Effectiveness and safety of early medication abortion provided in pharmacies by auxiliary nurse-midwives: A non-inferiority study in Nepal

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.

Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion

Importance

In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed.

Objective

To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older.

Exposure

Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group.

Results

The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group.

Conclusions and Relevance

This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.

How Effective Is Misoprostol Alone for Medication Abortion?

AbstractWith recent severe restrictions to abortion accessibility in the United States and a pending Supreme Court case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, evidence-based strategies to protect and expand access to abortion care are needed. Two safe and effective regimens for medication abortion are widely used globally - misoprostol-only and misoprostol in combination with mifepristone. However, misoprostol-only regimens are rarely used in the United States. In 2023, the National Abortion Federation and the Society of Family Planning updated their recommended protocol for misoprostol-only for medication abortion to 800 μg of misoprostol administered buccally, sublingually, or vaginally every 3 hours for three or more doses. To characterize the data supporting this specific regimen, this article reviews the relevant literature to address the question of how effective misoprostol-only is for medication abortion. The authors conclude that the updated misoprostol regimen is highly effective and a potential strategy for expanding access to abortion.

Striving toward safe abortion services in Nepal: A review of barriers and facilitators

Background and Aims

Despite the decriminalization of abortion in Nepal in 2002, unsafe abortion is still a significant contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality. Nepal has witnessed a significant drop in abortion-related severe complications and maternal deaths owing to the legalization of abortion laws, lowered financial costs, and wider accessibility of safe abortion services (SAS). However, various factors such as sociocultural beliefs, financial constraints, geographical difficulties, and stigma act as barriers to the liberal accessibility of SAS. This review aimed to determine key barriers obstructing women's access to lawful, safe abortion care and identify facilitators that have improved access to and quality of abortion services.

Methods

A systematic search strategy utilizing the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase was used to include studies on the accessibility and safety of abortion services in Nepal. Data were extracted from included studies through close reading. Barriers and facilitators were then categorized into various themes and analyzed.

Results

Of 223 studies, 112 were duplicates, 73 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 18 did not align with the research question; thus, 20 studies were included in the review. Various barriers to SAS in Nepal were categorized as economic, geographic, societal, legal/policy, socio-cultural, health systems, and other factors. Facilitators improving access were categorized as economic/geographic/societal, legal/policy, socio-cultural, and health systems factors. The patterns and trends of barriers and facilitators were analyzed, grouping them under legal/policy, socio-cultural, geographic/accessibility, and health systems factors.

Conclusion

The review identifies financial constraints, unfavorable geography, lack of infrastructure, and social stigmatization as major barriers to SAS. Economics and geography, legalization, improved access, reduced cost and active involvement of auxiliary nurse-midwives and community health volunteers are key facilitators.

A prospective, comparative study of clinical outcomes following clinic-based versus self-use of medical abortion

BACKGROUND

To determine whether clinical outcomes differ among women accessing a combined medical abortion regimen from a health clinic when compared with those accessing it from a pharmacy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, prospective, comparative, non-inferiority study of participants aged ≥15 years seeking medical abortion from five clinics and five adjacent pharmacy clusters in three provinces of Cambodia. Participants were recruited in-person at the point of purchase (clinic or pharmacy). Follow-up for self-reported pill use, acceptability, and clinical outcomes occurred by telephone at days 10 and 30 after mifepristone administration.

RESULTS

Over 10 months, we enrolled 2083 women with 1847 providing outcome data: 937 from clinics and 910 from pharmacies. Most were early in their pregnancy (mean gestational age of 6.3 and 6.1 weeks, respectively) and almost all took the pills correctly (98% and 96%,). Additional treatment needed to complete the abortion was non-inferior for the pharmacy group (9.3%) compared with the clinic group (12.7%). More from the clinic group received additional care from a provider, such as antibiotics or diagnostics tests, than those from the pharmacy group (11.5% and 3.2%,), and one ectopic pregnancy (pharmacy group) was successfully treated. Most said they felt prepared for what happened after taking the pills (90.9% and 81.3%, respectively, p=0.273).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-use of a combined medical abortion product resulted in comparable clinical outcomes as use following a clinical visit, consistent with existing literature on its safety and efficacy. Registration and availability of medical abortion as an over-the-counter product would likely increase women's access to safe abortion.

