Increasing women's choices in medical abortion: a study of misoprostol 400 microg swallowed immediately or held sublingually following 200 mg mifepristone

Evaluation of Pain and Use of Analgesics during Medical Termination of Pregnancy in Real-Life Settings

INTRODUCTION

Women frequently report pain associated with medical termination of pregnancy (MToP), and its management can differ largely between centres. This study aimed at evaluating in real-life settings pain related to MToP and its management in France.

METHODS

This was a non-interventional prospective, longitudinal study run in 23 centres between 2015 and 2016 that included 893 pregnant women. Pain was reported by women prior any curative analgesic intake (CAI) through a five-level Likert scale (absence, mild, moderated, severe, extreme). Modalities of analgesic prophylaxis prescription (APP) and intake (API) and CAI were collected. Risk factors were investigated using ordinal logistic regression (for pain) or logistic regression (for CAI) with stepwise selection of variables.

RESULTS

APP was prescribed to 657 (73.7%) women irrespective of the gestational age, among whom 386 (73.7%) took the treatment. Out of 740 women who documented their pain symptoms prior to any CAI, few declared no pain (n = 94, 12.7%) or intense pain (n = 88, 11.9%). The majority reported mild or moderate pain (n = 558, 75.4%). On multivariate analysis adjusted on gestational age, increasing initial [odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.47] or total dose (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) of misoprostol taken were independent factors associated with risk of more pain. When adjusting for gestational age, initial dose of misoprostol (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.45-2.66) and pain experienced (OR 3.58, 95% CI 2.82-4.55) were significantly associated with higher risk of CAI while API (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36; 0.75) was negatively associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the women received an APP, but not all used it. API and gestational age were not related to different risks of more pain following MToP, whereas history of at least one child showed a negative association. Higher doses of misoprostol were strongly associated with both pain and CAI. API was associated with a decreased risk of CAI.

Self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion

BACKGROUND

The advent of medical abortion has improved access to safe abortion procedures. Medical abortion procedures involve either administering mifepristone followed by misoprostol or a misoprostol-only regimen. The drugs are commonly administered in the presence of clinicians, which is known as provider-administered medical abortion. In self-administered medical abortion, drugs are administered by the woman herself without the supervision of a healthcare provider during at least one stage of the drug protocol. Self-administration of medical abortion has the potential to provide women with control over the abortion process. In settings where there is a shortage of healthcare providers, self-administration may reduce the burden on the health system. However, it remains unclear whether self-administration of medical abortion is effective and safe. It is important to understand whether women can safely and effectively terminate their own pregnancies when having access to accurate and adequate information, high-quality drugs, and facility-based care in case of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of self-administered versus provider-administered medical abortion in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE in process and other non-indexed citations, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Google Scholar from inception to 10 July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies with a concurrent comparison group, using study designs that compared medical abortion by self-administered versus provider-administered methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and we performed a meta-analysis where appropriate using Review Manager 5. Our primary outcome was successful abortion (effectiveness), defined as complete uterine evacuation without the need for surgical intervention. Ongoing pregnancy (the presence of an intact gestational sac) was our secondary outcome measuring success or effectiveness. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with Chi² tests and I² statistics using a cut-off point of P < 0.10 to indicate statistical heterogeneity. Quality assessment of the data used the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 studies (two RCTs and 16 non-randomized studies (NRSs)) comprising 11,043 women undergoing early medical abortion (≤ 9 weeks gestation) in 10 countries. Sixteen studies took place in low-to-middle income resource settings and two studies were in high-resource settings. One NRS study received analgesics from a pharmaceutical company. Five NRSs and one RCT did not report on funding; nine NRSs received all or partial funding from an anonymous donor. Five NRSs and one RCT received funding from government agencies, private foundations, or non-profit bodies. The intervention in the evidence is predominantly from women taking mifepristone in the presence of a healthcare provider, and subsequently taking misoprostol without healthcare provider supervision (e.g. at home). There is no evidence of a difference in rates of successful abortions between self-administered and provider-administered groups: for two RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.01; 919 participants; moderate certainty of evidence. There is very low certainty of evidence from 16 NRSs: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01; 10,124 participants. For the outcome of ongoing pregnancy there may be little or no difference between the two groups: for one RCT: RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.02; 735 participants; low certainty of evidence; and very low certainty evidence for 11 NRSs: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.49; 6691 participants. We are uncertain whether there are any differences in complications requiring surgical intervention, since we found no RCTs and evidence from three NRSs was of very low certainty: for three NRSs: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.71; 2452 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that self-administering the second stage of early medical abortion procedures is as effective as provider-administered procedures for the outcome of abortion success. There may be no difference for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy, although the evidence for this is uncertain for this outcome. There is very low-certainty evidence for the risk of complications requiring surgical intervention. Data are limited by the scarcity of high-quality research study designs and the presence of risks of bias. This review provides insufficient evidence to determine the safety of self-administration when compared with administering medication in the presence of healthcare provider supervision. Future research should investigate the effectiveness and safety of self-administered medical abortion in the absence of healthcare provider supervision through the entirety of the medical abortion protocol (e.g. during administration of mifepristone or as part of a misoprostol-only regimen) and at later gestational ages (i.e. more than nine weeks). In the absence of any supervision from medical personnel, research is needed to understand how best to inform and support women who choose to self-administer, including when to seek clinical care.

