A randomized prospective study of misoprostol or mifepristone followed by misoprostol when needed for the treatment of women with early pregnancy failure

Efficacy and safety of isosorbide mononitrate plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in the management of the first and second trimester abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

However, misoprostol is often used to terminate a pregnancy, but it can also cause side effects. Isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) can help the cervix mature by increasing the production of prostaglandin E2 and vasodilation. Considering that the results of studies in this field are contradictory, it is the purpose of this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vaginal ISMN plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in the management of first- and second-trimester abortions.

METHOD

The search process was conducted for MEDLINE through the PubMed interface, Scopus, Web-of-Science, Science Direct, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until November 10, 2023. Our assessment of bias was based on version 2 of the risk-of-bias tool (RoB2) for randomized trials and our level of evidence quality was determined by GRADE. Meta-analysis of all data was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.1.

RESULT

Seven randomized clinical trials were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis, with mixed quality. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that in the second-trimester abortion, the inclusion of ISMN in conjunction with vaginal misoprostol results in a noteworthy reduction in the induction abortion interval, specifically by 4.21 h (95% CI: -7.45 to -0.97, P = 0.01). The addition of vaginal ISMN to misoprostol, compared to vaginal misoprostol alone, increased the odds of a completed abortion by 3.76 times. (95% CI: 1.08 to 13.15, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study can offer valuable insights aimed at enhancing counseling and support for non-surgical methods of medication abortion within professional settings. Moreover, it improves the effectiveness of clinical treatment and reduces the occurrence of unnecessary surgical interventions in the abortion management protocol.

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.

Medical management of first trimester miscarriage: a quality improvement initiative

INTRODUCTION

Medical management of first trimester pregnancy loss is a safe option that is well tolerated and affords women more autonomy in relation to their care. Recent trials provide robust evidence that mifepristone pretreatment is the optimal approach for women with missed miscarriage who desire medical management.

METHODS

Following a change in medical management of first trimester miscarriage in our unit, we conducted a retrospective audit over a 3-month period of all women who had elected medical management as their primary treatment option. We compared the results with a previous audit that had been undertaken prior to the change in practice.

RESULTS

The implementation of mifepristone resulted in an increased effectiveness of primary medical treatment for first trimester miscarriage from 53.8% to 85.2% (p=<0.001).

DISCUSSION

The results of our study support the introduction of mifepristone into routine clinical practice for medical management of first trimester pregnancy loss across all maternity units.

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.

Failure Rate of Medical Treatment for Miscarriage Correlated with the Difference between Gestational Age According to Last Menstrual Period and Gestational Size Calculated via Ultrasound

Objective: To study whether the interval between gestational age calculated using the last menstrual period (GA-LMP) and gestational age calculated via ultrasound (GA-US) is correlated with the success rate of medical treatment in cases of miscarriages. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a gynecology unit in a tertiary medical center. Women who underwent medical treatment with Misoprostol for miscarriage at the Edith Wolfson Medical Center between 07/2015 and 12/2020 were included. Incomplete or septic miscarriages, multiple pregnancies, patients with irregular periods, and cases of missing data were excluded. Failure of medical treatment was defined as the need for surgical intervention due to a retained gestational sac, severe bleeding or retained products of conception. The cohort study was divided into two groups: patients with successful treatment and patients for whom surgical intervention was eventually needed. We performed both a univariate and multivariate analysis in order to identify whether a correlation between GA-LMP and GA-US interval is indeed a factor in the success rate of a medical abortion. Results: Overall, 778 patients were included in the study. From this cohort 582 (74.9%) had undergone a successful medical treatment, while 196 (25.1%) required surgical intervention due to the failure of medical treatment, as defined above. The GA-LMP to GA-US interval (in weeks) was 2.6 ± 1.4 in the success group, while the GA in the failure group was 3.1 ± 1.6 (p < 0.001). After performing a multivariant regression analysis, we were able to show that the GA-LMP to GA-US interval was found to be independently correlated with an increase in the treatment failure rate (aOR = 1.24, CI 95% (1.01-1.51), p = 0.03). Conclusions: In cases of miscarriage, longer GA-LMP to GA-US interval has been shown to be an independently correlated factor to lower success rate of the medical treatment option.

