Comparing telemedicine to in-clinic medication abortions induced with mifepristone and misoprostol

First-trimester medication abortion via telemedicine: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Following the decriminalization of abortion in Colombia and amidst a global health crisis due to COVID-19, Profamilia implemented a telemedicine-assisted first-trimester Medication Abortion (MAB) program. This is an opportunity to reduce inequalities in access and to promote empowerment and sexual and reproductive rights. This study aims to describe socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of users and to assess its effectiveness and safety.

Study design

A retrospective cohort study.

Methods

The study analyzed data from users who received Profamilia's telemedicine abortion services between August 2021 and August 2022 (n = 3073). A descriptive analysis of their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was performed, grouping, and comparing them according to follow-up status and abortion outcome. Effectiveness was assessed by the percentage of complete abortions without surgical intervention, and safety by the incidence of complications, potential adverse events, and potentially dangerous signs.

Results

Most of the users were less than 8 weeks gestation at the start of treatment (88.3 %), from low socioeconomic strata (84.8 %), affiliated to the subsidized healthcare system (87.6 %), with educational levels up to secondary school (81.6 %), between 18 and 35 years (87.4 %), from urban areas (97.8 %) and singles (90,8 %). 94.9 % of users had a complete abortion using medication, and 0.3 % of cases reported complications.

Conclusions

First-trimester MAB through telemedicine in the Latin American context is an effective and safe choice. Telehealth is an important strategy to expand access to safe abortion care, especially for those with limited financial means or educational backgrounds. Rural and marginalized populations need more attention to improve access.

No test medical abortion - a review of the evidence on selective use of preabortion testing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last decade has seen a cascade of different telemedicine models for medical abortion (MA) being tested and implemented. Among these service delivery models is the 'no-test' MA model, in which care is provided remotely and eligibility for the MA is based on history alone. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing evidence for no-test MA.

RECENT FINDINGS

The evidence base for no-test MA relies heavily on cohort and noncomparative studies predominantly from high resource settings. Recent findings indicate that no-test MA is safe, effective, and highly acceptable. Diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy and underestimation of gestational age were rare. Identified advantages included shortening time to access MA and mitigating access barriers such as cost, and geographical barriers. Abortion seekers valued omitting the ultrasound citing reasons such as privacy concerns, costs, more flexibility, and control. The impacts of no-test MA on unscheduled postabortion contacts and visits and on contraceptive use were unclear due to limited evidence.

SUMMARY

No-test MA can be provided to complement other care pathways including those with some or no in-person care. Further research is needed to allow for widespread adoption of no-test MA and scale-up in a variety of contexts, including low-resource settings.

Effectiveness and safety of medication abortion via telemedicine versus in-person: A cohort of pregnant people in Colombia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of medication abortion (MAB) via telemedicine versus in-person in pregnant people with less than 12 gestational weeks in Colombia.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 23,362 pregnant people who requested MAB service from Profamilia (a Colombian non-governmental organization) in 2021-2022. The outcomes were success and safety of MAB. We performed a descriptive and a multivariate statistical analysis using the binary regression model to obtain an adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) to identify factors associated with abortion success.

RESULTS

In comparison to in-person care (n = 20,289), individuals in telemedicine (n = 3073) were predominantly from urban areas, belonged to a lower socioeconomic stratum, single and did not identify with any ethnic group. In-person users tended to have higher levels of education and accessed the service through private insurance (p < 0,05). There were no differences in the odd of a successful abortion based on the modality of care (aOR 1.18; 95% CI=0.87-1.59). The results were also the same with sensitivity analysis stratified: pregnant people who were nine weeks gestation or less (aOR 0.86; 95% CI=0.63-1.17) or more (aOR 0.87; 95% CI=0.28-2.65).

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine is an effective and safe option for MAB, as in-person care. Telemedicine has the potential to increase abortion access by extending the availability of providers and offering people a new option for obtaining care conveniently and privately, especially for women with disadvantaged socioeconomic and educational background.

