Medical abortion: A practice tool for pharmacists

Very early medical abortion: treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol before ultrasonographic visualisation of an intrauterine pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Abortion providers may be reluctant to commence abortion before ultrasound evidence of intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) due to concerns of missed ectopic pregnancy. In 2017, very early medical abortion (VEMA) was introduced at an abortion service in Edinburgh, UK. Following ultrasound, patients without confirmed IUP, and without symptoms or risk factors for ectopic pregnancy, could commence treatment immediately after baseline serum-human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) measurement, and return for follow-up serum-hCG a week later to determine treatment success (≥80% decline from baseline). This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between two pathways: (1) VEMA; and (2) standard-of-care delayed treatment where treatment is only commenced on IUP confirmation by serial serum-hCG monitoring and/or repeat ultrasound.

METHODS

A retrospective database review was conducted of VEMA eligible patients from July 2017 to December 2021. Study groups were determined by patient preference. Records were searched for abortion outcomes, duration of care, number of appointments (clinic visits, ultrasounds, serum-hCG) and clinical data entries.

RESULTS

Of 181 patients included, 77 (43%) chose VEMA and 104 (57%) chose delayed treatment. 11/181 (6.1%) were lost to follow-up. Cohort ectopic prevalence was 4.4% and was not statistically different between groups (2.6% vs 5.8%, VEMA vs delayed group, respectively, p=0.305), as with complete abortion rates (93.3% vs 97.6%, p=0.256). All VEMA group ectopics were detected on the seventh day (from initial visit) while time-to-diagnosis for delayed group ectopics ranged from 7 days to 3 weeks. VEMA patients had significantly reduced duration of care (12 vs 21 days, p<0.001), number of visits (2 vs 3, p<0.001), ultrasounds (1 vs 2, p<0.001) and data entries (6 vs 9, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

VEMA is safe, effective and reduces the duration of care, number of appointments and clinical administrative time. It should be offered to medically eligible patients.

Mifepristone: A Safe Method of Medical Abortion and Self-Managed Medical Abortion in the Post-Roe Era

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022 effectively overturned federal constitutional protections for abortion that have existed since 1973 and returned jurisdiction to the states. Several states implemented abortion bans, some of which banned abortion after 6 weeks and others that permit abortion under limited exceptions, such as if the health or the life of the woman is in danger. Other states introduced bills that define life as beginning at fertilization. As a result of these new and proposed laws, the future availability of mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medical abortion in the United States, has become the topic of intense debate and speculation.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Although its safety and effectiveness has been confirmed by many studies, the use of mifepristone has been politicized regularly since its approval. Areas of future study include mifepristone for induction termination and fetal demise in the third trimester and the management of leiomyoma.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Society of Family Planning, American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The use of no-touch medical abortion, which entails providing a medical abortion via a telehealth platform without a screening ultrasound or bloodwork, expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and studies have confirmed its safety. With the Dobbs decision, legal abortion will be less accessible and, consequently, self-managed abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol will become more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone and misoprostol are extremely safe medications with many applications. In the current changing political climate, physicians and pregnancy-capable individuals must have access to these medications.

Pregnancy termination in patients with rheumatic diseases

Rheumatic diseases affect women during their reproductive years. Many women with rheumatic diseases become pregnant; some undergo pregnancy termination. However, there are no official guidelines on pregnancy termination in patients with rheumatic diseases. This paper provides an overview of considerations that healthcare professionals must take into account. We highlight areas that require further studies and the importance of pregnancy planning and contraception counseling. Patients with rheumatic diseases need to be informed of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes of pregnancy to make informed reproductive decisions and reduce the need for pregnancy terminations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Medical abortion offered in pharmacy versus clinic-based settings

BACKGROUND

Medical abortion is usually offered in a clinic or hospital, but could potentially be offered in other settings such as pharmacies. In many countries, pharmacies are a common first point of access for women seeking reproductive health information and services. Offering medical abortion through pharmacies is a potential strategy to improve access to abortion.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion offered in pharmacy settings with clinic-based medical abortion.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, two trials registries and grey literature websites in November 2020. We also handsearched key references and contacted authors to locate unpublished studies or studies not identified in the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified studies that compared women receiving the same regimen of medical abortion or post-abortion care in either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Studies published in any language employing the following designs were included: randomized trials and non-randomized studies including a comparative group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed both retrieved abstracts and full-text publications. A third author was consulted in case of disagreement. We intended to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2, for randomized studies and used the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were completion of abortion without additional intervention, need for blood transfusion, and presence of uterine or systemic infection within 30 days of medical abortion.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search yielded 2030 records. We assessed a total of 89 full-text articles for eligibility. One prospective cohort study met our inclusion criteria. The included study collected data on outcomes from 605 women who obtained a medical abortion in Nepal from either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Both sites of care were staffed by the same auxiliary nurse midwives. Over all domains, the risk of bias was judged to be low for our primary outcome. During the pre-intervention period, the study's investigators identified a priori appropriate confounders, which were clearly measured and adjusted for in the final analysis. For women who received medical abortion in a pharmacy setting, compared to a clinic setting, there may be little or no difference in complete abortion rates (adjusted risk difference (RD)) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 3.8; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence). The study reported no cases of blood transfusion, and a composite outcome, comprised mainly of infection complications, showed there may be little or no difference between settings (adjusted RD 0.8, 95% CI -1.0 to 2.8; 1 study, 600 participants; very low certainty evidence). The study reported no events for hospital admission for an abortion-related event or need for surgical intervention, and there may be no difference in women reporting being highly satisfied with the facility where they were seen (38% pharmacy versus 34% clinic, P = 0.87; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of pharmacy provision of medical abortion are limited by the lack of comparative studies. One study, judged to provide low certainty evidence, suggests that the effectiveness of medical abortion may not be different between the pharmacy and clinic settings. However, evidence for safety is insufficient to draw any conclusions, and more research on factors contributing to potential differences in quality of care is needed. It is important to note that this study included a care model where a clinician provided services in a pharmacy, not direct provision of care by pharmacists or pharmacy staff. Three ongoing studies are potentially eligible for inclusion in review updates. More research is needed because pharmacy provision could expand timely access to medical abortion, especially in settings where clinic services may be more difficult to obtain. Evidence is particularly limited on the patient experience and how the care process and quality of services may differ across different types of settings.