Treating miscarriages: a randomised study of cost-effectiveness in medical or surgical choice

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.

Intravaginal misoprostol versus uterine curettage for missed abortion: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy based on direct-acting uterine curettage (UC) versus a pre-direct-acting misoprostol (1600 mg) in patients with missed abortion (MA), from the perspective of a National Health System.

METHODS

An open prospective cohort study was carried out at Reina Sofía University Hospital (Córdoba, Spain) from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 in 180 patients diagnosed with MA. The patients chose medical treatment with intravaginal misoprostol (800 μg/4 h) or UC after receiving complete and detailed information. The effectiveness, clinical characteristics of the patients, costs of treating and managing the disease, and satisfaction with the procedures were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five patients (80.6%) chose misoprostol versus 35 patients (19.4%) who chose UC. The effectiveness of misoprostol has been 42% evaluated at 48 h; UC success rate has been 100%. The incidence of side effects is significantly higher in patients treated with misoprostol (p < 0.05); as well as the number of care received by the patient (p < 0.05). Satisfaction is higher in patients treated with UC (p < 0.05). However, the cost is almost 5-folds higher in patients treated with UC (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

UC has a higher success rate, greater satisfaction, and a lower incidence of side effects, although significantly increases the cost compared to misoprostol in MA.

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.

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.

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.

Women's experiences with early pregnancy loss in the emergency room: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To understand the reasons why women present to the Emergency Room (ER) for Early Pregnancy Loss (EPL)-related care, how they perceive care and counseling there, and their overall experience during and after their visit.

STUDY DESIGN

This qualitative study utilized semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants were recruited in a large urban ER; women who experienced EPL were interviewed by telephone about their experiences 1-3 weeks after their visit. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded by two independent coders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews without the use of formal outcome measurement tools.

RESULTS

Of the sixty-seven women recruited, ten completed the full telephone interview. Interview participants' responses were grouped into four categories: Feelings about EPL, reasons for going to the ER, experience in the ER, and experience after leaving the ER. Women had mixed feelings about their ER experiences; many reported chaos, lack of information or lack of emotional support, while a few felt informed and supported. Many did not know much about EPL before their experience.

CONCLUSIONS

ER care for women experiencing suspected or confirmed EPL may not be addressing the emotional needs and knowledge gaps of women. Patient education, emotional support, and clear plans for outpatient follow up are critical. Further research is needed to guide interventions to improve care.

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.

DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.

LIMITATIONS

The focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

The reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.

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.

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.

Practice variation in the management of first trimester miscarriage in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey

Objectives. To survey practice variation in the management of first trimester miscarriage in The Netherlands. Methods. We sent an online questionnaire to gynecologists in eight academic, 37 nonacademic teaching, and 47 nonteaching hospitals. Main outcome measures were availability of a local protocol; estimated number of patients treated with curettage, misoprostol, or expectant management; misoprostol regimen; and estimated number of curettages performed after initial misoprostol treatment. Outcomes were compared to the results of a previous nationwide survey. Results. The response rate was 100%. A miscarriage protocol was present in all academic hospitals, 68% of nonacademic teaching hospitals, and 38% of nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.008). Misoprostol was first-choice treatment for 41% of patients in academic hospitals versus 34% and 27% in teaching-and nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.045). There were 23 different misoprostol regimens. Curettage was first-choice treatment in 29% of patients in academic hospitals versus 46% and 50% in nonacademic teaching or nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.007). In 30% of patients, initial misoprostol treatment was followed by curettage. Conclusions. Although the percentage of gynaecologists who are aware of the availability of misoprostol for miscarriage treatment has doubled to almost 100% since 2005, practice variation is still large. This practice variation underlines the need for a national guideline.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15-20% of all clinically confirmed pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) are a possible complication after miscarriage, but their prevalence and the contribution of possible risk factors have not been elucidated yet. In addition, the long-term reproductive outcome in relation to IUAs has to be elucidated.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for studies that prospectively assessed the prevalence and extent of IUAs in women who suffered a miscarriage. To be included, women diagnosed with a current miscarriage had to be systematically evaluated within 12 months by hysteroscopy after either spontaneous expulsion or medical or surgical treatment. Studies that included women with a history of recurrent miscarriage only or that evaluated the IUAs after elective abortion or beyond 12 months after the last miscarriage were not included. Subsequently, long-term reproductive outcomes after expectant (conservative), medical or surgical management were assessed in women with and without post-miscarriage IUAs.

RESULTS

We included 10 prospective studies reporting on 912 women with hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months of miscarriage and 8 prospective studies, including 1770 women, reporting long-term reproductive outcome. IUAs were detected in 183 women, resulting in a pooled prevalence of 19.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.8-27.5%]. The extent of IUAs was reported in 124 women (67.8%) and was mild, moderate and severe respectively in 58.1, 28.2 and 13.7% of cases. Relative to women with one miscarriage, women with two or three or more miscarriages showed an increased risk of IUAs by a pooled OR of 1.41 and 2.1, respectively. The number of dilatation and curettage (D&C) procedures seemed to be the main driver behind these associations. A total of 150 congenital and acquired intrauterine abnormalities were encountered in 675 women, resulting in a pooled prevalence of 22.4% (95% CI: 16.3-29.9%). Similar reproductive outcomes were reported subsequent to conservative, medical or surgical management for miscarriage, although the numbers of studies and of included women were limited. No studies reported long-term reproductive outcomes following post-miscarriage IUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

IUAs are frequently encountered, in one in five women after miscarriage. In more than half of these, the severity and extent of the adhesions was mild, with unknown clinical relevance. Recurrent miscarriages and D&C procedures were identified as risk factors for adhesion formation. Congenital and acquired intrauterine abnormalities such as polyps or fibroids were frequently identified. There were no studies reporting on the link between IUAs and long-term reproductive outcome after miscarriage, while similar pregnancy outcomes were reported subsequent to conservative, medical or surgical management. Although this review does not allow strong clinical conclusions on treatment management, it signals an important clinical problem. Treatment strategies are proposed to minimize the number of D&C in an attempt to reduce IUAs.

Surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after treatment with misoprostol for miscarriage: the MisoREST trial

Background

Medical treatment with misoprostol is a non-invasive and inexpensive treatment option in first trimester miscarriage. However, about 30% of women treated with misoprostol have incomplete evacuation of the uterus. Despite being relatively asymptomatic in most cases, this finding often leads to additional surgical treatment (curettage). A comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical management versus expectant management is lacking in women with incomplete miscarriage after misoprostol.

Methods/Design

The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled trial that assesses the costs and effects of curettage versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage.

Eligible women will be randomized, after informed consent, within 24 hours after identification of incomplete evacuation of the uterus by ultrasound scanning. Women are randomly allocated to surgical or expectant management. Curettage is performed within three days after randomization.

Primary outcome is the sonographic finding of an empty uterus (maximal diameter of any contents of the uterine cavity < 10 millimeters) six weeks after study entry. Secondary outcomes are patients’ quality of life, surgical outcome parameters, the type and number of re-interventions during the first three months and pregnancy rates and outcome 12 months after study entry.

Discussion

This trial will provide evidence for the (cost) effectiveness of surgical versus expectant management in women with incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register: NTR3110

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted unblinded.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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