Comparison of mifepristone plus misoprostol with misoprostol alone for first trimester medical abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare mifepristone plus a misoprostol-combined regimen with misoprostol alone in the medical abortion of first trimester pregnancy.

Methods

An internet-based search of available literature was performed using text words contained in titles and abstracts. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Google scholar were used to locate English-based articles published until December 2021. Studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected, appraised, and assessed for methodological quality. The included studies were pooled for meta-analysis, and the results were presented in risk ratio at a 95% confidence interval.

Findings

Nine studies comprising 2,052 participants (1,035 intervention and 1,017 controls) were considered. Primary endpoints were complete expulsion, incomplete expulsion, missed abortion, and ongoing pregnancy. The intervention was found to more likely induce complete expulsion irrespective of gestational age (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.14–1.25). The administration of misoprostol 800 mcg after 24 h of mifepristone pre-treatment in the intervention group more likely induced complete expulsion (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.17–1.30) than after 48 h. The intervention group was also more likely to experience complete expulsion when misoprostol was used either vaginally (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.09–1.17) or buccally (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.16–1.30). The intervention was more effective in the subgroup with a negative foetal heartbeat at reducing incomplete abortion (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.26–0.78) compared with the control group. The intervention more likely reduced both missed abortion (RR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08–0.91) and ongoing pregnancy (RR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05–0.26). Fever was less likely to be reported (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.12–0.89), whereas the subjective experience of bleeding was more likely to be encountered (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13–1.53) by the intervention group.

Conclusion

The review strengthened the theory that a combined mifepristone and misoprostol regimen can be an effective medical management for inducing abortions during first trimester pregnancy in all contexts. Specifically, there is a high-level certainty of evidence on complete expulsion during the early stage and its ability to reduce both missed and ongoing pregnancies.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019134213, identifier CRD42019134213.

Surgical intervention after medical treatment for early pregnancy loss according to gestational size

OBJECTIVE

To study the rate of surgical intervention for unsuccessful medical treatment in early pregnancy loss (EPL), according to gestational size by ultrasound (GS-US).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. All women who were treated with misoprostol for EPL between July 2015 and December 2020 were included. The cohort was divided according to GS-US: group 1: gestational sac without an embryonic pole; group 2: an embryonic pole with crown-rump length (CRL) compatible with <7 weeks; group 3: CRL compatible with 7⁺⁰ -7⁺⁶ weeks; group 4: CRL compatible with 8⁺⁰ -8⁺⁶ weeks; group 5: CRL compatible with ≥9 weeks. We compared the rate of any surgical intervention due to treatment failure.

RESULTS

Overall, 783 patients were included: group 1, 236 (30.1%); group 2, 319 (40.7%); group 3, 115 (14.7%); group 4, 78 (10.0%); and group 5, 35 (5.0%) patients. The rate of any surgical intervention was significantly lower in groups 1-4 (54, 22.9%; 85, 26.6%; 28, 24.3%; and 22, 28.2%, respectively) compared with group 5 (17, 48.6%; P = 0.030). On multivariant analysis, GS-US greater than 9 weeks was independently associated with the need for surgical intervention (adjusted odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.51; P = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

When treating EPL medically, GS-US greater than 9 weeks increases the risk of undergoing additional surgical intervention compared with younger weeks.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage.

DESIGN

Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS).

SETTING

Twenty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units.

SAMPLE

A cohort of 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage.

METHODS

Treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol or with matched placebo and misoprostol tablets.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and a QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost saving of £182 (95% CI £26-£338). Hence, the MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that the MifeMiso intervention is preferable, compared with expectant management, and this is the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, the MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective and less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.