Pathways to medical abortion self-use (MASU): results from a cross-sectional survey of women's experiences in Kenya and Uganda

BACKGROUND

In Kenya and Uganda, unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality. The new WHO policy guidelines on the safe termination of pregnancies up to 9 weeks lack information on women's experiences with self-administered medical abortion (MA), impeding the development of interventions to increase MA use. This study aimed to comprehend women's experiences with MA in Kenyan and Ugandan pharmacies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey utilized data from medical registers in 71 purposefully identified pharmacies and clinics dispensing MA drugs between September and October 2021. Forty women who were MA users participated in focus group discussions. The main outcome variables were: sources of MA information, costs of MA services, complications from MA, pain management, follow-up rates, and use of post-MA contraception. Quantitative data were analyzed using Stata 15, while qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using Dedoose qualitative analysis software.

RESULTS

73.6% of 2,366 women got an MA, both in Kenya (79%) and Uganda (21%). Most (59.1%) were walk-in clients. Kenya had significantly more women referred for MA (49.9%) than Uganda (10.1%) (p 0.05). Friends and family members were the main sources of MA information. The median cost of MA was USD 18 (IQR 10-60.5) in Kenya and USD 4.2 (IQR 2-12) in Uganda. Most MA clients received pain management (89.6%), were followed up (81%), and received post-MA contraception (97.6%). Qualitative results indicated a lack of medicines, high costs of MA, complications, stigma, and inadequate training of providers as barriers to MA use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Communities are a valuable information resource for MA, but only if they have access to the right information. A relatively weak health referral system in Uganda highlights the importance of pharmacies and clinicians collaborating to support clients' abortion needs and contraceptive use after medical abortion (MA). Low client follow-up rates show how important it is to make sure pharmacy technicians know how to give MA correctly. Finally, it is crucial to strengthen the supply chain for MA products in order to eliminate cost barriers to access.

Predictors of prior unsuccessful pharmacy abortion attempts among women presenting for abortion in government certified clinics in Nepal

OBJECTIVE

Although abortion in Nepal is broadly legal and free of charge, many women seek abortion care outside the legal system, including from pharmacies. We evaluated the prevalence of, and factors associated with, prior unsuccessful abortion attempts among women presenting to 14 randomly-selected government approved abortion health facilities across Nepal.

METHODS

Eligible participants were recruited in 2019 by trained research staff from certified abortion facilities. Participants (n = 1160) completed research staff-administered baseline surveys. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with having attempted pharmacy abortion prior to coming to the health facility.

RESULTS

Almost one in seven (14%) women had tried to end their pregnancy before presenting to a participating clinic, often (9%) using medication obtained from a pharmacy. Women who lived farther from the clinic (aOR 1.28 per log hours travel time, 95% CI 1.10-1.49) and who reported financial difficulty in accessing the clinic (19% vs. 10%, aOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.20-3.70) had increased odds of having tried to access abortion through a pharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Integrating pharmacies into the legal network of abortion providers may improve access to safe care, particularly for rural women with financial and practical travel limitations.

Effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion with accompaniment support in Argentina and Nigeria (SAFE): a prospective, observational cohort study and non-inferiority analysis with historical controls

Background

Clinical trials have established the high effectiveness and safety of medication abortion in clinical settings. However, barriers to clinical abortion care have shifted most medication abortion use to out-of-clinic settings, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given this shift, we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of self-managed medication abortion (medication abortion without clinical support), and to compare it to effectiveness of clinician-managed medication abortion.

