A cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical versus medical management of early pregnancy loss

Cost-effectiveness analysis of expectant vs active management for treatment of persistent pregnancies of unknown location

BACKGROUND

Persistent pregnancies of unknown location are defined by abnormally trending serum human chorionic gonadotropin with nondiagnostic ultrasound. There is no consensus on optimal management.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 primary management strategies for persistent pregnancies of unknown location: (1) expectant management, (2) empirical 2-dose methotrexate, and (3) uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate, if indicated.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective economic evaluation performed concurrently with the Expectant versus Active Management for Treatment of Persistent Pregnancies of Unknown Location multicenter randomized trial that was conducted from July 2014 to June 2019. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to expectant management, 2-dose methotrexate, or uterine evacuation. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 6-week time horizon after randomization. Costs were expressed in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years and the rate of salpingectomy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the analysis.

RESULTS

Methotrexate had the lowest mean cost ($875), followed by expectant management ($1085) and uterine evacuation ($1902) (P=.001). Expectant management had the highest mean quality-adjusted life years (0.1043), followed by methotrexate (0.1031) and uterine evacuation (0.0992) (P=.0001). The salpingectomy rate was higher for expectant management than for methotrexate (9.4% vs 1.2%, respectively; P=.02) and for expectant management than for uterine evacuation (9.4% vs 8.1%, respectively; P=.04). Uterine evacuation, with the highest costs and the lowest quality-adjusted life years, was dominated by both expectant management and methotrexate. In the base case analysis, expectant management was not cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year given an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $175,083 per quality-adjusted life year gained (95% confidence interval, -$1,666,825 to $2,676,375). Threshold analysis demonstrated that methotrexate administration would have to cost $214 (an increase of $16 or 8%) to favor expectant management. Moreover, expectant management would be favorable in lower-risk patient populations with rates of laparoscopic surgical management for ectopic pregnancy not exceeding 4% of pregnancies of unknown location. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the probability of expectant management being cost-effective compared with methotrexate at a willingness to pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 50%. The results were dependent on the cost of surgical intervention and the expected rate of methotrexate failure.

CONCLUSION

The management of pregnancies of unknown location with a 2-dose methotrexate protocol may be cost-effective compared with expectant management and uterine evacuation. Although uterine evacuation was dominated, expectant management vs methotrexate results were sensitive to modest changes in treatment costs of both methotrexate and surgical management.

Outcomes of incomplete abortion related to treatment modality

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the differences in treatment outcomes between misoprostol and surgical evacuation for the management of incomplete abortion.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared patients with a clinical diagnosis of incomplete abortion who underwent surgical or pharmaceutical (misoprostol) intervention, 2014-2017. Demographics, sonographic results, treatment follow-up, and post-intervention data on retained products of conception were retrieved. Women with incomplete abortion who underwent surgical versus pharmaceutical intervention were compared.

RESULTS

Among 589 spontaneous abortions, 198 were included in the study, of which 123 (62.1%) underwent surgical evacuation and 75 (37.9%) pharmaceutical intervention with misoprostol. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. During 130.8 ± 91.7 days of follow-up, no patient who underwent surgical evacuation had retained products of conception or needed surgical hysteroscopy. Four cases (5.3%) in the misoprostol group had retained products of conception and needed hysteroscopy (p = 0.02). Patients who underwent surgical evacuation had higher hemoglobin levels during follow-up (12.1 mg/dL vs. 11.7 mg/dL, p = 0.05). There were no differences in post-treatment pregnancy rates between groups.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up after incomplete abortion showed that hemodynamically stable patients treated with misoprostol achieved the desired results in 95% of cases without significant differences in pregnancy intervals compared to surgical management. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm the outcomes described in this study.

The association between abortion restrictions and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss at US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs

BACKGROUND

Early pregnancy loss is a common medical problem, and the recommended treatments overlap with those used for induced abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the incorporation of clinical and patient factors when applying conservative published imaging guidelines to determine the timing of intervention for early pregnancy loss. However, in places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians who manage early pregnancy loss may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate between early pregnancy loss and a potentially viable pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also notes that specific treatment modalities that are frequently used to induce abortion, including the use of mifepristone in medical therapy and surgical aspiration in an office setting, are cost-effective and beneficial for patients with early pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine how US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency training institutions adhere to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for early pregnancy loss management, including the timing and types of interventions, and to evaluate the relationship with institutional and state abortion restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN

From November 2021 to January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of all 296 US-based obstetrics and gynecology residency programs by emailing them and requesting that a faculty member complete a survey about early pregnancy loss practices at their institution. We asked about location of diagnosis, use of imaging guidelines before offering intervention, treatment options available at their institution, and program and personal characteristics. We used chi-square tests and logistic regressions to compare the availability of early pregnancy loss care based on institutional indication-based abortion restrictions and state legislative hostility to abortion care.

