A randomised controlled trial of expectant management versus surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss

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.

Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.

Moistening the new vaginal misoprostol tablets: does it increase the efficacy of cervical priming before manual vacuum aspiration in first-trimester miscarriage? A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of our study was to ascertain whether moistening the Brazilian formulation of vaginal misoprostol tablets increases cervical dilation before manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), compared with use of dry misoprostol, in first-trimester miscarriage. The secondary objective was to ascertain whether there was any correlation between vaginal pH and the degree of cervical dilation using a moistened or dry misoprostol tablet.

METHODS

In a single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial, 46 patients with first-trimester miscarriage were randomly allocated to treatment with dry or moistened (with 200 µl distilled water) 2 × 200 μg misoprostol tablets.

RESULTS

The median (range) cervical dilation in the wet and dry groups was 8 mm (6-12 mm) and 7 mm (5-10 mm), respectively (p = .06). The median time between misoprostol insertion and carrying out the procedure did not differ between the dry (406 min, range 180-550 min) and wet (448 min, range 180-526 min) groups (p = .1). No correlation was found between vaginal pH and cervical dilation using continuous data (p = .57; r= 0.08; 95% confidence interval -0.02, 0.3) or dichotomous data (pH ≤5/>5; cervical dilation ≥8 mm or <8 mm; p = .8).

CONCLUSION

No difference was observed in cervical dilation between moistened and non-moistened misoprostol use prior to MVA.