Methods

For this prospective, observational cohort study, we recruited callers from two safe abortion accompaniment groups in Argentina and Nigeria who requested information on self-managed medication abortion. Before using one of two medication regimens (misoprostol alone or in combination with mifepristone), participants completed a baseline survey, and then two follow-up phone surveys at 1 week and 3 weeks after taking pills. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting a complete abortion without surgical intervention. Legal restrictions precluded enrolment of a concurrent clinical control group; thus, a non-inferiority analysis compared abortion completion among those in our self-managed medication abortion cohort with abortion completion reported in historical clinical trials using the same medication regimens, restricted to participants with pregnancies of less than 9 weeks' gestation. This study was registered with ISCRTN, ISRCTN95769543.

Findings

Between July 31, 2019, and April 27, 2020, we enrolled 1051 participants. We analysed abortion outcomes for 961 participants, with an additional 47 participants reached after the study period. Most pregnancies were less than 12 weeks' duration. Participants in follow-up self-managed their abortions using misoprostol alone (593 participants) or the combined regimen of misoprostol plus mifepristone (356 participants). At last follow-up, 586 (99%) misoprostol alone users and 334 (94%) combined regimen users had a complete abortion without surgical intervention. For those with pregnancies of less than 9 weeks' gestation, both regimens were non-inferior to medication abortion effectiveness in clinical settings.

Interpretation

Findings from this prospective cohort study show that self-managed medication abortion with accompaniment group support is highly effective and, for those with pregnancies of less than 9 weeks' gestation, non-inferior to the effectiveness of clinician-managed medication abortion administered in a clinical setting. These findings support the use of remote self-managed models of early abortion care, as well as telemedicine, as is being considered in several countries because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding

David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Translations

For the Arabic, French, Bahasa Indonesian, Spanish and Yoruba translations of the Article see Supplementary Materials section.

Medical abortion offered in pharmacy versus clinic-based settings: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Expanding access to medical abortion through pharmacies is a potential strategy to promote safe abortion care. To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion offered in pharmacy settings with clinic-based medical abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched multiple databases and the gray literature through November 2020. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies. We applied standard risk of bias tools to each included study and used GRADE methodology to assess certainty of 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.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2030 studies. One prospective cohort study from Nepal met inclusion criteria. This study collected data on 605 women obtaining medical abortion rom either a clinic or pharmacy, and was judged to have low risk of bias for our primary outcome. For women who received medical abortion in a pharmacy compared to a clinic there was probably little or no difference in complete abortion rates (adjusted risk difference 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 3.8, 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty of evidence). No cases of blood transfusion were reported in the study and a composite outcome comprised mainly of infection complications showed little or no difference between settings (adjusted risk difference 0.8; 95% CI -1.0 to 2.8, 1 study, 600 participants; very low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from just one nonrandomized study provides low certainty evidence that the effectiveness of medical abortion is probably not different between the pharmacy or clinic setting.

IMPLICATIONS

Provision of medical abortions through pharmacy-based models of care may improve access to safe abortion. Comparative studies examining each model of care and outcomes on safety, effectiveness, and patient experience are needed.

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.

Induced Abortion Incidence and Safety in Rajasthan, India: Evidence that Expansion of Services is Needed

Despite induced abortion being broadly legal in India, up-to-date information on its frequency and safety is not readily available. Using direct and indirect methodological approaches, this study measures the one-year incidence and safety of induced abortions among women in the state of Rajasthan. The analysis utilizes data from a population-based survey of 5,832 reproductive aged women who reported on the abortion experiences of their closest female confidante in addition to themselves. We separately assess correlates of having a recent and most unsafe abortion using multivariable regression models. The confidante approach produced a one-year abortion incidence estimate of 23 per 1,000 women, whereas the respondent estimate is 9.5 per 1,000 women. Based on the confidante estimate, approximately 441,000 abortions occurred in Rajasthan over a year. Overall, 25 and 29 percent of respondent and confidante reported abortions were classified as most unsafe. Results suggest that abortion remains an integral component of women's fertility regulation, and that a liberal law alone is insufficient to guarantee access to safe abortion services. Existing policies on abortion in India need updating to permit task sharing in line with current recommendations to expand service delivery so that demand is met through provision of safe and accessible services.

