7 had not. Participants were in private practice (n = 12), academic practice (n = 6), or worked at a federally qualified health center (n = 1). Seven had fellowship training, including four in complex family planning. The most common facilitators of mifepristone use for EPL were access to the expertise or protocols of local-regional experts, leadership from a "champion," prior experience with abortion care, and hospital capacity constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common barriers were related to the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, mifepristone's affiliation with abortion was a barrier to its use in EPL for some obstetrician-gynecologists.

CONCLUSION

The FDA Mifepristone REMS Program presents substantial barriers to obstetrician-gynecologists incorporating mifepristone into their EPL care.

Mifepristone-misoprostol combination treatment for early pregnancy loss after embryo transfer: a case series

Objective

Evidence strongly supports the use of mifepristone-misoprostol combination treatment for early pregnancy loss (EPL) among pregnancies conceived without assisted reproductive technologies. No literature exists, however, regarding the efficacy of this treatment in the medical management of EPL among pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). These patients differ as some use exogenous hormonal supplementation to provide pregnancy support. Thus, the management for EPL may differ between unassisted conceptions and those after ET. Mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, may demonstrate an altered treatment effect when used with misoprostol to manage EPL in assisted reproductive technologie-conceived pregnancies.

Objective

To describe our institution's experience using mifepristone-misoprostol to manage EPL after in vitro fertilization with embryo transfer IVF-ET.

Design

Retrospective case series.

Setting

Single academic institution from 2020 to 2022.

Patientss

Nine patients with ultrasound confirmed EPL after IVF-ET.

Interventions

All 9 patients underwent in vitro fertilization followed by fresh or frozen embryo transfer. All 9 received 200 mg of mifepristone 24 hours before 800 μg of misoprostol.

Main Outcome Measurements

Incomplete abortion, need for surgical management, number of days to negative serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).

Results

Of the 9 subjects included, one had a programmed frozen embryo transfer cycle, 6 had modified natural frozen embryo transfer cycles, and 2 underwent fresh ET. Eight subjects had successful expulsion of tissue with one dose of treatment, and one required uterine aspiration. No subjects required additional dosing of misoprostol. The mean number of days elapsed from mifepristone treatment to tissue expulsion was 4.89 ± 11.30 days and the mean days to negative-range serum hCG was 36.89 ± 18.59 days. At the initial ultrasound, all pregnancies had one gestational sac seen; 5/9 had a yolk sac; only 3 had fetal cardiac activity. The mean gestational age at the time of EPL diagnosis was 55.22 ± 8.77 days, with the majority (8/9) having completed 7 weeks gestation.

Conclusions

Mifepristone-misoprostol combination treatment appears to be a reasonable option for those with EPL after IVF-ET. Future, larger-scale studies are needed comparing combination treatment with misoprostol only among various ET protocols.

A retrospective study of estrogen in the pretreatment for medical management of early pregnancy loss and the inference from intrauterine adhesion

Background

Estrogen has been usually used in clinic for medical pretreatment of early pregnancy loss. There was little reported the effect of estrogen combined with prostaglandin analogs in the medical management of early pregnancy loss. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of estrogen pretreatment for medical management of early pregnancy loss and explore the confounding factor of intrauterine adhesion (IUA) on the outcome of medical management.

Methods

A total of 226 early pregnancy loss patients who received pretreatment with estradiol valerate and/or mifepristone, followed by carboprost methylate suppositories (study groups), or carboprost methylate suppositories alone (control group) in a regional central institution from March 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively studied. All patients were evaluated by hysteroscopy 6 h after carboprost methylate suppositories use to assess whether the gestational sac was complete expulsion and assess the morphology of uterine cavity.

Results

The complete expulsion rate was 56.94% in the mifepristone and estradiol valerate-pretreatment group, 20.69% in the estradiol valerate-pretreatment group, 62.5% in the mifepristone-pretreatment group, and 12.5% in the control group. Compared with the control group, pretreatment with estradiol valerate did not increase the complete expulsion rate significantly (P = 0.297), pretreatment with mifepristone increased the complete expulsion rate significantly (P < 0.001). Pretreatment with mifepristone combined with estradiol valerate did not increase the complete expulsion rate significantly comparing with pretreatment with mifepristone (P = 0.222). The data of IUA showed that the complete expulsion rate in patients with IUA was lower than that in those patients without IUA (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Pretreatment with estrogen was not a sensible substitute for mifepristone in the medical management of early pregnancy loss. Mifepristone followed by carboprost methylate suppositories was likelihood of the ideal medical scheme in early pregnancy loss. IUA decreased the complete expulsion rate of medical management, it is cautious about medical management for early pregnancy loss with risk of IUA.

Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2100046503. Date of registration (retrospectively registered): May 18, 2021. Trial registration website: http://www.chictr.org.cn/.

Medical methods for first trimester abortion

BACKGROUND

Medical abortion became an alternative method of pregnancy termination following the development of prostaglandins and antiprogesterone in the 1970s and 1980s. Recently, synthesis inhibitors of oestrogen (such as letrozole) have also been used to enhance efficacy. The most widely researched drugs are prostaglandins (such as misoprostol, which has a strong uterotonic effect), mifepristone, mifepristone with prostaglandins, and letrozole with prostaglandins. More evidence is needed to identify the best dosage, regimen, and route of administration to optimise patient outcomes. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and side effects of different medical methods for first trimester abortion.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and LILACs on 28 February 2021. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different medical methods for abortion before the 12th week of gestation. The primary outcome is failure to achieve complete abortion. Secondary outcomes are mortality, surgical evacuation, ongoing pregnancy at follow-up, time until passing of conceptus, blood transfusion, side effects and women's dissatisfaction with the method.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and evaluated studies for inclusion, and assessed the risk of bias. We processed data using Review Manager 5 software. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 studies in the review (58 from the original review and 41 new studies). 1. Combined regimen mifepristone/prostaglandin Mifepristone dose: high-dose (600 mg) compared to low-dose (200 mg) mifepristone probably has similar effectiveness in achieving complete abortion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 3494 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin dose: 800 µg misoprostol probably reduces abortion failure compared to 400 µg (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I2= 0%; 3 RCTs, 4424 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin timing: misoprostol administered on day one probably achieves more success on complete abortion than on day three (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.58; 1489 women; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration strategy: there may be no difference in failure of complete abortion with self-administration at home compared with hospital administration (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.94; I2 = 84%; 2263 women; 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), but failure may be higher when administered by nurses in hospital compared to by doctors in hospital (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.22; I2 = 66%; 3 RCTs, 3056 women; low-certainty evidence). Administration route: oral misoprostol probably leads to more failures than the vaginal route (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; I2 = 39%; 3 RCTs, 1704 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with more frequent side effects such as nausea (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1380 women; low-certainty evidence) and diarrhoea (RR 1.80 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1379 women). Compared with the vaginal route, complete abortion failure is probably lower with sublingual (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; I2 = 59%; 2 RCTs, 3229 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be lower with buccal administration (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 479 women; low-certainty evidence), but sublingual or buccal routes may lead to more side effects. Women may experience more vomiting with sublingual compared to buccal administration (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77; low-certainty evidence). 2. Mifepristone alone versus combined regimen The efficacy of mifepristone alone in achieving complete abortion compared to combined mifepristone/prostaglandin up to 12 weeks is unclear (RR of failure 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.09; I2 = 83%; 3 RCTs, 273 women; very low-certainty evidence). 3. Prostaglandin alone versus combined regimen Nineteen studies compared prostaglandin alone to a combined regimen (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate). Compared to any of the combination regimens, misoprostol alone may increase the risk for failure to achieve complete abortion (RR of failure 2.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.02; I2 = 64%; 18 RCTs, 3471 women; low-certainty evidence), and with more diarrhoea. 4. Prostaglandin alone (route of administration) Oral misoprostol alone may lead to more failures in complete abortion than the vaginal route (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 8.71, 2 RCTs, 216 women; low-certainty evidence). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be slightly reduced with sublingual compared with vaginal (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.28; I2 = 87%; 5 RCTs, 2705 women; low-certainty evidence) and oral administration (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.99; I2 = 66%; 2 RCTs, 173 women). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be similar or slightly higher with sublingual administration compared to buccal administration (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; 1 study, 401 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Safe and effective medical abortion methods are available. Combined regimens (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate) may be more effective than single agents (prostaglandin alone or mifepristone alone). In the combined regimen, the dose of mifepristone can probably be lowered to 200 mg without significantly decreasing effectiveness. Vaginal misoprostol is probably more effective than oral administration, and may have fewer side effects than sublingual or buccal. Some results are limited by the small numbers of participants on which they are based. Almost all studies were conducted in settings with good access to emergency services, which may limit the generalisability of these results.

Prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing letrozole and mifepristone pretreatment in medical management of first trimester missed miscarriage: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Medical treatment is a less invasive alternative to surgical management of missed miscarriage. Studies have shown that pretreatment with mifepristone can increase the complete abortion rate in management of first-trimester missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Two studies have also shown that pretreatment with letrozole could increase the efficacy compared with misoprostol alone. So far, there is no trial comparing letrozole and mifepristone pretreatment for missed miscarriage. We designed this randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that for first-trimester missed miscarriage, letrozole pretreatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol in terms of complete abortion rate.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial conducted in a single centre. In total, 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage opting for medical treatment is recruited with informed consent. They are randomly assigned to receive mifepristone or letrozole pretreatment. In the mifepristone group, each woman takes 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 hours later by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally. In the letrozole group, each woman takes 10 mg letrozole orally per day for 3 days, followed by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally on the third day of letrozole administration. Follow-up is conducted on days 15 and 42 after misoprostol administration. The primary outcome is the overall complete abortion rate. Secondary outcomes include side effects and complications during the study period. Data will be analysed with both intention-to-treat and per protocol approaches. A p<0.05 will be considered as indicating statistical significance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital with approval number: (2020)166. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and in national and/or international meetings to guide future practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000041480.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT

TRIAL DESIGN

A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage.

RESULTS

A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone.

LIMITATIONS

The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Mifepristone followed by misoprostol compared with placebo followed by misoprostol as medical treatment for early pregnancy loss (the Triple M trial): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, millions of women seek treatment for early pregnancy loss (EPL) annually. Medical management with misoprostol is widely used, but only effective 60% of the time. Pre-treatment with mifepristone prior to misoprostol might improve the success rate of medical management.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 17 Dutch hospitals. Women with a non-viable pregnancy between 6 and 14 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion after at least one week of expectant management. Participants were randomised (1:1) between oral mifepristone 600 mg or an oral placebo tablet. Participants took 400 μg misoprostol orally, repeated after four hours on day two and, if necessary, day three. Primary outcome was expulsion of gestational sac and endometrial thickness <15 mm after 6-8 weeks. Analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03212352.

FINDINGS

Between June 28th 2018 and January 8th 2020, 175 women were randomised to mifepristone and 176 to placebo, including 344 in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the mifepristone group 136 (79•1%) of 172 participants reached complete evacuation compared to 101 (58•7%) of 172 participants in the placebo group (p<0•0001, RR 1•35, 95% CI 1•16-1•56). Incidence of serious adverse events was significantly lower in the mifepristone group with 24 (14%) patients affected versus 55 (32%) in the placebo group (p = 0•0005) (Table 3).

INTERPRETATION

Pre-treatment with mifepristone prior to misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in managing EPL.

FUNDING

Healthcare Insurers Innovation Foundation, Radboud University Medical Centre, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital.

Mifepristone Combination Therapy Compared With Misoprostol Monotherapy for the Management of Miscarriage: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether mifepristone pretreatment adversely affects the cost of medical management of miscarriage.

METHODS

Decision tree analyses were constructed, and Monte Carlo simulations were run comparing costs of combination therapy (mifepristone and misoprostol) with monotherapy (misoprostol alone) for medical management of miscarriage in multiple scenarios weighing clinical practice, patient income, and surgical evacuation modalities for failed medical management. Rates of completed medical evacuation for each were obtained from a recent randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

In every scenario, combination therapy offered a significant cost advantage over monotherapy. Using a Monte Carlo analysis, cost differences favoring combination therapy ranged from 6.3% to 19.5% in patients making federal minimum wage. The cost savings associated with combination therapy were greatest in scenarios using a staged approach to misoprostol administration and in scenarios using in-operating room dilation and curettage as the only modality for uterine evacuation, a savings of $190.20 (99% CI 189.35-191.07) and $217.85 (99% CI 217.19-218.50) per patient in a low-income wage group, respectively. A smaller difference was seen in scenarios using in-office manual vacuum aspiration to complete medical management failures. As patients' wages increased, the difference in cost between combination therapy and monotherapy increased.

CONCLUSION

Mifepristone combined with misoprostol is, overall, more cost effective than monotherapy, and therefore cost should not be a deterrent to its adoption in the management of miscarriage.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone.