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 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.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for uterine evacuation after early pregnancy failure: study protocol for a randomized double blinded placebo-controlled comparison (Triple M Trial)

BACKGROUND

Early pregnancy failure (EPF) is a common complication of pregnancy. If women do not abort spontaneously, they will undergo medical or surgical treatment in order to remove the products of conception from the uterus. Curettage, although highly effective, is associated with a risk of complications; medical treatment with misoprostol is a safe and less expensive alternative. Unfortunately, after 1 week of expectant management in case of EPF, medical treatment with misoprostol has a complete evacuation rate of approximately 50%. Misoprostol treatment results may be improved by pre-treatment with mifepristone; its effectiveness has already been proven for other indications of pregnancy termination. This study will test the hypothesis that, in EPF, the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to the use of misoprostol alone in terms of complete evacuation (primary outcome), patient satisfaction, complications, side effects and costs (secondary outcomes).

METHODS

The trial will be performed multi-centred, prospectively, two-armed, randomised, double-blinded and placebo-controlled. Women with confirmed EPF by ultrasonography (6-14 weeks), managed expectantly for at least 1 week, can be included and randomised to pre-treatment with oral mifepristone (600 mg) or oral placebo (identical in appearance). Randomisation will take place after receiving written consent to participate. In both arms pre-treatment will be followed by oral misoprostol, which will start 36-48 h later consisting of two doses 400 μg (4 hrs apart), repeated after 24 h if no tissue is lost. Four hundred sixty-four women will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre. Ultrasonography 2 weeks after treatment will determine short term treatment effect. When the gestational sac is expulsed, expectant management is advised until 6 weeks after treatment when the definitive primary endpoint, complete or incomplete evacuation, will be determined. A sonographic endometrial thickness < 15 mm using only the allocated therapy by randomisation is considered as successful treatment. Secondary outcome measures (patient satisfaction, complications, side effects and costs) will be registered using a case report form, patient diary and validated questionnaires (Short Form 36, EuroQol-VAS, Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire).

DISCUSSION

This trial will answer the question if, in case of EPF, after at least 1 week of expectant management, sequential treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone to achieve complete evacuation of the products of conception.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (d.d. 02-07-2017): NCT03212352. Trialregister.nl (d.d. 03-07-2017): NTR6550. EudraCT number (d.d. 07-08-2017): 2017-002694-19. File number Commisie Mensgebonden Onderzoek (d.d. 07-08-2017): NL 62449.091.17.

The role of repeat misoprostol dose in the management of early pregnancy failure

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the role of repeat misoprostol administration in those with thickened endometrium in the management of early pregnancy failure (EPF).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study in two university hospitals among women receiving misoprostol treatment for EPF. Those with thickened endometrium at the first follow-up visit, who received a repeat 800 µg dose of vaginal misoprostol in institution B and no treatment in institution A, constituted the study group. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as complete uterine evacuation without the need for any operative intervention RESULTS: Overall, 608 women with thickened endometrium as assessed by transvaginal ultrasonography 2 days following initial misoprostol administration for EPF were included. Of them, 427 did not receive repeat misoprostol dose, and 181 received repeat misoprostol dose. The rate of surgical intervention did not differ between those who received a repeat misoprostol dose (6.1%) and those who did not (4.3%) (P = 0.32). The median endometrial thickness was similar in those that did and did not require subsequent surgical intervention (P = 0.65), and was a poor predictor of treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat misoprostol administration among women with thickened endometrium following initial misoprostol administration for EPF was not associated with improved treatment success rates.

Current and future expectations of mifepristone treatment in early pregnancy failure: a survey among Dutch gynaecologists