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrates that medication abortion (MAB) administered via telemedicine produces outcomes akin to those of in-person care, providing a compelling rationale for its adoption, particularly in underserved regions. This approach can be replicated in other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Telemedicine for the provision of medication abortion to pregnant people at up to twelve weeks of pregnancy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine represents an important strategy to facilitate access to medication abortion (MAB) procedures, reduces distance barriers and expands coverage to underserved communities. The aim is evaluating the self-managed MAB (provided through telemedicine as the sole intervention or in comparison to in-person care) in pregnant people at up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews), LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar. The search was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework, and was not restricted to any years of publication, and studies could be published in English or Spanish. Study screening and selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were performed by peer reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2.0 and ROBIS-I. A narrative and descriptive synthesis of the results was conducted. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were performed using Review Manager version 5.4 to calculate pooled risk differences, along with their individual 95% confidence intervals. The rate of evidence certainty was based on GRADE recommendations.

RESULTS

21 articles published between 2011 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 20 were observational studies, and 1 was a randomized clinical trial. Regarding the risk of bias, 5 studies had a serious risk, 15 had a moderate risk, and 1 had an undetermined risk. In terms of the type of intervention, 7 compared telemedicine to standard care. The meta-analysis of effectiveness revealed no statistically significant differences between the two modalities of care (RD = 0.01; 95%CI 0.00, 0.02). Our meta-analyses show that there were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events or in patient satisfaction when comparing the two methods of healthcare delivery.

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine is an effective and viable alternative for MAB, similar to standard care. The occurrence of complications was low in both forms of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine services are an opportunity to expand access to safe abortion services.

Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion

Importance

In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed.

Objective

To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older.

Exposure

Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group.

Results

The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group.

Conclusions and Relevance

This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.

Comparison of medication abortion outcomes at less than and greater than 6 weeks gestation

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes and characteristics of two cohorts of patients: those receiving medication abortion (MAB) at ≤42 days gestation and those at 43 to 56 days gestation.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2022, comparing 142 patients accessing MAB at ≤42 days with 200 patients at 43 to 56 days. We sought to detect a 7% difference in MAB success with 80% power and alpha of 0.05. We assessed follow-up responses and unscheduled contacts with the health care system.

RESULTS

Abortion success rates were similar between the ≤42-day and 43 to 56-day groups (94.3% vs 97%, p = 0.226). Those ≤42 days had more unscheduled office visits (13% vs 6%, p = 0.01) but no difference in phone calls or emergency room visits. More patients with successful MAB in the ≤42-day group answered that bleeding (11.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.006) and cramping (10.5% vs 2.9%, p = 0.035) were not heavier or worse than a period and that they had no pregnancy symptoms prior to the abortion (15.8% vs 6.0%, p = 0.034). Patients ≤42 days gestation less often had a pretreatment ultrasound (48% vs 64%, p = 0.004). Patients without prior ultrasound more often needed uterine aspiration to complete the abortion (6.8% vs 2%, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing MAB at ≤42 days have similar success rates but more unscheduled office visits, and more ambiguous symptoms when using standardized questions for evaluating abortion success. Clinicians should adapt anticipatory guidance and counseling for this population.

IMPLICATIONS

Access to very early abortion is increasingly relevant as legal restrictions on abortion increase. Earlier gestations may have different responses to standard follow-up questions despite a successful MAB and may have more interactions with the health care system.

The Safety and Efficacy of a "No Touch" Abortion Program Implemented in the Greater Toronto Area During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of first-trimester "No Touch" medication abortion programs at 2 clinics in Toronto, Ontario during their early implementation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients who underwent virtual consultation for mifepristone-misoprostol medication abortion between April 2020-August 2022 at 2 reproductive health clinics. In response to the pandemic, "No Touch" abortion protocols have been developed that align with the Canadian Protocol for the Provision of Medical Abortion via Telemedicine. Records were reviewed for demographic information, clinical course, investigations required, confirmation of complete abortion and adverse events. The primary outcome was complete medication abortion, defined as expulsion of the pregnancy without requiring uterine aspiration.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients had abortions initiated in the "No Touch" or "Low Touch" care pathways and had sufficient follow-up to determine outcomes. Of these patients, 92.8% (95% CI 89.7%-95.8%) had a complete medication abortion (n = 257) and 76.1% (n = 159) remained "No Touch" throughout their care. Investigations were performed for 102 participants before or after their abortion, classifying them as "Low Touch". Nineteen patients (6.9%) underwent uterine aspiration. The rate of adverse events was low, with 1 case of a missed ectopic pregnancy and 1 patient requiring hospitalization for endometritis.