Systematic review of early abortion services in low- and middle-income country primary care: potential for reverse innovation and application in the UK context

BACKGROUND

In the UK, according to the 1967 Abortion Act, all abortions must be approved by two doctors, reported to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and be performed by doctors within licensed premises. Removing abortion from the criminal framework could permit new service delivery models. We explore service delivery models in primary care settings that can improve accessibility without negatively impacting the safety and efficiency of abortion services. Novel service delivery models are common in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) due to resource constraints, and services are sometimes provided by trained, mid-level providers via "task-shifting". The aim of this study is to explore the quality of early abortion services provided in primary care of LMICs and explore the potential benefits of extending their application to the UK context.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and HMIC for studies published from September 1994 to February 2020, with search terms "nurses", "midwives", "general physicians", "early medical/surgical abortion". We included studies that examined the quality of abortion care in primary care settings of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), and excluded studies in countries where abortion is illegal, and those of services provided by independent NGOs. We conducted a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis to identify indicators of quality care at structural, process and outcome levels of the Donabedian model.

RESULTS

A total of 21 indicators under 8 subthemes were identified to examine the quality of service provision: law and policy, infrastructure, technical competency, information provision, client-provider interactions, ancillary services, complete abortions, client satisfaction. Our analysis suggests that structural, process and outcome indicators follow a mediation pathway of the Donabedian model. This review showed that providing early medical abortion in primary care services is safe and feasible and "task-shifting" to mid-level providers can effectively replace doctors in providing abortion.

CONCLUSION

The way services are organised in LMICs, using a task-shifted and decentralised model, results in high quality services that should be considered for adoption in the UK. Collaboration with professional medical bodies and governmental departments is necessary to expand services from secondary to primary care.

Abortion service provision in South Asia: A comparative study of four countries

OBJECTIVES

Nationally representative evidence on abortion service provision is scarce in South Asia. To inform improvements in service provision, this paper assesses the availability of facility-based postabortion services in Nepal, India (six states), Bangladesh and Pakistan, and legal abortion services in India and Nepal and Bangladesh (where the official term used is menstrual regulation or MR).

STUDY DESIGN

The paper presents comparable indicators on three aspects of abortion service provision from representative surveys of public and private sector facilities, conducted over 2012-2015. Indicators cover three areas: (a) need for abortion-related care (total number of abortions and percent of abortions that are legal and the postabortion treatment rate); (b) availability and accessibility of facility-based abortion-related services (percent of facilities offering only one of the two services, percent which are public and percent located in rural areas); (c) quality of facility-based abortion care (percent of legal abortions using procedures not recommended by WHO and percent of women turned away when seeking abortion or MR services).

RESULTS

The proportion of all abortions that are illegal ranges from 58% to almost 78% in the three countries where abortion is permitted under broad criteria. The annual treatment rate for abortion complications ranges from about 4 to 26 per 1000 women ages 15-49 across the countries and states covered. In India and Nepal, less than 40% of public sector facilities that are permitted to provide abortion services do so; in Bangladesh, the situation is somewhat better, at 53% providing MR. Across the six Indian states, 4-43% of facilities that offer abortion care are located in rural areas, disproportionately lower than the proportion of women living in rural areas (49-87%). About 30-60% of facilities offered only postabortion care and did not offer legal services in the three countries where legal services are permitted (with the sole exception of Tamil Nadu where this proportion was only 11%); of the remaining facilities, the large majority offered both services. Medication abortion is offered by the large majority of facilities that provide induced abortion and accounts for 40-45%, of facility-based abortions in Nepal and four of the states of India; in Assam and Bihar, this proportion was much lower (13% and 27% respectively). Invasive procedures that are not recommended by WHO are more widely used in India (up to 25-37% of facility-based abortions are D&C procedures; the large majority of this group are D&C, and a small proportion may be D&E, a WHO-recommended abortion procedure, that could not be separated out in this study because providers use the two labels interchangeably); by comparison, the proportion is much smaller in Nepal (5%). Between 22% to a little over half of facilities turned away some women who would otherwise be eligible for an abortion or MR procedure in Nepal, the six Indian states, and Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to increase access to abortion, MR and postabortion services, especially for rural women. Greater access to legal abortion/MR services in the three countries that permit these procedures would increase the proportion of abortions that are legal and safe, reduce morbidity and the need for facility-based treatment for complications. Broadening the legal criteria under which abortion is permitted in Pakistan, and implementing access under such broader criteria, is needed to achieve the same improvements in Pakistan. Ensuring that these services are of high quality and comprehensive-meeting WHO-recommended standards-is essential to protect women's reproductive health and rights.