To investigate the current and future addition of mifepristone to misoprostol treatment in case of early pregnancy failure (EPF), a digital questionnaire was distributed to a representative sample of all Dutch hospitals (25/79). In non-teaching centres, the presence of a local protocol was significantly lower compared to academic and teaching hospitals (p=.012). If a local protocol was present, the first choice of treatment was medical in 54.5%. Four respondents (16%) always prescribed mifepristone in case of EPF. The most common reason not prescribing mifepristone was the lack of sufficient scientific evidence. An average increase in success rate of 21.7% was desired to prescribe mifepristone in the future for EPF. Completeness of evacuation of products of conception from the uterus was usually assessed after 1 week by ultrasonography combined with clinical signs. If a complete evacuation was not achieved by the initial medical treatment, expectant management was proposed just as often as surgical intervention. Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? In case of early pregnancy failure (EPF), women can choose from both expectant medical (misoprostol, whether or not combined with mifepristone) and surgical (D and C) treatment. In The Netherlands, a national guideline concerning the treatment of EPF is still lacking. A questionnaire performed by Verschoor et al. ( 2014 ) showed there was a large practice variety between Dutch clinics. What the results of this study add? In this study, a representative sample of all Dutch clinics received a questionnaire about the treatment of EPF. The results confirm a large practice variation regarding treatment of EPF. The first choice of treatment, the medical treatment regimen, and the assessment of whether or not the treatment have been variations of successful between clinics. With regards to the addition of mifepristone to the medical treatment regime with misoprostol, gynaecologists are willing to consider mifepristone if an improvement of efficacy of approximately 20% is scientifically proven. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? In our opinion, these results emphasise the need for a national guideline concerning the treatment of EPF. Our results also demonstrate that, if the addition of mifepristone to medical treatment with misoprostol proves to be more efficient than misoprostol alone, gynaecologists are willing to prescribe mifepristone in the future. Whether the addition is indeed more effective than misoprostol alone, will be the subject of a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial, planned to begin in the first half of 2018.

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.

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.

Single versus repeat doses of misoprostol for treatment of early pregnancy loss-a randomized clinical trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does repeat administration of misoprostol for early pregnancy loss increase the treatment success rate?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Repeat administration of misoprostol does not increase the treatment success rate, and is associated with more analgesics use.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Misoprostol reduces the need for surgical evacuation and shortens the time to complete expulsion in patients with early pregnancy loss. However, the impact of repeat doses of misoprostol is not clear.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in a single tertiary hospital, recruiting women with early pregnancy loss (<12 weeks), seeking medical treatment, between August 2015 and June 2016. A sample size of 160 patients was sufficient to detect a 30% decrease in treatment success.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants received 800 μg of misoprostol vaginally on Day 1, and were then randomly assigned into two groups: Patients in the single-dose group were evaluated on Day 8. Patients in the repeat-dose group were evaluated on Day 4, when they were given a repeat dose if required, and scheduled for re-evaluation on Day 8. If complete expulsion was not achieved on Day 8 (endometrial thickness >15 mm or the presence of gestational sac on transvaginal sonography), participants underwent surgical evacuation. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as no need for surgical intervention up to Day 8.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Final analysis included 87 participants in the single-dose group and 84 participants in the repeat-dose group, out of whom 41 (48.8%) received a second dose. Treatment succeeded in 67 (77%) patients in the single-dose group and 64 (76%) patients in the repeat-dose group (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.16; P = 0.89). Patients in the repeat-dose group reported more use of over the counter analgesics (82.1% versus 69.0%, P = 0.04).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was not blinded and our definition of complete expulsion may be debated. Follow-up time was not equal in all participants, since some had a complete expulsion on Day 4 and some underwent emergent D&C before Day 8. This, however, should not affect the primary outcome.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results suggest that a single-dose protocol is superior to a repeat-dose protocol due to a comparable success rate and more favorable outcomes regarding the need for analgesic drugs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

We did not receive funding for this study and we declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02515604).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

2 August 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

19 August 2015.

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

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of mifepristone followed by misoprostol with misoprostol alone in the management of early pregnancy failure (EPF).

Study Design

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Methods

Ninety-two women with EPF ≤12 weeks were recruited and randomly allocated to receive either mifepristone 200 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 46). Forty-eight hours later, patients in both the groups were given 800 µg misoprostol per-vaginum. If no expulsion occurred within 4 h, repeat doses of 400 µg misoprostol were given orally at 3-hourly interval to a maximum of 2 doses in women ≤9 weeks by scan and 4 doses in women >9 weeks by scan.

Results

Pre-treatment of misoprostol with mifepristone significantly increased the complete abortion rate (86.7 vs. 57.8%, p = 0.009) and, hence, reduced the need for surgical evacuation (13.3 vs. 42.2%, p = 0.002), induction to expulsion interval (4.74 ± 2.24 vs. 8.03 ± 2.77 h, p = 0.000), mean number of additional doses of misoprostol required (0.68 vs. 1.91, p = 0.000), and side effects.