CONCLUSIONS

"No Touch" provision of mifepristone-misoprostol medication abortion care was safe and effective with outcomes comparable to previous studies. These results provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of a "No Touch" approach in the Canadian context, which has the potential to reduce barriers to accessing abortion care.

Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion in the USA

Telehealth abortion has become critical to addressing surges in demand in states where abortion remains legal but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is limited. California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) is a prospective study that follows pregnant people who obtained medication abortion via telehealth from three virtual clinics operating in 20 states and Washington, DC between April 2021 and January 2022. Individuals were screened using a standardized no-test protocol, primarily relying on their medical history to assess medical eligibility. We assessed effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 mg mifepristone and 1,600 μg misoprostol (or lower) without additional intervention; safety was measured by the absence of serious adverse events. We estimated rates using multivariable logistic regression and multiple imputation to account for missing data. Among 6,034 abortions, 97.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.2-98.1%) were complete without subsequent known intervention or ongoing pregnancy after the initial treatment. Overall, 99.8% (99.6-99.9%) of abortions were not followed by serious adverse events. In total, 0.25% of patients experienced a serious abortion-related adverse event, 0.16% were treated for an ectopic pregnancy and 1.3% abortions were followed by emergency department visits. There were no differences in effectiveness or safety between synchronous and asynchronous models of care. Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care.

Telemedicine Abortion

Telemedicine has become a substantial part of abortion care in recent years. In this review, we discuss the history and regulatory landscape of telemedicine for medication abortion in the United States, different models of care for telemedicine, and the safety and effectiveness of medication abortion via telemedicine, including using history-based screening protocols for medication abortion without ultrasound. We also explore the acceptability of telemedicine for patients and their perspectives on its benefits, as well as the use of telemedicine for other parts of abortion care. Telemedicine has expanded access to abortion for many, although there remain limitations to its implementation.

The Provision of Abortion Care via Telehealth in the United States: A Rapid Review

INTRODUCTION

The recent Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health that has overruled Roe v. Wade has resulted in severe limitations of abortion access throughout the United States. Telehealth has been put forth as one solution for improving access for reproductive health care, including abortion services. Telehealth has demonstrated safety and efficacy in several health care disciplines; however, its use for abortion care and services has not been explored and synthesized.

METHODS

As part of a larger review on telehealth and general reproductive health, our team identified a moderate amount of literature on telehealth and abortion care. We conducted a rapid review searching for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Information was extracted from each included study to explore 4 key areas of inquiry: (1) clinical effectiveness, (2) patient and provider experiences, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies on the use of telehealth for providing abortion services published between 2011 and 2022 were included. Telehealth for medical abortion increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and was found to be safe and clinically effective, with high patient satisfaction. Overall, telehealth improved access and removed barriers for patients including lack of transportation. Legal restrictions in certain states were cited as the primary barriers. Studies contained limited information on the perspectives and experiences of health care providers and diverse patient populations.

DISCUSSION

Abortion care via telehealth is safe and effective with high satisfaction and may also remove barriers to care including transportation and fear. Removing restrictions on telehealth for the provision of abortion services may further improve access to care and promote greater health equity.

No-Test Medication Abortion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the effectiveness and safety outcomes of medication abortion performed without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram ("no-test medication abortion").