RESULTS

Of the 149 programs that responded (50.3% response rate), 74 (49.7%) reported that they did not offer any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss unless rigid imaging criteria were met, whereas the remaining 75 (50.3%) programs reported that they incorporated imaging guidelines with other factors. In an unadjusted analysis, programs were less likely to incorporate other factors with imaging criteria if they were in a state with legislative policies that were hostile toward abortion (33% vs 79%; P<.001) or if the institution restricted abortion by indication (27% vs 88%; P<.001). Mifepristone was used less often in programs located in hostile states (32% vs 75%; P<.001) or in institutions with abortion restrictions (25% vs 86%; P<.001). Similarly, office-based suction aspiration use was lower in hostile states (48% vs 68%; P=.014) and in institutions with restrictions (40% vs 81%; P<.001). After controlling for program characteristics, including state policies and affiliation with family planning training programs or religious entities, institutional abortion restrictions were the only significant predictor of rigid reliance on imaging guidelines (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9).

CONCLUSION

In training institutions that restrict access to induced abortion based on indication for care, residency programs are less likely to holistically incorporate clinical evidence and patient priorities in determining when to intervene in early pregnancy loss as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Programs in restrictive institutional and state environments are also less likely to offer the full range of early pregnancy loss treatment options. With state abortion bans proliferating nationwide, evidence-based education and patient-centered care for early pregnancy loss may also be hindered.

Medical management of early pregnancy loss is cost-effective compared with office uterine aspiration

BACKGROUND

Early pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties.

RESULTS

Mean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.

First Trimester Miscarriage

First trimester miscarriage, or early pregnancy loss, is a common occurrence in the United States. Miscarriage management includes expectant, medical, or surgical approaches. Decisions about management options should be approached through shared decision making between the patient and provider and with consideration of patient's preferences, hemodynamic stability, cost, gestational age, and effectiveness. Emergencies requiring immediate interventions are rare. Newer developments in management, including a more effective medical regimen with the addition of mifepristone and cost-effective and convenient in-office surgical interventions, have expanded treatment options.

Economic evaluation of medical versus surgical strategies for first trimester therapeutic abortion: A systematic review

Pregnancy termination and abortion-related complications are well-established problems among women at reproductive age and resulted in significant morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, a systematic study was performed to investigate the economic evaluation studies results on costs and benefits of medical and surgical abortion methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect databases as well as Google scholar were searched through June 2021. Original full-text English language studies that performed an economic evaluation analysis comparing medical and surgical methods of pregnancy termination were included in this review. A critical quality assessment was conducted utilizing the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards checklist. The latest web-based tool adjusted the estimates of costs expressed in one specific currency and price year into a specific target currency (the year 2020 $US). Overall, 538 records were retrieved, and 20 studies were deemed eligible for qualitative synthesis. Among the reviewed studies, three studies investigated cost-minimization analysis, three studies investigated cost-utility analysis, and 14 studies investigated cost-effectiveness analysis. The directly comparison of medical with surgical abortion was most frequently studied. Medical abortion saved US$ 6 to US$ 2373 per patient's costs. Medical abortion was cost-effective and cost-saving option in compare to the surgical abortion across all perspectives (the incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranged from US$ 419 to US$ 4,044). Quality scores of included studies ranged from 54% to 100%, and 70% of studies received a score of above 85% and had "excellent" quality. According to the results, based on various economic and clinical effectiveness decision-making criteria used in different studies of health economic evaluation, the majority of research provided evidence on the advantage of pharmaceutical methods compared to surgical methods, as well as the advantages of using combinations therapy compared to single therapeutic interventions.

Universal First-Trimester Cytomegalovirus Screening and Valaciclovir Prophylaxis in Pregnant Persons: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest a possible benefit of valaciclovir prophylaxis to prevent vertical transmission after a positive serologic screen for primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy, although its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the circumstances under which universal first-trimester maternal serologic screening for maternal cytomegalovirus infection, with valaciclovir prophylaxis to prevent congenital cytomegalovirus, is cost-effective.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a decision analysis from the perspective of the pregnant person to assess whether universal maternal screening in the first trimester, with subsequent valaciclovir prophylaxis (8g/day from time of positive serologic screen for primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection through 21 weeks' gestation) for those who are acutely infected, is cost-effective compared to usual care (i.e., no routine serologic screening, but amniocentesis if mid-trimester sonographic findings suggest cytomegalovirus). For baseline estimates, we assumed a 35% risk of congenital cytomegalovirus after primary maternal infection and a 71% risk reduction with valaciclovir. We varied valaciclovir's efficacy to identify whether and at what threshold universal screening would be estimated to be cost-effective, compared to usual care. Monte Carlo analyses were performed. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year was used to define cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Under base-case estimates, first-trimester universal screening and valaciclovir prophylaxis for seropositive pregnant persons with acute cytomegalovirus infection is not cost-effective, with a cost of $137,854 per maternal QALY, but results in 14 fewer cytomegalovirus-affected children per 100,000 pregnancies compared to usual care. In one-way sensitivity analysis, universal screening and treatment is estimated to be the cost-effective strategy if the incidence of primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection exceeds 2.6%, baseline risk of vertical transmission of cytomegalovirus without prophylaxis is greater than 36.8%, and the risk reduction of vertical transmission of cytomegalovirus with valaciclovir prophylaxis exceeds 75.9%. In Monte Carlo analyses, first-trimester universal serologic screening with valaciclovir prophylaxis is estimated to be the cost-effective strategy in 46.8% of runs.