IMPLICATIONS

To improve access to abortion, MR and postabortion care in South Asia, all facilities (public and private) permitted to provide these services should do so, and should include medication abortion. Improvements in quality of care are critical: invasive procedures (D&C) should be eliminated through adherence to WHO's standards of safe abortion care and women seeking abortions should not be turned away because of providers' biases.

Systematic Review of the Effectiveness, Safety, and Acceptability of Mifepristone and Misoprostol for Medical Abortion in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

OBJECTIVE

Abortion-related complications remain one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Nearly half of all abortions are unsafe, and the vast majority of these occur in low- and middle-income countries. The use of mifepristone with misoprostol for medical abortion has been proposed and implemented to improve abortion safety.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL.

STUDY SELECTION

Criteria for study inclusion were first-trimester abortion, use of mifepristone with misoprostol, and low- or middle-income country status as designated by the World Health Organization.

DATA EXTRACTION

Results for effectiveness, safety, acceptability, and qualitative information were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The literature search resulted in 181 eligible articles, 52 of which met our criteria for inclusion. A total of 34 publications reported effectiveness data on 25 385 medical abortions. The average effectiveness rate with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol 800 µg was 95% up to 63 days gestation. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assume that all women lost to follow-up failed treatment, and the recalculated effectiveness rate remained high at 93%. The average continuing pregnancy rate was 0.6%. A total of 22 publications reported safety and acceptability data on 17 381 medical abortions. Only 0.8% abortions required presentation to hospital, and 87% of patients found the side effects of treatment acceptable. Overall, 95% of women were satisfied with their medical abortion, 94% would choose the method again, and 94% would recommend this method to a friend. A total of 16 publications reported qualitative results and the majority supported positive patient experiences with medical abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone and misoprostol is highly effective, safe, and acceptable to women in low- and middle-income countries, making it a feasible option for reducing maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide.

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.

Is there a difference in women's experiences of care with medication vs. manual vacuum aspiration abortions? Determinants of person-centered care for abortion services

Little evidence exists on women's experiences of care during abortion care, partly due to limitations in existing measures. Moreover, globally, the development and rapid growth in the availability of medication abortions (MA) has radically changed the options for safe abortions for women. It is therefore important to understand how women's experiences of care may differ across medication and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortions. This study uses a validated person-centered abortion care scale (categorized as low, medium, and high levels, with high levels representing the greatest level of person-centered care) to assess women's experiences of care undergoing medication abortions vs. MVA. This paper reports on a cross-sectional study of 353 women undergoing abortions at one of six family planning clinics in Nairobi County, Kenya in 2018. Comparing abortion types, we found that the MVA sample was more likely to report "high" levels of person-centered abortion care compared to the MA sample (36.3% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). No differences were detected with respect to Respectful and Supportive Care; however, the MVA sample was significantly more likely to report "high" levels of Communication and Autonomy compared to the MA sample (23.6% vs. 11.2%, p<0.0001). In multivariable ordered logistic regression, we found that the MVA sample had a 92% greater likelihood of reporting higher person-centered abortion care scores compared to MA clients (aOR1.92, CI: 1.17-3.17). Being employed and reporting higher self-rated health were associated with higher person-centered abortion care scores, while reporting higher levels of stigma were associated with lower person-centered abortion care scores. Our findings suggest that more efforts are needed to improve the domain of Communication and Autonomy, particularly for MA clients.