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane (including ClinicalTrials.gov), CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and CAB Direct databases to identify relevant studies published before April 2022 using a peer-reviewed search strategy including terms such as "medication abortion" and "ultrasonography." We contacted experts in the field for unpublished data and ongoing studies.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We reviewed 2,423 studies using Colandr. We included studies if they presented clinical outcomes of medication abortion performed with mifepristone and misoprostol and without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram. We excluded studies with duplicate data. We abstracted successful abortion rates overall, as well as rates by gestational age through 63 days, 70 days and past 84 days. We abstracted complication rates, including the need for surgical evacuation, additional medications, blood transfusion, and ectopic pregnancy.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS

We included 21 studies with a total of 10,693 patients with outcome data reported. The overall efficacy of no-test medication abortion was 96.4%; 93.8% (95% CI 92.8-94.6%) through 63 days of gestation and 95.2% (95% CI 94.7-95.7%) through 70 days of gestation. The overall rate of surgical evacuation was 4.4% (95% CI 4.0-4.9), need for additional misoprostol 2.2% (95% CI 1.8-2.6), blood transfusion 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.6), and ectopic pregnancy 0.06% (95% CI 0.02-0.15).

CONCLUSION

Medication abortion performed without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram is a safe and effective option for pregnancy termination.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021240739.

Telemedicine for First-Trimester Medical Abortion in Canada: Results of a 2019 Survey

Introduction: Telemedicine has the potential to improve abortion access disparities in Canada. We aimed to explore the provision of telemedicine for first-trimester medical abortion and related barriers in 2019. Methods: We conducted a national, cross-sectional, anonymized, web-based survey of clinicians who provided abortion care in 2019 in Canada. We distributed our survey through professional health organizations to maximize identification of possible eligible respondents and used a modified Dillman technique to foster responses. Questions elicited provider demographics, clinical characteristics, including telemedicine first-trimester medical abortion and perceived related barriers. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using R software. Results: Among 465 respondents, 388 reported providing first-trimester medical abortion across Canada; 44.0% reported experience using telemedicine for some components of care: 49.3% of primary care clinicians and 28.7% of specialists. Telemedicine was used for initial consultation (86.0%), prescription (82.2%), or follow-up (92.2%). The median percentage of telemedicine providers' patients who underwent a dating ultrasound was 90.0. The majority usually followed up with patients through quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) (84.2%). Seventy-eight percent perceived barriers to telemedicine; the most common being inability to confirm gestational age with ultrasound (43.0%), and lack of provincial telemedicine abortion fee code to pay practitioners (30.2%), timely access to serum hCG testing (24.6%), and nearby emergency services (23.3%). Discussion: In 2019, fewer than half of respondents reported providing some aspects of first-trimester medical abortion through telemedicine and the majority perceived barriers. Our results can inform knowledge translation activities to reduce barriers and increase telemedicine abortion care in Canada.

Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US.

EXPOSURES

Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 μg of mifepristone and up to 1600 μg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion.

RESULTS

The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

Miles and days until medical abortion via TelAbortion versus clinic in Oregon and Washington, USA

BACKGROUND

Medical abortion provided via telemedicine is becoming more widely available, potentially decreasing travel time for in-person abortion evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all outpatient medical abortions from October 2016 through December 2019 at our academic medical centre in Portland, Oregon, USA. Using mifepristone administration logs, we identified patients who underwent abortion via direct-to-patient telemedicine or in clinic. Both groups had pre-abortion ultrasound examination. We extracted patient characteristics and geographic data to compare travel distance to clinic, ultrasound facility, and nearest advertised abortion clinic. We compared time from first contact until mifepristone ingestion and gestational age at mifepristone ingestion.

RESULTS

Median distance from mailing address to clinic for 80 telemedicine and 124 clinic medical abortions was 95 (range 4-377) and 12 (range 0-184) miles (p<0.01). Distance travelled to ultrasound facility was shorter for telemedicine patients (median 7 miles, range 0-150 vs 12 miles, range 0-184; p<0.01) excluding outliers >200 miles. Distance to nearest advertised abortion clinic was equal between groups (median 7 miles, p=0.4). Time to mifepristone administration (ingestion) was longer (11 vs 6 days; p<0.01) and median gestational age was higher (49 vs 44 days; p=0.01) for telemedicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine increases the reach of abortion providers and provides care to more geographically distant patients. Patients chose telemedicine abortion even when they had an equidistant option, suggesting that patients value telemedicine for reasons other than geographic convenience. This telemedicine delivery model that included ultrasound testing prior to abortion resulted in up to a 5-day delay in abortion initiation, which was not clinically significant.