CONCLUSION

Universal first-trimester serologic screening with valaciclovir prophylaxis is not the cost-effective strategy for antenatal management of cytomegalovirus under the base-case estimates. Although universal screening is cost-effective in certain circumstances when the efficacy of valaciclovir exceeds the base case, that result is not robust to variation of estimates across their reasonable ranges. These data can inform future studies to evaluate screening and treatment to prevent congenital CMV.

Making the financial case for immediate postpartum intrauterine device: a budget impact analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines support inpatient postpartum intrauterine device insertion. However, inpatient placement remains infrequent, in part because of inconsistent private insurance reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore how the payer's costs and number of unintended pregnancies associated with a postpartum intrauterine device differed on the basis of placement timing.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a decision tree model and following a hypothetical cohort of people who intend to use an intrauterine device after their delivery, we conducted a cost analysis comparing the planned approach of inpatient vs outpatient postpartum insertion. Using a 2-year time horizon, the probability and cost estimates were derived from literature review. Our primary outcome was the total accrued costs to the payer. Secondarily, we examined the rates of early repeat pregnancy and sensitivity to estimates of key inputs, including the expulsion rates and the intrauterine device cost.

RESULTS

Although an inpatient intrauterine device placement's upfront costs were higher, the total cost of this approach was lower. Including the costs of managing expulsions and complications, our model suggests that for every 1000 people desiring a postpartum intrauterine device, the intended inpatient intrauterine device placement resulted in total cost savings of $211,100 and the prevention of 37 additional pregnancies compared with outpatient placement. The inpatient cost savings were superior to the outpatient savings, largely because of a known high proportion not returning for outpatient placement and the resulting higher number of unintended pregnancies among the patients desiring outpatient placement. In sensitivity analyses, we found that the total cost to the payer was sensitive to the probability of expulsion after immediate postpartum intrauterine device placement.

CONCLUSION

For beneficiaries desiring postpartum intrauterine device, payers are likely to save money by fully reimbursing inpatient intrauterine device placement rather than incentivizing placement at the frequently missed postpartum visit. These results support the financial case for private insurers to fully and separately reimburse (ie, "unbundle" from the single payment for delivery) inpatient postpartum intrauterine device placement.

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.

Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss

Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute. The pooled risk of miscarriage is 15·3% (95% CI 12·5-18·7%) of all recognised pregnancies. The population prevalence of women who have had one miscarriage is 10·8% (10·3-11·4%), two miscarriages is 1·9% (1·8-2·1%), and three or more miscarriages is 0·7% (0·5-0·8%). Risk factors for miscarriage include very young or older female age (younger than 20 years and older than 35 years), older male age (older than 40 years), very low or very high body-mass index, Black ethnicity, previous miscarriages, smoking, alcohol, stress, working night shifts, air pollution, and exposure to pesticides. The consequences of miscarriage are both physical, such as bleeding or infection, and psychological. Psychological consequences include increases in the risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Miscarriage, and especially recurrent miscarriage, is also a sentinel risk marker for obstetric complications, including preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, and stillbirth in future pregnancies, and a predictor of longer-term health problems, such as cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism. The costs of miscarriage affect individuals, health-care systems, and society. The short-term national economic cost of miscarriage is estimated to be £471 million per year in the UK. As recurrent miscarriage is a sentinel marker for various obstetric risks in future pregnancies, women should receive care in preconception and obstetric clinics specialising in patients at high risk. As psychological morbidity is common after pregnancy loss, effective screening instruments and treatment options for mental health consequences of miscarriage need to be available. We recommend that miscarriage data are gathered and reported to facilitate comparison of rates among countries, to accelerate research, and to improve patient care and policy development.

Trends in the incidence, rate and treatment of miscarriage-nationwide register-study in Finland, 1998-2016