Medical abortion in Nepal: a qualitative study on women's experiences at safe abortion services and pharmacies

Background

Although Nepal legalised abortion in 2002, a significant number of women continue to access unsafe abortions. An estimated 60% of all abortions performed in 2014 were unsafe, with unsafe abortion continuing to be a leading contributor to maternal mortality. Despite medical abortion access being solely permitted through government accredited safe abortion services, medical abortion pills are readily available for illegal purchase at pharmacies throughout the country.

Methods

Utilising an Assets Focused Rapid Participatory Appraisal (AFRPA) research methodology, underpinned by a health information pyramid conceptual framework, this qualitative exploratory study collected data from in-depth, open-ended interviews. The study explored the medical abortion and sexual and reproductive health experiences of ten women who accessed medical abortion through an accredited safe abortion service, and ten women who accessed unsafe medical abortion through pharmacies.

Results

Thematic content analysis revealed emerging themes relating to decision-making processes in accessing safe or unsafe medical abortion; knowledge of safe abortion services; and SRH information access and post-abortion contraceptive counselling. Findings emphasised the interconnectivity of sexual and reproductive health and rights; reproductive coercion; education; poverty; spousal separation; and women’s personal, social and economic empowerment.

Conclusions

While barriers to safe abortion services persist, so will the continued demand for medical abortion provision through pharmacies. Innovated and effective harm reduction implementations combined with access and information expansion strategies offer the potential to increase access to safe medical abortion while decreasing adverse health outcomes for women.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-019-0755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abortion-related care and the role of the midwife: a global perspective

Introduction

The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) represents 132 midwifery associations in 113 countries. The ICM disseminates the Essential Competencies for Basic Midwifery Practice (EC) that describes the global scope of midwifery practice. The basic (core) and expanded (additional or optional) role of midwives in providing abortion-related care services was first described in 2010. A literature review about three items that are particularly critical to access to abortion services was conducted. Findings that emerged in the recent 2016-2017 update study about these three items are presented.

Methods

A modified Delphi study was administered via the Internet in a series of three rounds. Thirty-seven statements of abortion-related knowledge and skill were presented.

Results

A total of 895 individuals participated. The total of respondents across all three rounds represented 90 of the 105 member countries at the time of the study. The role of midwives in providing comprehensive abortion care, including referral for abortion and provision of postabortion family planning, achieved the necessary 85% agreement to be designated as essential (basic) knowledge or skill for the global scope of midwifery practice. The provision of medication abortion and performance of manual vacuum aspiration abortion were designated as optional for midwives who wished to provide these services. Endorsement of these latter practices was highest in both Francophone and Anglophone regions of Africa, Asian Pacific countries, and countries at a lower state of economic development.

Conclusion

The role of midwives in provision of abortion-related care services was reaffirmed in the recent Delphi study to inform the update to the EC. The role of midwives as direct providers of medical and vacuum aspiration abortions was reaffirmed for those individual midwives who wish to obtain the requisite competency to provide those services, in jurisdictions where these services are legally authorized.

Support for and interest in alternative models of medication abortion provision among a national probability sample of U.S. women

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess women's personal interest in and support for three alternative models of medication abortion (MA) provision.

STUDY DESIGN

Using an online survey of a U.S. national, probability-based representative sample of women ages 18-49, we gauged personal interest in and general support for three alternative models for accessing abortion pills: (1) in advance from a doctor for future use, (2) over-the-counter (OTC) from a drugstore and (3) online without a prescription. We conducted multivariable analyses to identify characteristics associated with support for these provision models.