Conclusion

Use of mifepristone prior to misoprostol in EPF significantly improves the efficacy and reduces the side effects of misoprostol alone.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Marked improvement in the success rate of medical management of early pregnancy failure following the implementation of a novel institutional protocol and treatment guidelines: a follow-up study

Purpose

To analyze the success rate, time to passage of tissue and subjective patient experience of a newly implemented protocol for medical management of early pregnancy failure (EPF) over a 2-year period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all patients with early pregnancy failure primarily opting for medical management was performed. 200 mg mifepristone were administered orally, followed by a single vaginal dose of 800 mcg misoprostol after 36–48 h. We followed-up with our patients using a written questionnaire.

Results

167 women were included in the present study. We observed an overall success rate of 92 %, defined as no need for surgical management after medication administration. We could not identify predictive values for success in a multivariate regression analysis. Most patients (84 %) passed tissue within 6 h after misoprostol administration. The protocol was well tolerated with a low incidence of side effects. Pain was managed well with sufficient analgesics. Responders to the questionnaire felt adequately informed prior to treatment and rated their overall experience as positive.

Conclusion

The adaption of the institutional medical protocol resulted in a marked improvement of success rate when compared to the previously used protocol (92 vs. 61 %). We credit this increase to the adjusted medication schema as well as to targeted physician education on the expected course and interpretation of outcome measures. Our results underscore that the medical management of EPF is a safe and effective alternative to surgical evacuation in the clinical setting.

[Association of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of early pregnancy failure]

OBJECTIVES

A retrospective monocentric clinical trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the association of mifepristone and misoprostol for the management of early pregnancy failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety-two women with early pregnancy failure or anembryonic pregnancy were first treated with 600 mg of mifepristone and 48 hours later with 400 μg of misoprostol by oral administration. Successful treatment, defined as an empty uterus, was searched at day 3, with the association of misoprostol-mifepristone alone or with complementary medical treatment, prostaglandins or ocytocine.

RESULTS

The overall treatment success was 82% (75 of 92 women) with 69 successful cases at day 3 (75%). Six of 92 women (7%) needed a second-line medical treatment. For the last 17 women (18%), the failure of the associated tested medical treatment lead to a secondary surgery. No prognostic factor for the successful medical treatment has been highlighted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A high efficacy for the management of early pregnancy failure is demonstrated for the mifepristone and misoprostol medical treatment. The specific contribution of mifepristone, although proven in the cases of termination of evolutive pregnancies, should be further evaluated in the future for the specific management of early pregnancy failure. Nevertheless, no prognostic factor for the success of the propose treatment can be determined, as the amount of patients enrolled in this study was not sufficient.

Efficacy of intra-cervical misoprostol in the management of early pregnancy failure

The aim of this prospective study was to assess the efficacy of intra-cervical misoprostol in the management of early pregnancy failure. Twenty women with early pregnancy failure received intra-cervical misoprostol via an endometrial sampling cannula. The first dose was 50 μg of misoprostol dissolved in 5 ml of normal saline. The administration was repeated after 12 h if there was no vaginal bleeding or pain. Nine (45%) women received 1 dose and 11 (55%) women received 2 doses of intra-cervical misoprostol. Abortion within 24 h occurred in 16 (80%) women, and complete abortion was achieved in 14 (70%) cases. Two women with incomplete abortion were managed with 600 μg of misoprostol orally (1 case) and surgical intervention (1 case). The mean time interval between the first dose and the abortion was 10.6 ± 6.3 h. Two women did not respond within 24 h of treatment initiation, 1 woman withdrew consent after the first treatment, and 1 woman developed heavy vaginal bleeding after the first dose and underwent surgical management. Intra-cervical misoprostol is a promising method of medical treatment of early pregnancy failure. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to validate its safety and efficacy.

Sequential use of mifepristone and misoprostol in treatment of early pregnancy failure appears more effective than misoprostol alone: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Is treatment of early pregnancy failure (EPF) with sequential use of mifepristone and misoprostol more effective than treatment with misoprostol alone?