STUDY QUESTION

What changes have occurred in the incidence of miscarriage, its treatment options, and the profile of the women having miscarriages in Finland between 1998 and 2016?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The annual incidence of registry-identified miscarriage has declined significantly between 1998 and 2016, and non-surgical management has become the dominant treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Miscarriage occurs in 8-15% of clinically recognized pregnancies and in ~30% of all pregnancies. Increasing maternal age is associated with an increasing risk of miscarriage. The treatment of miscarriage has evolved significantly in recent years: previously, surgical evacuation of the uterus was the standard of care, but nowadays medical and expectant management are increasingly used.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study of 128 381 women that had experienced a miscarriage that was managed in public healthcare between 1998 and 2016 in Finland.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We used the National Hospital Discharge Registry for the data. Women aged 15-49 years that had experienced their first miscarriage during the follow-up period and had miscarriage-related diagnoses during their admission to public hospital were included in the study. Miscarriages were defined by the 10th Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and related Medical Problems (ICD-10) diagnostic codes O02*, O03* and O08*. Women with ectopic, molar and continuing pregnancies and induced abortions were excluded. Treatment was divided into surgical and non-surgical treatment using the surgical procedure codes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The annual incidence of registry-identified miscarriage has declined from 6.8/1000 15-49-year-old women in 1998 to 5.0/1000 in 2016 (P < 0.001). Also, the incidence rate of registry-identified miscarriage (i.e. the proportion of miscarriages of registry-identified pregnancies [i.e. deliveries, induced abortions, and miscarriages]) has declined from 112/1000 15-49-year-old pregnant women in 1998 to 83/1000 in 2016 (P < 0.001). The largest decrease in this proportion occurred among women over 40 years of age, among whom 26.5% of registry-identified pregnancies in 1998 ended in miscarriage compared to that of 16.4% in 2016. The proportion of missed abortion has increased (30.3 to 38.8%, P < 0.001) whereas that of blighted ovum has decreased (25.4 to 12.8%, P < 0.001). The proportion of registry-identified miscarriages seen among nulliparous women has increased from 43.7 to 49.6% (P < 0.001). Mean age at the time of miscarriage remained at 31 years throughout the study. Altogether, 29% of all miscarriages were treated surgically and 71% underwent medical or expectant management. The proportion of surgical management has decreased from 38.0 to 1.6% for spontaneous abortion, from 60.7 to 9.4% for blighted ovum and 70.9 to 11.2% for missed abortion between 1998 and 2016.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study includes only women with registry-identified pregnancies, i.e. women who were treated in public hospitals. However, the number of women treated elsewhere is presumed to be small. Neither can this study estimate the number of women having spontaneous miscarriage with no hospital contact.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Both the annual incidence and incidence rate of miscarriage of all registry-identified pregnancies has decreased, and non-surgical management has become the standard of care. These findings are of value when planning allocation of healthcare resources and at individual level considering fertility and miscarriage questions. We speculate that improving ultrasound diagnostics explains the increasing proportion of missed abortion relative to other types of miscarriage. More investigation is needed to examine potential risk factors, complications and morbidity associated with miscarriages.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the research funds of the Helsinki and Uusimaa hospital system, by a personal grant from Viipurin Tuberkuloosisäätiö to R.L. and by a personal grant from The Finnish Cultural Foundation to N.H. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is the most common complication of pregnancy. A multicenter randomized clinical trial compared 2 strategies for medical management and found that mifepristone pretreatment is 25% more effective than the standard of care, misoprostol alone. The cost of mifepristone may be a barrier to implementation of the regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This preplanned. prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with a randomized clinical trial in 3 US sites from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2017. Participants included 300 women with anembryonic gestation or embryonic or fetal demise. Cost-effectiveness was computed from the health care sector and societal perspectives, with a 30-day time horizon. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to July 3, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol administration vs misoprostol alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Costs in 2018 US dollars, effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and treatment efficacy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of mifepristone and misoprostol vs misoprostol alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated.

RESULTS

Among the 300 women included in the randomized clinical trial (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [6.2] years), mean costs were similar for groups receiving mifepristone pretreatment and misoprostol alone from the health care sector perspective ($696.75 [95% CI, $591.88-$801.62] vs $690.88 [95% CI, $562.38-$819.38]; P = .94) and the societal perspective ($3846.30 [95% CI, $2783.01-$4909.58] vs $4845.62 [95% CI, $3186.84-$6504.41]; P = .32). The mifepristone pretreatment group had higher QALYs (0.0820 [95% CI, 0.0815-0.0825] vs 0.0806 [95% CI, 0.0800-0.0812]; P = .001) and a higher completion rate after first treatment (83.8% vs 67.1%; P < .001) than the group receiving misoprostol alone. From the health care sector perspective, mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective relative to misoprostol alone with an ICER of $4225.43 (95% CI, -$195 053.30 to $367 625.10) per QALY gained. From the societal perspective, mifepristone pretreatment dominated misoprostol alone (95% CI, -$5 111 629 to $1 801 384). The probabilities that mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone at a willingness-to-pay of $150 000 per QALY gained from the health care sector and societal perspectives were approximately 90% and 80%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective when compared with misoprostol alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02012491.

Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Detoxification for Management of Perinatal Opioid Use Disorder: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification treatment is the most cost-effective approach to the management of opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy.

METHODS

We created a decision analytic model that compared the cost effectiveness (eg, the marginal cost of the strategy in U.S. dollars divided by the marginal effectiveness of the strategy, measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of initiation of methadone, buprenorphine, or detoxification in treatment of OUD during pregnancy. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from the existing literature. Incremental cost-effective ratios for each strategy were calculated, and a ratio of $100,000 per QALY was used to define cost effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analyses and a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Under base assumptions, initiation of buprenorphine was more effective at a lower cost than either methadone or detoxification and thus was the dominant strategy. Buprenorphine was no longer cost effective if the cost of methadone was 8% less than the base-case estimate ($1,646/month) or if the overall costs of detoxification were 121% less than the base-case estimate for the detoxification cost multiplier, which was used to increase the values of both inpatient and outpatient management of detoxification by a factor of 2. Monte Carlo analyses revealed that buprenorphine was the cost-effective strategy in 70.5% of the simulations. Direct comparison of buprenorphine with methadone demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 95.1% of simulations; direct comparison between buprenorphine and detoxification demonstrated that buprenorphine was below the incremental cost-effective ratio in 45% of simulations.

CONCLUSION

Under most circumstances, we estimate that buprenorphine is the cost-effective strategy when compared with either methadone or detoxification as treatment for OUD during pregnancy. Nonetheless, the fact that buprenorphine was not the cost-effective strategy in almost one out of three of simulations suggests that the robustness of our model may be limited and that further evaluation of the cost-effective approach to the management of OUD during pregnancy is needed.