Acceptability and feasibility of 400 μg buccal misoprostol after 200 mg mifepristone for early medical abortion in Georgia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of early medical abortion using 200 mg mifepristone and 400 μg buccal misoprostol in Georgia, outside the capital city of Tbilisi.

METHODS

A total of 622 women in four regions of western and eastern Georgia who presented for termination of pregnancy at up to 63 d of gestation were enrolled in the study. In the western regions, women took one 200 mg pill of mifepristone in the clinic and were given the option of administering 400 μg misoprostol buccally, either at the clinic or at home, 24-48 h later. In the eastern region, women were given the option to take both drugs at home. Abortion status was determined 2 weeks after mifepristone administration.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of participants had a successful abortion. Twenty-one percent of women in the eastern region elected to take mifepristone at home; nearly all participants in both regions (98%) chose to take misoprostol at home. Ninety-five percent of women were very satisfied or satisfied with the method, and 95% said they would prefer medical abortion for a future procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical abortion with mifepristone and 400 μg buccal misoprostol is an acceptable and feasible option for women in Georgia, outside the capital city of Tbilisi.

Medical Abortion

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the evidence relating to the provision of first-trimester medical induced abortion, including patient eligibility, counselling, and consent; evidence-based regimens; and special considerations for clinicians providing medical abortion care.

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, family physicians, registered nurses, midwives, residents, and other healthcare providers who currently or intend to provide pregnancy options counselling, medical abortion care, or family planning services.

TARGET POPULATION

Women with an unintended first trimester pregnancy.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library between July 2015 and November 2015 using appropriately controlled vocabulary (MeSH search terms: Induced Abortion, Medical Abortion, Mifepristone, Misoprostol, Methotrexate). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational studies published from June 1986 to November 2015 in English. Additionally, existing guidelines from other countries were consulted for review. A grey literature search was not required.

VALUES

The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Medicine rating scale (Table 1).

BENEFITS, HARMS AND/OR COSTS

Medical abortion is safe and effective. Complications from medical abortion are rare. Access and costs will be dependent on provincial and territorial funding for combination mifepristone/misoprostol and provider availability.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

Introduction Pre-procedure care Medical abortion regimens Providing medical abortion Post-abortion care

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction Pre-procedure care Medical abortion regimens Providing medical abortion Post-abortion care.

Pain during medical abortion, the impact of the regimen: a neglected issue? A review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate pain and other early adverse events associated with different regimens of medical abortion up to nine weeks of amenorrhoea.

METHODS

The literature was searched for comparative studies of medical abortion using mifepristone followed by the prostaglandin analogue misoprostol. Publications, which included pain assessment were further analysed.

RESULTS

Of the 1459 publications on medical abortion identified, only 23 comparative, prospective trials corresponded to the inclusion criteria. Patients in these studies received different dosages of mifepristone in combination with different dosages of misoprostol administered via diverse routes or at various intervals. Information on pain level was reported in 12/23 papers (52%), information regarding systematic administration of analgesics in 12/23 articles (52%) and information concerning analgesia used was available for only 10/23 studies (43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither pain nor its treatment are systematically reported in clinical trials of medical abortion; this shortcoming reflects a neglect of the individual pain perception. When data are mentioned, they are too inconsistent to allow for any comparison between different treatment protocols. Standardised evaluation of pain is needed and the correlation between the dosage of misoprostol and the intensity of pain must be assessed in future studies.