RESULTS

Fifty percent (n=7022) of eligible women invited completed the survey. Nearly half (49%) supported and 30% were personally interested in one or more of the three access models; 44% supported advance provision, 37% supported OTC access, and 29% supported online access. Common advantages reported for advance provision, OTC and online access included privacy (49%, 29% and 46%, respectively), convenience (38%, 44% and 38%) and being able to end the pregnancy earlier (48%, 40% and 29%). Common disadvantages included concern that women might take the pills incorrectly (55%, 53% and 57%), not seeing a clinician before the abortion (52%, 54% and 53%) and safety (42%, 43% and 60%). History of abortion and experiencing barriers accessing reproductive health services were associated with greater support for the alternative models.

CONCLUSION

Women are interested in and support alternative models of MA provision, in particular, advance provision. However, they also reported concerns about incorrect pill use and not seeing a clinician beforehand.

IMPLICATIONS

Offering women more choices in how they access medication abortion, including options where they can safely self-manage their own care, has the potential to expand access to care.

Pharmacy access to medical abortion from trained providers and post-abortion contraception in Nepal

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether auxiliary nurse-midwife provision of medical abortion in pharmacies was associated with reduced post-abortion contraceptive use in Nepal.

METHODS

The present prospective observational study compared contraceptive use among women aged 16-45 years and up to 63 days of pregnancy, who presented at one of six privately-owned pharmacies or six public health facilities in the Chitwan and Jhapa districts of Nepal for medical abortion between October 16, 2014, and September 1, 2015. Participants obtained medical abortions per Nepali protocol and completed a follow-up visit and interview at 14-21 days. Effective contraceptive use was compared between abortion care settings using multivariable mixed effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 605 participants, 600 completed follow-up at 14-21 days; 474 (79.0%) were using a contraceptive method, most commonly pills (180 [30.0%]) and injectables (175 [29.2%]), followed by condoms (82 [13.7%]), long-acting reversible methods (33 [5.5%]), and sterilization (4 [0.7%]). Receipt of care from a private pharmacy was not associated with a difference in the use of hormonal or long-acting methods (adjusted odd ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60-1.33).

CONCLUSION

Medical abortion provision from pharmacies by qualified providers can provide women with necessary induced-abortion care while not compromising longer-term pregnancy prevention.

Gestational dating using last menstrual period and bimanual exam for medication abortion in pharmacies and health centers in Nepal

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether conducting a bimanual examination prior to medication abortion (MAB) provision results in meaningful changes in gestational age (GA) assessment after patient-reported last menstrual period (LMP) in Nepal.

STUDY DESIGN

Women ages 16-45 (n=660) seeking MAB at twelve participating pharmacies and government health facilities, between October 2014 and September 2015, self-reported LMP. Trained auxiliary nurse midwives assessed GA using a bimanual exam after recording LMP. We compared GA assessments as measured via patient-reported LMP alone versus via LMP plus bimanual exam.

RESULTS

Overall, 660 women (326 at pharmacies, 334 at health facilities) presented for MAB, and 95% were able to provide an LMP. Overall agreement between LMP alone and LMP with bimanual exam was 99.3%. If LMP alone had been used without bimanual exam, fewer than one in 200 women would have been given MAB beyond the legal gestational limit. Among the three women who were ≤63 days by LMP but >63 days by bimanual exam, only one would have received MAB beyond 70 days gestation. Fewer than one in 600 women would not have received MAB care when eligible by adding a bimanual exam.

CONCLUSION

There was high agreement between LMP alone and LMP plus bimanual exam. Routine bimanual exam may not be essential for safe and effective MAB care for women who are able to report an LMP. Removing the bimanual exam requirement could decrease barriers to provision outside of currently approved clinical settings and allow for expanded abortion access through provision by providers without bimanual exam training or facilities.

IMPLICATIONS

Routine bimanual exams may not be essential for safe medication abortion provision by trained clinicians in pharmacies and health facilities in low resource settings like Nepal.