Cost Minimization Analysis of Same-Day Long-Acting Reversible Contraception for Adolescents

IMPORTANCE

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is considered first-line contraception for adolescents but often requires multiple clinic visits to obtain.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze Indiana Medicaid's cost savings associated with providing adolescents with same-day access to LARC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An economic evaluation of cost minimization from the payer's (Medicaid) perspective was performed from August 2017 through August 2018. The cost model examined the anticipated outcome of providing LARC at the first visit compared with requiring a second visit for placement. The costs and probabilities of clinic visits, devices, device insertions and removals, unintended pregnancy, and births, according to previously published sources, were incorporated into the model. The participants were payers (Medicaid).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes were the cost of same-day LARC placement vs LARC placement at a subsequent visit in US dollars, and rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. One-way sensitivity analysis was done.

RESULTS

Same-day LARC placement was associated with lower overall costs ($2016 per patient over 1 year) compared with LARC placement at a subsequent visit ($4133 per patient over 1 year). Compared with the return-visit strategy, same-day LARC was associated with an unintended pregnancy rate of 14% vs 48% and an abortion rate of 4% vs 14%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Providing same-day LARC could save costs for Medicaid, largely by preventing unintended pregnancy. Expected cost savings could be used to implement policies that make this strategy feasible in all clinical settings.

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.

Management of early pregnancy loss, with a focus on patient centered care

Early pregnancy loss is the most common complication in pregnancy. Management options for miscarriage include expectant management, medical intervention, or surgical aspiration. Non-surgical and surgical management are all safe and acceptable options for medically uncomplicated patients. Patient and provider preferences contribute profoundly to clinical decisions about miscarriage management. Shared-decision making and evidence based counseling have been shown to significantly improve patient satisfaction with early pregnancy loss care. This review article will discuss the epidemiology and risk factors of early pregnancy loss, current evidence and clinical practice guidelines around management options, and provider and patient preferences for early pregnancy loss management.

Medical versus surgical treatment of first trimester spontaneous abortion: A cost-minimization analysis

Background

Traditionally the gold-standard technique for the treatment of spontaneous abortion has been uterine evacuation by aspiration curettage. However, many studies have proposed medical treatment with misoprostol as an alternative to the conventional surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to apply cost minimization methods to compare the cost and effectiveness of the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment for first trimester spontaneous abortion with those of evacuation curettage as a surgical treatment.

Methodology/Principal findings

We present a longitudinal, prospective and quasi-experimental research study including a total of 547 patients diagnosed with first-trimester spontaneous abortion, in the period from January 2013 to December 2015. Patients were offered medical treatment with 800 mg vaginal misoprostol or evacuation curettage. Patients treated with misoprostol were followed-up at 7 days and a transvaginal ultrasound was performed to confirm the success of the treatment. If it failed, a second dose of 800 mg of vaginal misoprostol was prescribed and a new control ultrasound was performed. In case of failure of medical treatment after the second dose of misoprostol, evacuation curettage was indicated. The effectiveness of each of the treatment options was calculated using a decision tree. The cost minimization study was carried out by weighting each cost according to the effectiveness of each branch of the treatment. Of the 547 patients who participated in the study, 348 (64%) chose medical treatment and 199 (36%) chose surgical treatment. The overall effectiveness of medical treatment was 81% (283/348) and surgical treatment of 100%. The estimated final cost for medical treatment was € 461.92 compared to € 2038.72 for surgical treatment, which represents an estimated average saving per patient of € 1576.8.

Conclusions/Significance

Medical treatment with misoprostol is a cheaper alternative to surgery: in the Spanish Public Healthcare System, it is five times more inexpensive than curettage. Given its success rates higher than 80%, mild side effects, controllable with additional medication and the high degree of overall satisfaction, it should be prioritized over the evacuation curettage in patients who meet the treatment criteria.

Trends of Patients' Preferences in the Management of First and Early Second Trimester Pregnancy Loss Towards the Choice of Medical or Surgical Termination of Pregnancy in a Tertiary Care Center in Oman

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to find out the patients preference towards the management of pregnancy loss to either Misoprostol or dilatation and evacuation or curettage (D&C) in two different study periods.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review study included a total of 411 patients. The first study period was January to December 2010 and the second study period was January to December 2014. All patients were managed in Sultan Qaboos University Hospital of Oman.

RESULTS

Misoprostol was more preferable than dilatation and curettage D&C in both 2010 and 2014, with percentages of 79.30% and 69.57%, respectively. There was a slight increase in the preference toward D&C in 2014. There was a slight increase in the preference toward D&C with older age group as well as in patients with history of miscarriages.

CONCLUSION

In comparison between 2010 and 2014 data, there was no significant change in patients' preference. There was a slight increase in the preference toward D&C in the older age group and in patients with previous history of abortion in both years.

