How much Supervision is Necessary for Women Taking Mifepristone and Misoprostol for Early Medical Abortion?

Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home versus in the clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis in response to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Increased access to home-based medical abortion may offer women a convenient, safe and effective abortion method, reduce burdens on healthcare systems and support social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based medical abortion is defined as any abortion where mifepristone, misoprostol or both medications are taken at home.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) were conducted. We searched databases from inception to 10 July 2019 and 14 June 2020. Successful abortion was the main outcome of interest. Eligible studies were RCTs and NRSs studies with a concurrent comparison group comparing home versus clinic-based medical abortion. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. Estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess risk of bias by outcome and to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 6277 potentially eligible published studies. Nineteen studies (3 RCTs and 16 NRSs) were included with 11 576 women seeking abortion up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither the RCTs nor the NRS found any difference between home-based and clinic-based administration of medical abortion in having a successful abortion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, I2=52%, respectively). The certainty of the evidence for the 16 NRSs was downgraded from low to very low due to high risk of bias and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence for the three RCTs was downgraded from high to moderate by one level for high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Home-based medical abortion is effective, safe and acceptable to women. This evidence should be used to expand women's abortion options and ensure access to abortion for women during COVID-19 and beyond.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020183171.

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.

Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Low-Dose Mifepristone and Self-Administered Misoprostol for Ultra-Early Medical Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-dose mifepristone combined with self-administered misoprostol for ultra-early medical abortion. A total of 744 women with ultra-early pregnancy (amenorrhea ≤35 days) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Equal numbers of participants were allocated randomly to the hospital administration and self-administration groups. All participants took 75 mg mifepristone at the initial visit and 400 µg oral misoprostol 24 hours later in the hospital or by self-administration. The primary end point was complete abortion. Secondary end points were rates of unscheduled reattendance, time required for and cost of hospital observation and follow-up, vaginal bleeding, adverse effects, menstrual disturbance in the posttreatment period, and satisfaction rating. No differences in the rates of complete abortion, unscheduled reattendance, vaginal bleeding, adverse effects, or return of posttreatment menstruation were observed. The time required for (and costs of) hospital observation and follow-up per participant was 557.82 minutes (and US$40.12) in the hospital administration group and 18.46 minutes (and US$1.96) in the self-administration group (both P < .001). Satisfaction rates were similar in both groups, but the rates of "very satisfied" responses (87.60% vs 25.41%) and follow-up compliance (loss to follow-up, 0.45% vs 7.70%) were higher in the self-administration group (both P < .001). Low-dose mifepristone combined with self-administered misoprostol for ultra-early pregnancy termination was as effective and safe as hospital administration, with greater acceptability and lower cost to the women.

A case of toxic shock due to clandestine abortion by misoprostol self-administration

Maternal mortality and morbidity are the leading causes of death and illness, respectively, among women of reproductive age in many countries throughout the world. Of all maternal deaths, those related to unsafe abortions are the most widely underestimated, but they are also the most largely preventable. Medical abortion is a safe and reliable method for termination of a pregnancy in early gestation, although it is important to be aware of signs and symptoms of severe infection and toxic shock syndrome after the medical termination of pregnancy; case studies in literature are rarely fatal events. We report the first case of septic shock syndrome following a clandestine pregnancy termination with a misoprostol-only regimen (12 tablets 200 μg each). Autopsy findings and histopathological examination proved that the woman died from septic shock. This case suggests to improve the forensic investigations in case of unsafe, often clandestine, abortion is suspected.

Regional differences in surgical intervention following medical termination of pregnancy provided by telemedicine

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of factors influencing surgical intervention rate after home medical termination of pregnancy (TOP) by women in countries without access to safe services using the telemedical service 'Women on Web'.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Women with an unwanted pregnancy less than nine weeks pregnant who used the telemedicine service of Women on Web between February 2007 and September 2008 and provided follow-up information.

SAMPLE

Women who used medical TOP with a known follow up.

METHODS

Information from the online consultation, follow-up form and emails was used to analyze the outcome of the TOP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy, reason for surgical intervention, perceived complications and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of the 2 323 women who did the medical TOP and had no ongoing pregnancy, 289 (12.4%) received a surgical intervention. High rates were found in Eastern Europe (14.8%), Latin America (14.4%) and Asia/Oceania (11.0%) and low rates in Western Europe (5.8%), the Middle East (4.7%) and Africa (6.1%; p=0.000). More interventions occurred with longer gestational age (p=0.000). Women without a surgical intervention more frequently reported satisfaction with the treatment (p=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

The large regional differences in the rates of reported surgical interventions after medical TOP provided by telemedicine cannot be explained by demographic factors or differences in gestational length. It is likely that these differences reflect different clinical practice and local guidelines on (incomplete) abortion rather than complications that genuinely needed surgical intervention. Surgical interventions significantly influenced womens' views on the acceptability of the TOP.