METHODS

MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m²vs ≥35 kg/m²), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Medication to Manage Abortion and Miscarriage

Abortion and miscarriage are common, affecting millions of US women each year. By age 45, one in four women in the USA will have had an abortion, and at least as many will have had a miscarriage. Most individuals seeking abortion services do so before 10 weeks' gestation when medication abortions are a safe and effective option, using a regimen of oral mifepristone followed by misoprostol tablets. When a pregnancy is non-viable before 13 weeks' gestation, it is referred to as an early pregnancy loss or miscarriage and can be managed using the same mifepristone and misoprostol regimen. Given their safety and efficacy, mifepristone and misoprostol can be offered in ambulatory settings without special equipment or on-site emergency services. As more patients find it difficult to access clinical care when faced with an undesired pregnancy or a miscarriage, it is important for general internists and primary care providers to become familiar with how to use medications to manage these common conditions. We summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of mifepristone with misoprostol for early abortion and miscarriage. We discuss clinical considerations and resources for integrating mifepristone and misoprostol into clinical practice. By learning to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol, clinicians can expand access to time-sensitive health services for vulnerable populations.

Management of first-trimester miscarriage: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

First-trimester miscarriage affects up to a quarter of women worldwide. With many competing treatment options available, there is a need for a comprehensive evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment options for first-trimester miscarriage: expectant management (EXP), sharp dilation and curettage (D+C), electric vacuum aspiration (EVAC), manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), misoprostol alone (MISO), mifepristone+misoprostol (MIFE+MISO) and misoprostol plus electric vacuum aspiration (MISO+EVAC).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane Library from inception till June 2018. We included randomized trials of women with first-trimester miscarriage (<14 weeks gestation) and conducted a network meta-analysis generating both direct and mixed evidence on the effectiveness and side effects of available treatment options. The primary outcome was complete evacuation of products of conception. We assessed the risk of bias and the global network inconsistency. We compared the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment.

OUTCOMES

A total of 46 trials (9250 women) were included. The quality of included studies was overall moderate with some studies demonstrating a high risk of bias. We detected unexplained inconsistency in evidence loops involving MIFE+MISO and adjusted for it. EXP had lower effectiveness compared to other treatment options. The effectiveness of medical treatments was similar compared to surgery. Mixed evidence of low confidence suggests increased effectiveness for MIFE+MISO compared to MISO alone (RR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.09-2.03). Side effects were similar among all options. Fewer women needed analgesia following EVAC compared to MISO (RR for MISO 0.43, 95% CI: 0.27-0.68) and in the EXP group compared to EVAC (RR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.25-3.41). MVA had higher ranking (low likelihood) for post-treatment infection and serious complications (SUCRA 87.6 and 79.2%, respectively) with the highest likelihood for post-treatment satisfaction (SUCRA 98%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Medical treatments for first-trimester miscarriage have similar effectiveness and side effects compared to surgery. The addition of MIFE could increase the effectiveness of MISO and reduce side effects, although evidence is limited due to inconsistency. EXP has lower effectiveness compared to other treatment options.Systematic review registration: Prospero CRD42016048920.

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.

Women's experiences of miscarriage related to diagnosis, duration, and type of treatment

INTRODUCTION

Women with miscarriage experience several negative emotional feelings such as grief, isolation, coping, and despair. However, less is known about how the type of treatment and diagnosis of miscarriage influence the emotional experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present study was a randomized prospective longitudinal cohort study, in which women with spontaneous miscarriage (n = 35), and women with missed miscarriage (n = 67), were included to answer three validated questionnaires: Revised Impact of Miscarriage Scale, Perinatal Grief Scale, and Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, concerning experience of miscarriage, psychological well-being, and mental health 1 week and 4 months after finalized treatment.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the 2 diagnosis groups in feelings as measured by Revised Impact of Miscarriage Scale, Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and Perinatal Grief Scale 1 week after the miscarriage. However, the psychological well-being improved significantly 4 months after the miscarriage. Separated by treatment, women treated with misoprostol alone had more depressive symptoms than women treated with misoprostol and subsequent vacuum aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that diagnosis of miscarriage had limited influence on the experiences of miscarriage, but shorter duration of treatment with misoprostol and subsequent vacuum aspiration resulted in fewer depressive symptoms.