Factors influencing women's preferences for subsequent management in the event of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage

STUDY QUESTION

What affects women's treatment preferences in the management of an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for a first-trimester miscarriage?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Women's treatment preferences in the management of an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage are most strongly influenced by 'the risk of a reduced fertility' followed by 'the probability of success'.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Available treatment options in miscarriage are surgical, medical or expectant management. Treatment with misoprostol leads to an incomplete evacuation of the uterus and additional surgical treatment in 20-50% of women. To our knowledge, women's preferences for subsequent treatment of an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage have not been studied yet.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Between April 2014 and January 2015, we conducted a prospective nationwide multicentre discrete-choice experiment (DCE). DCEs have become the most frequently applied approach for studying patient preferences in health care. In our DCE, which considerers five attributes, a target sample size was calculated including 20 patients per attribute for the main analysis. We intended to include 25% more patients, i.e. a total of 125 thus enabling us to assess heterogeneity of treatment choices.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All women visiting the outpatient clinic with first-trimester miscarriage or incomplete miscarriage were invited to participate in the study. Women under 18 years of age, women who were unable to understand the Dutch questionnaire or women who already had received a treatment for the current miscarriage were excluded. Women's preferences were assessed using a DCE. A literature review, expert opinions and interviews with women from the general population were used to define relevant treatment characteristics. Five attributes were selected: (i) certainty about the duration of convalescence; (ii) number of days of bleeding after treatment; (iii) probability of success (empty uterus after treatment); (iv) risk of reduced fertility and (v) risk of complications requiring more time or readmission to hospital. Fourteen scenarios using these attributes were selected in the DCE. Each of these scenarios presented two treatment options, while treatment characteristics varied between the 14 scenarios. For each scenario, respondents were asked to choose the preferred treatment option. The importance of each attribute was analysed, and preference heterogeneity was investigated through latent-class analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

One hundred and eighty-six women were included of whom 128 completed the DCE (69% response rate). The two attributes with the greatest effect on their preference were, probability of success and risk of reduced fertility. The latent-class analysis revealed two subgroups of patients with different preference patterns. Forty per cent of women were more influenced by treatment success and 59% were more influenced by risk.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most women were highly educated and were of Dutch origin, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Women with lower education levels, other cultural backgrounds and/or different previous experiences may differ from our findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Patients preferences should be addressed when counselling patients with an incomplete miscarriage after misoprostol treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was embedded in the MisoREST trial, and funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-12066. There were no conflicts of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial Register NTR3310, http://www.trialregister.nl.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

27 February 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

12 June 2012.

Efficacy, feasibility and patient acceptability of ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration for treating early pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided manual vacuum aspiration (USG-MVA) is an effective but underutilised alternative to medical or surgical evacuation of the uterus following first trimester miscarriage.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility and patient acceptability of USG-MVA for treating early pregnancy loss.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We invited patients with early pregnancy losses to participate in this prospective cohort study. We reviewed the medical records of the participants and their visual analogue pain score during MVA. Primary outcomes were efficacy, feasibility and patient acceptability of USG-MVA. Secondary outcomes included the success rate of culture of chorionic villi for chromosomal analysis and complications from the USG-MVA procedure.

RESULTS

We included a consecutive series of 35 women who underwent the USG-MVA procedure. The efficacy of USG-MVA in achieving complete evacuation was 97.1%. The procedure was well tolerated and the mean procedure-related pain score was 6.25 out of 10 (SD 1.55). Overall, all patients were satisfied with the procedure. The successful culture rate of chromosomal analysis was 94.3%. There were no major complications.

CONCLUSION

USG-MVA is an effective treatment for the management of early pregnancy loss in an out-patient setting. It is an alternative to surgical evacuation under general anaesthesia, particularly for women desiring chromosomal analysis of products of conception. Further studies are required to investigate its health-related and economic benefits in hospital service provision.

Moderate intravenous sedation for first trimester surgical abortion: a comparison of adverse outcomes between obese and normal-weight women

OBJECTIVE

To determine if obese women experience increased rates of adverse outcomes with moderate intravenous sedation during first trimester surgical abortion compared to normal weight women.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all first trimester surgical abortions with moderate intravenous sedation at an outpatient facility between September 2010 and June 2015. The primary outcome was supplemental oxygen administration. Secondary outcomes included reversal agent administration, anesthesia-related adverse events, and intraoperative lowest level of consciousness (LLOC). We compared three obesity groups [I (Body Mass Index, BMI=30-34.9), II (BMI=35-39.9), and III (BMI ≥40)] to normal weight women (BMI <25). We exported data from electronic medical records and reviewed adverse outcomes individually.

RESULTS

Of 20,381 first trimester surgical abortion procedures, 31 (0.15%) utilized supplemental oxygen, 24 (0.12%) utilized a reversal agent, 40 (0.20%) had a presumed anesthesia-related adverse event and 184 of 19,725 (0.93%) had a documented low intraoperative LLOC. One patient (0.005%) required hospital transfer or hospitalization. Supplemental oxygen administration (obesity versus normal weight: obese I, aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.12-2.27; II/III, aOR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50-4.54), low intraoperative LLOC, and anesthesia-related adverse events were not associated with obesity. The rate of reversal agent administration was lower among obese I, II and III women combined compared to normal weight women (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse outcomes were rare across all BMI categories with no detectable increased risk among obese women compared to normal weight women.

IMPLICATIONS

With appropriate clinical screening, obese women can safely receive moderate intravenous sedation for first trimester surgical abortion in an outpatient clinical setting. Restrictions on moderate intravenous sedation based on BMI alone may be unnecessary.

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.

