Timing and efficacy of mifepristone pretreatment for medical management of early pregnancy loss

Abortion Stigma as a Barrier to Mifepristone Use among Obstetrician-Gynecologists in Alabama for Early Pregnancy Loss

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to identify and characterize barriers to mifepristone use among obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) for early pregnancy loss in a southern US state.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with 19 OB-GYNs in Alabama who manage early pregnancy loss. The interviews explored participants' knowledge of and experience with mifepristone use for miscarriage management and abortion, along with barriers to and facilitators of clinical mifepristone use. The interviews were coded by multiple study staff using inductive and deductive thematic coding.

RESULTS

Nearly all of the interviewees identified abortion-related stigma as a barrier to mifepristone use. Interviewees often attributed stigma to a lack of knowledge about the clinical use of mifepristone for early pregnancy loss. The stigmatization of mifepristone due to its association with abortion was related to religious and political objections. Many interviewees also described stigma associated with misoprostol use. Although providers believed that mifepristone use for abortion would not be accepted in their practice, most believed that mifepristone could be used successfully for miscarriage management after practice-wide education on its use.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone is strongly associated with abortion stigma among OB-GYNs in Alabama, which is a barrier to its use for miscarriage management. Interventions to decrease abortion stigma and associated stigma surrounding mifepristone are needed to optimize early pregnancy loss care.

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.

Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) with cervical preparation for early pregnancy loss: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Approximately one in four women will experience a miscarriage in their lifetime. Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) is an ideal outpatient surgical treatment alternative to traditional surgical evacuation. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of US-MVA with cervical preparation for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of patients with early pregnancy loss on four interventions: (1) US-MVA, (2) misoprostol, (3) surgical evacuation of uterus by dilation and curettage (surgical evacuation), and (4) expectant care. Model inputs were retrieved from published literature and public data. Model outcome measures were total direct medical cost and disutility-adjusted life-year (DALY). Base-case model results were examined by sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The expected DALYs (0.00141) and total direct medical cost (USD736) of US-MVA were the lowest of all interventions in base-case analysis, and US-MVA was the preferred cost-effective option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the misoprostol group became less costly than the US-MVA group if the evacuation rate of misoprostol (base-case value 0.832) exceeded 0.920. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 49630 USD/DALY averted (1x gross domestic product per capita of Hong Kong), the US-MVA was cost-effective in 72.9% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

US-MVA appeared to be cost-saving and effective for treatment of early pregnancy loss from the perspective of public healthcare provider of Hong Kong.

Vaginal Bleeding Before 20 Weeks Gestation

Conditions that often present with vaginal bleeding before 20 weeks are common and can cause morbidity and mortality. Clinically stable patients can choose their management options. Clinically unstable patients require urgent procedural management: uterine aspiration, dilation and evacuation, or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy. Septic abortion requires prompt procedural management, intravenous antibiotics, and intravenous fluids. Available data on prognosis with expectant management of pre-viable rupture of membranes in the United States are poor for mothers and fetuses.

Clinical Update on Uses for Mifepristone in Obstetrics and Gynecology

IMPORTANCE

Mifepristone (RU-486) is a selective progesterone receptor modulator that has antagonist properties on the uterus and cervix. Mifepristone is an effective abortifacient, prompting limitations on its use in many countries. Mifepristone has many uses outside of induced abortion, but these are less well known and underutilized by clinicians because of challenges in accessing and prescribing this medication.

OBJECTIVES

To provide clinicians with a history of the development of mifepristone and mechanism of action and safety profile, as well as detail current research on uses of mifepristone in both obstetrics and gynecology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search of mifepristone and gynecologic and obstetric conditions was conducted between January 2018 and December 2021. Other resources were also searched, including guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Family Planning.

RESULTS

Mifepristone is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-trimester medication abortion but has other off-label uses in both obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetric uses that have been investigated include management of early pregnancy loss, intrauterine fetal demise, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and labor induction. Gynecologic uses that have been investigated include contraception, treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, and as an adjunct in treatment of gynecologic cancers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mifepristone is a safe and effective medication both for its approved use in first-trimester medication abortion and other off-label uses. Because of its primary use as an abortifacient, mifepristone is underutilized by clinicians. Providers should consider mifepristone for other indications as clinically appropriate.

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.

The effect of mifepristone pretreatment on bleeding and pain during medical management of early pregnancy loss

OBJECTIVES

To compare participant-reported bleeding and pain with two medication regimens for early pregnancy loss (EPL).

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial in which participants took either mifepristone 200 mg orally followed by misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally 24 hours later or misoprostol alone for medical management of EPL. Participants reported bleeding and pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NPRS, 0-10) with daily paper diaries and at study visits on trial days 3, 8, and 30. We used, Fisher's exact, Pearson chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Student's t-tests to compare onset, duration, and severity of bleeding and pain symptoms between trial arms after misoprostol administration.

RESULTS

Among 291 participants who submitted diary data, 143 received mifepristone pretreatment. A larger proportion of this group reported moderate or heavy bleeding on trial day 2, the day of misoprostol administration, compared with those who did not receive pretreatment (73% vs 47%, p < 0.01). Between days 4 and 8, more mifepristone-pretreatment participants reported mild or no bleeding, compared with the misoprostol-only arm (78% vs 61%, p < 0.01). Average pain score for trial days 2-4 was higher for the pretreatment group compared with the misoprostol-only group (6.9 vs 6.0, p = 0.01), and there was a trend toward shorter total duration of pain (15 vs 19 hours, p = 0.08). These differences remained after controlling for treatment success across arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone pretreatment increased the severity of pain but not bleeding and resulted in a shorter trajectory of symptoms during medical management of EPL.

IMPLICATIONS

Mifepristone pretreatment decreases the duration of heavy bleeding and there was a trend toward decreased duration of pain during medical management of miscarriage, indicating that this medication improves the efficiency, in addition to the efficacy, of this treatment.