STUDY DESIGN

In a retrospective cohort study at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Radboud University Medical Centre, 301 women with early pregnancy failure receiving medical treatment between January 2008 and March 2013 were included. Of these, 199 women were pre-treated with 200mg mifepristone (orally) followed by 2 consecutive doses of 800mcg misoprostol (vaginally) and 102 women were treated with 2 consecutive doses of 800mcg misoprostol (vaginally) alone.

RESULTS

Complete expulsion was achieved in 66.8% of the women treated with a sequential combination of mifepristone and misoprostol versus 54.9% of the women treated with misoprostol alone. The difference in rates of complete expulsion was 11.9% (P<0.05; 95% CI 0.3-23.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical treatment of early pregnancy failure with a sequential combination of mifepristone and misoprostol was more effective than treatment with misoprostol alone. Our findings will have to be confirmed by a large prospective multicentre double blinded-randomized trial.

Medical management of early pregnancy failure (EPF): a retrospective analysis of a combined protocol of mifepristone and misoprostol used in clinical practice

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of a combined protocol of mifepristone and misoprostol in the management of early pregnancy failure (EPF) and the average time to expulsion of tissue and rate of side effects.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all consecutive women treated with primary medical management for EPF at our institution from 2006 to 2012.

RESULTS

168 patients were included in the present study. The overall success rate, defined as the absence of the need for surgical intervention, was 61 % and did not differ by calendar year. There was no difference in success rate grouped by diagnosis [intrauterine embryonic/fetal demise (IUED/IUFD) vs. anembryonic gestation; p = 0.30] or gestational age (<9 or ≥9 weeks; p = 0.48). The success rate varied significantly according to the required dose of misoprostol, ≤800 or >800 μg (68 vs. 50 %, p = 0.029). Of the possible predictive factors of success, only the dose of misoprostol required was a significant independent negative predictor. Mean and median time to tissue expulsion after the first dose of misoprostol were 8.4 and 5.5 h, respectively. The incidence of side effects was low with no blood transfusions required.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate in this study is markedly below published data. This can possibly be attributed to retrospective study design, allowing for physician subjectivity and patients' wishes in the absence of strict study requirements. The protocol was well tolerated with a paucity of side effects. We make suggestions for enhancing success rates in the clinical setting by optimizing medication protocols, establishing precise treatment guidelines and training physicians in the accurate interpretation of treatment outcomes.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcome of an intervention to improve the quality of private sector provision of postabortion care in northern Nigeria

The outcomes of an intervention aimed at improving the quality of postabortion care provided by private medical practitioners in 8 states in northern Nigeria are reported. A total of 458 private medical doctors and 839 nurses and midwives were trained to offer high-quality postabortion care, postabortion family planning, and integrated sexually transmitted infection/HIV care. Results showed that among the 17009 women treated over 10 years, there was not a single case of maternal death. In a detailed analysis of 2559 women treated during a 15-month period after the intervention was established, only 33 women experienced mild complications, while none suffered major complications of abortion care. At the same time, there was a reduction in treatment cost and a doubling of the contraceptive uptake by the women. Building the capacity of private medical providers can reduce maternal morbidity and mortality associated with induced abortion in northern Nigeria.

Private medical providers' knowledge and practices concerning medical abortion in Nigeria

To investigate the knowledge and practices regarding medical abortion and postabortion care in northern Nigeria among private physicians--the principal providers of such services in the area--122 doctors operating separate clinics in five states--Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna, Niger, and Taraba--were interviewed by means of a structured questionnaire. The results showed that 22 percent of the doctors reported that they terminate unwanted pregnancies, whereas nearly all reported that they manage complications of unsafe abortion. Manual vacuum aspiration and dilatation and curettage performed singly or in combination were the most common methods of abortion and postabortion care reported by the doctors. Only one doctor reported exclusive use of medical abortion in the first trimester, and three reported its exclusive use in the second trimester. Only 35 percent of the doctors listed misoprostol as a drug that they knew could be used for abortion and postabortion care, and only 12 percent listed mifepristone. By contrast, 49 percent listed inappropriate or dangerous drugs for use in abortion provision in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. We conclude that private practitioners in northern Nigeria have limited knowledge of medical abortion and postabortion care, and that a capacity-building program on the subject should be instituted for them.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted unblinded.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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