Doulas for surgical management of miscarriage and abortion: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women undergoing office-based surgical management of a failed or undesired pregnancy often report fear of pain and anxiety pertaining to the procedure. Doulas are trained to specifically address women's physical and emotional needs in obstetric care, and recently have extended their practice to support women through all pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the impact of doulas on patients' physical and emotional responses to surgical management of a first-trimester failed or undesired pregnancy under local anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

In this nonblinded, randomized trial, women received doula support or routine care during office uterine aspiration for failed or unwanted pregnancies in the first trimester. The primary outcome was pain measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, emotional state, sense of personal empowerment, and ability to cope immediately and 1 month after the procedure, as well as medical assistants' assessment of the doula's utility. A sample size of 35 per group (N = 70) was planned to detect a 20% difference in pain score.

RESULTS

From April 2014 through January 2015, 129 women were screened and 70 were randomized. The 2 study groups were similar on all baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was not different between the doula and control groups (pain score 70.7 ± 24.5 mm vs 59.7 ± 32.5 mm, P = .11, respectively), even after controlling for procedure indication (P = .20). While 97% of women who received doula support reported this helped with their experience, there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction, emotional response, sense of empowerment, or perceived ability to cope between the 2 groups of women immediately following or 1 month after the procedure. Of all study participants, 72% reported that it was important to have someone with them during the procedure, but that the support person did not have to be a doula.

CONCLUSION

Doula support during office uterine aspiration for failed or undesired pregnancies is well received and desired by women undergoing this procedure despite no significant effect on physical comfort or emotional responses related to the procedure. This may suggest an unmet psychosocial need for procedure-related support among such women.

Medical Abortion Provided by Nurse-Midwives or Physicians in a High Resource Setting: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective

The objective of the present study is to calculate the cost-effectiveness of early medical abortion performed by nurse-midwifes in comparison to physicians in a high resource setting where ultrasound dating is part of the protocol. Non-physician health care professionals have previously been shown to provide medical abortion as effectively and safely as physicians, but the cost-effectiveness of such task shifting remains to be established.

Study design

A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted based on data from a previously published randomized-controlled equivalence study including 1180 healthy women randomized to the standard procedure, early medical abortion provided by physicians, or the intervention, provision by nurse-midwifes. A 1.6% risk difference for efficacy defined as complete abortion without surgical interventions in favor of midwife provision was established which means that for every 100 procedures, the intervention treatment resulted in 1.6 fewer incomplete abortions needing surgical intervention than the standard treatment. The average direct and indirect costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The study was conducted at a university hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.

Results

The average direct costs per procedure were EUR 45 for the intervention compared to EUR 58.3 for the standard procedure. Both the cost and the efficacy of the intervention were superior to the standard treatment resulting in a negative ICER at EUR -831 based on direct costs and EUR -1769 considering total costs per surgical intervention avoided.

Conclusion

Early medical abortion provided by nurse-midwives is more cost-effective than provision by physicians. This evidence provides clinicians and decision makers with an important tool that may influence policy and clinical practice and eventually increase numbers of abortion providers and reduce one barrier to women’s access to safe abortion.

State of family planning

Family planning and reproductive health services are uniquely impacted by policy and politics in the United States. Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented number of abortion restrictions, and research funding has decreased in related areas. Despite this, both the science and the implementation of improved family planning and abortion methods have progressed in the past decade. This article reviews the current state of family planning, as well as technologies and patient care opportunities for the future.

Off-label use of misoprostol in gynaecology

Clinical use of drugs is approved for specified clinical indication, route of administration, dose and population group. Off-label prescribing of a registered medicine occurs outside of these parameters and may be justified by pharmacology and physiology, as well as sufficient evidence from published clinical trials and reviews. Misoprostol and mifepristone in combination have recently been registered in Australia for medical termination of pregnancy in women of child-bearing age. There is good clinical evidence for efficacy and safety of misoprostol in uterine evacuation in both miscarriage and termination of pregnancy. The pharmacological effects of misoprostol on the uterus and clinical outcomes in both early miscarriage and abortion are comparable. Medical management of miscarriage with misoprostol in Australia is performed off-label. A woman presenting with first trimester miscarriage must be clearly informed that use of misoprostol in her case is for a non-approved indication. This raises the issue of inequity in her management compared with that of first trimester medical abortion, including being treated off-label and the potential cost of non-subsidised medication. The clinician must also be careful to use an evidence-based protocol that would withstand medicolegal challenge in the case of an adverse outcome.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Moving Miscarriage Management Out of the Operating Room

CONTEXT

Miscarriage care can safely and effectively be offered in appropriately equipped offices and emergency departments. However, it is often treated in the operating room, which limits access to timely, cost-effective and high-quality care.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and January 2014, in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 staff holding diverse roles at 15 medical offices and emergency departments with the aim of exploring barriers to and facilitators of offering miscarriage care, and identifying methods for expanding care. On-site observations were also conducted at four facilities. All data were transcribed, iteratively coded and analyzed using qualitative techniques.

RESULTS

Similar barriers to and facilitators of providing miscarriage care were identified across facility types. Barriers were physician preference for providing care in the operating room, the similarity of miscarriage management and abortion procedures, the limited availability of support staff, difficulties integrating miscarriage management into patient scheduling and flow, and uncertainty about responding to women's emotional needs. Facilitators were a commitment to evidence-based medicine, insurance coverage of miscarriage, offering other procedures of similar complexity and the minimal resources needed for miscarriage care. Resources needed to expand miscarriage services included a medically trained "champion," best practices for implementing services, persistence and patience, training, clear protocols, and systems for tracking equipment and supplies.