Sublingual misoprostol versus standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in five sub-Saharan African countries

Background

In low-resource settings, where abortion is highly restricted and self-induced abortions are common, access to post-abortion care (PAC) services, especially treatment of incomplete terminations, is a priority. Standard post-abortion care has involved surgical intervention but can be hard to access in these areas. Misoprostol provides an alternative to surgical intervention that could increase access to abortion care. We sought to gather additional evidence regarding the efficacy of 400 mcg of sublingual misoprostol vs. standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in the environments where need for economical non-surgical treatments may be most useful.

Methods

A total of 860 women received either sublingual misoprostol or standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in a multi-site randomized trial. Women with confirmed incomplete abortion, defined as past or present history of vaginal bleeding during pregnancy and an open cervical os, were eligible to participate. Participants returned for follow-up one week later to confirm clinical status. If abortion was incomplete at that time, women were offered an additional follow-up visit or immediate surgical evacuation.

Results

Both misoprostol and surgical evacuation are highly effective treatments for incomplete abortion (misoprostol: 94.4%, surgical: 100.0%). Misoprostol treatment resulted in a somewhat lower chance of success than standard surgical practice (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.89-0.92). Both tolerability of side effects and women’s satisfaction were similar in the two study arms.

Conclusion

Misoprostol, much easier to provide than surgery in low-resource environments, can be used safely, successfully, and satisfactorily for treatment of incomplete abortion. Focus should shift to program implementation, including task-shifting the provision of post-abortion care to mid- and low- level providers, training and assurance of drug availability.

Trial registration

This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00466999 and NCT01539408

Comparative effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home and in a clinic: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare medical abortion practised at home and in clinics in terms of effectiveness, safety and acceptability.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing home-based and clinic-based medical abortion was conducted. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Popline were searched. Failure to abort completely, side-effects and acceptability were the main outcomes of interest. Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Estimates were pooled using a random-effects model.

FINDINGS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 4522 participants). All were prospective cohort studies that used mifepristone and misoprostol to induce abortion. Complete abortion was achieved by 86-97% of the women who underwent home-based abortion (n = 3478) and by 80-99% of those who underwent clinic-based abortion (n = 1044). Pooled analyses from all studies revealed no difference in complete abortion rates between groups (odds ratio = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.5). Serious complications from abortion were rare. Pain and vomiting lasted 0.3 days longer among women who took misoprostol at home rather than in clinic. Women who chose home-based medical abortion were more likely to be satisfied, to choose the method again and to recommend it to a friend than women who opted for medical abortion in a clinic.

CONCLUSION

Home-based abortion is safe under the conditions in place in the included studies. Prospective cohort studies have shown no differences in effectiveness or acceptability between home-based and clinic-based medical abortion across countries.

Simultaneous administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early termination of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy of different intervals of misoprostol administration (simultaneously vis-à-vis 24 h), after mifepristone, in women undergoing medical termination of pregnancy up to gestation of 49 days.

METHODS

Eighty eligible women with single intrauterine pregnancy of ≤ 7 weeks of gestation requesting abortion were randomized to receive either 200 mg of mifepristone orally and 400 μg of misoprostol vaginally simultaneously (Group 1) or at 24-h interval (Group 2).Women who had no bleeding after the drugs were offered a second dose of misoprostol 24 h after the first dose. All patients were followed up on day 14. Primary outcome measure was the complete abortion rate. Secondary outcome measures were the induction-abortion interval, adverse effects, especially bleeding, and treatment acceptability rate. Treatment was considered a failure if surgical intervention was needed for any indication.

RESULTS

Complete abortion was achieved in 38 women [95%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 88%, 100%] in Group 1 and 39 women (97.50%; 95% CI 93%,100%) in Group 2 (p = 0.56). A second dose of misoprostol was needed in two patients in Group 1 and in only one patient in Group 2. The induction-abortion interval was 6.50 ± 1.48 h in Group 1 and 5.95 ± 1.81 h in Group 2 (p = 0.13). The difference in frequency of adverse effects in the two groups was statistically insignificant (p = 0.18). The treatment acceptability rate was 97.50% in Group 1 and 95% in Group 2 (p = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous administration of mifepristone and 400 μg vaginal misoprostol is an effective alternative to standard regimens for medical abortion up to 49 days of gestation.