CONCLUSIONS

Miscarriage care was viewed as neither resource-intensive nor technically complex to provide. Although it may be emotionally and politically challenging to offer, effective strategies are available for expanding the scope of miscarriage care offered in multiple settings.

Serum biomarkers may help predict successful misoprostol management of early pregnancy failure

In order to simplify management of early pregnancy loss, our goal was to elucidate predictors of successful medical management of miscarriage with a single dose of misoprostol. In this secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial, candidate biomarkers were compared between 49 women with missed abortion who succeeded in passing their pregnancy with a single dose of misoprostol and 46 women who did not pass their pregnancy with a misoprostol single dose. We computed the precision of trophoblastic protein and hormone concentrations to discriminate between women who succeed or fail single dose misoprostol management. We also included demographic factors in our analyses. We found overlap in the concentrations of the individual markers between women who succeeded and failed single-dose misoprostol. However, hCG levels ≥ 4000 mIU/mL and ADAM-12 levels ≥ 2500 pg/mL were independently associated with complete uterine expulsion after one dose of misoprostol in our population. A multivariable logistic model for success included non-Hispanic ethnicity and parity <2 in addition to hCG ≥ 4000 mIU/mL and ADAM-12 ≥ 2500 pg/mL and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 72-90%). Categorizing women with a predicted probability of ≥ 0.65 resulted in a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 77.1% and positive predictive value of 81.8%. While preliminary, our data suggest that serum biomarkers, especially when combined with demographic characteristics, may be helpful in guiding patient decision-making regarding the management of early pregnancy failure (EPF). Further study is warranted.

Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation

OBJECTIVE

To compare cost and efficacy of tubal anastomosis to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women who desired fertility after a tubal ligation.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION(S)

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Cost per ongoing pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

Cost per ongoing pregnancy for women after tubal anastomosis ranged from $16,446 to $223,482 (2014 USD), whereas IVF ranged from $32,902 to $111,679 (2014 USD). Across maternal age groups <35 and 35-40, years tubal anastomosis was more cost effective than IVF for ongoing pregnancy. Sensitivity analyses validated these findings across a wide range of ongoing pregnancy probabilities as well as costs per procedure.

CONCLUSION(S)

Tubal anastomosis was the most cost-effective approach for most women less than 41 years of age, whereas IVF was the most cost-effective approach for women aged ≥41 years who desired fertility after tubal ligation. A model was created that can be modified based on cost and success rates in individual clinics for improved patient counseling.

Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the economic consequences of expanding options for early pregnancy loss (EPL) treatment beyond expectant management and operating room surgical evacuation (usual care).

STUDY DESIGN

We constructed a decision model using a hypothetical cohort of women undergoing EPL management within a 30 day horizon. Treatment options under the usual care arm include expectant management and surgical uterine evacuation in an operating room (OR). Treatment options under the expanded care arm included all evidence-based safe and effective treatment options for EPL: expectant management, misoprostol treatment, surgical uterine evacuation in an office setting, and surgical uterine evacuation in an OR. Probabilities of entering various treatment pathways were based on previously published observational studies.

RESULTS

The cost per case was US $241.29 lower for women undergoing treatment in the expanded care model as compared with the usual care model (US $1033.29 per case vs US $1274.58 per case, expanded care and usual care, respectively). The model was the most sensitive to the failure rate of the expectant management arm, the cost of the OR surgical procedure, the proportion of women undergoing an OR surgical procedure under usual care, and the additional cost per patient associated with implementing and using the expanded care model.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that expanding women's treatment options for EPL beyond what is typically available can result in lower direct medical expenditures.

Outpatient versus inpatient intravaginal misoprostol for the treatment of first trimester incomplete miscarriage: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Study objective To assess the efficacy of outpatient misoprostol administration versus inpatient misoprostol administration for the treatment of first trimester incomplete miscarriage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomised controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital from May 2012 to April 2013. A total of 154 patients with first trimester incomplete miscarriage were randomised to receive misoprostol either as outpatient or inpatient. Intra-vaginal misoprostol 800 mcg was administered eight hourly to a maximum of three doses. Complete evacuation is achieved when the cervical os was closed on vaginal examination or ultrasound showed no more retained products of conception evidenced by endometrial thickness of less than 15 mm. Treatment failure was defined as failure in achieving complete evacuation on day seven hence surgical evacuation is offered.

RESULTS

Outpatient administration of misoprostol was as effective as inpatient treatment with success rate of 89.2 and 85.7 % (p = 0.520). The side effects were not significantly different between the two groups. Side effects that occurred were minor and only required symptomatic treatment. Duration of bleeding was 6.0 days in both groups (p = 0.317). Mean reduction in haemoglobin was lesser in the outpatient group (0.4 g/dl) as compared to in the inpatient group (0.6 g/dl) which was statistically significant (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Medical evacuation using intra-vaginal misoprostol 800 mcg eight hourly for a maximum of three doses in an outpatient setting is as effective as in inpatient setting with tolerable side effects.