Acceptability and feasibility of mifepristone medical abortion in the early first trimester in Azerbaijan

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.

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.

Women's voices and medical abortions: A review of the literature

Globally, a growing proportion of induced abortions are medical abortions. The procedure has been hailed as a revolutionary technology, which, according to experts, has the potential to transform women's experiences of abortion and the way abortion services are accessed. Noticeably absent in the discourse, however, are women's voices. More specifically, there is a lack of understanding about what shapes women's preferences for medical abortion and the challenges they experience in accessing the drugs for the procedure. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to draw attention to these important issues which exist, but are often embedded within research highlighting other dominating aspects of medical abortions. A comprehensive search of four databases - supplemented by searching reference sections of selected articles, tracking their citations, and hand searching special editions on medical abortion - was conducted. A total of 45 peer-reviewed studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies were assessed for quality and analyzed using a critical interpretive synthesis approach. The findings revealed significant variations in women's preferences for surgical versus medical abortions. Country-specific abortion laws, implementing protocols, side-effects, rates of failures, and the need to verify the abortion shaped women's preference for abortion methods. Overall, women who preferred medical abortions did so because they perceived it as a 'natural' and safe procedure that can be self-conducted at home, thereby reducing their dependency on the health system. However, women face significant barriers to medical abortion care. These include legal requirements around type of provider, site of service, need for follow-up, providers' limited knowledge of the procedure, and preferences for surgical abortions. Borderless internet-based services have enabled some women to circumvent these barriers. Our review suggests that medical abortions are used by women either in countries where the health system is fully supportive or where the health system is completely disengaged, usually due to restricted abortion laws. In those countries where abortions are legal but often difficult to access due to health system barriers, women tend to prefer surgical abortions.

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.

Counselling before first trimester abortion and acceptability of the procedure: results from a Slovenian cross-sectional study

Objectives: In Slovenia, first-trimester abortion is performed at the woman's request, either surgically under general anaesthesia or medically with mifepristone and misoprostol, in a public hospital. Our study aimed to evaluate pre-abortion counselling and to reveal differences in acceptability and satisfaction with the two abortion methods.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at Ljubljana University Medical Centre between January and June 2015. Women requesting termination of a pregnancy up to 10 weeks' gestation voluntarily completed an anonymous questionnaire after the procedure and were divided into a surgical and a medical abortion group.Results: Of the 266 women who were invited to take part, 229 accepted; 16.6% chose a surgical abortion, 83.4% a medical abortion. The most frequent reason cited for requesting an abortion was economic/housing problems. Most women who chose a surgical abortion did so because it was faster, whereas most women who chose a medical abortion did so on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Women choosing a surgical abortion had more previous pregnancies and presented with a higher gestational age pregnancy. The choice of method was not related to the woman's age. There were no differences in acceptability of the two procedures. Pain during the procedure was, however, more severe in the medical abortion group (p = .026), along with bleeding, nausea and chills; there were no differences in severity of vomiting, diarrhoea, dizziness or headache between the groups. Women in the surgical abortion group reported higher satisfaction with the method (p < .001). The study revealed a low frequency of pre-abortion contraceptive counselling.Conclusion: The most common reason given for choosing a surgical abortion was the speed of the procedure; for a medical abortion, it was on the advice of a primary care gynaecologist. Satisfaction was higher with the surgical abortion method. There were no differences in general acceptability of the methods.

Outcomes During Early Implementation of Mifepristone-Buccal Misoprostol Abortions up to 63 Days of Gestation in a Canadian Clinical Setting

OBJECTIVE

In January 2017, mifepristone became available in Canada. The goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of mifepristone-misoprostol abortion during its early implementation in a Canadian setting.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review included the first 477 patients who had a mifepristone-misoprostol abortion from March 13 to October 31, 2017, in an urban sexual health clinic. Women with pregnancies up to 63days of gestation had an initial dating ultrasound and β-human chorionic gonadotropin determination. They were provided mifepristone 200 mg orally in clinic, followed 24-48hours later with misoprostol 800 µg buccally at home. Follow-up, 7-14days later, in clinic or by telephone, used symptom review and follow-up β-human chorionic gonadotropin or ultrasound. The primary outcome was successful abortion, defined as expulsion of pregnancy without uterine aspiration.

RESULTS

Of 477 consecutive mifepristone abortions, 422 women (88.5%) had documented follow-up, with 408 (96.7%) successful abortions, including eight in women who had a repeat dose of misoprostol. Fourteen (3.3%) unsuccessful abortions required uterine aspiration, two (0.5%) for ongoing pregnancy and 12 (2.8%) for incomplete abortion or persistent bleeding. Seventeen women (4.0%) had emergency department visits, one (0.2%) of whom was hospitalized and three (0.7%) of whom received blood transfusion. Four women (1.0%) were treated for infection.

CONCLUSION

Mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion was safe and effective during early implementation in Canada, comparable to previously published outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Mifepristone With Buccal Misoprostol for Medical Abortion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize clinical outcomes and adverse effects of medical abortion regimens consisting of mifepristone followed by buccal misoprostol in pregnancies through 70 days of gestation.

DATA SOURCES

We used PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists from published reports to identify relevant studies published between November 2005 and January 2015 using the search terms "mifepristone and medical abortion" and "buccal and misoprostol."

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they presented clinical outcomes of medical abortion using mifepristone and buccal misoprostol through 70 days of gestation. Studies with duplicate data were excluded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We included 20 studies with a total of 33,846 women through 70 days of gestation. We abstracted efficacy and ongoing pregnancy rates as an overall rate and by gestational age in days in reference to completed weeks (eg, 49 days or less, 50-56 days, 57-63 days, 64-70 days) and adverse effects when reported. The overall efficacy of mifepristone followed by buccal misoprostol is 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.5-96.8%) and the continuing pregnancy rate is 0.8% (95% CI 0.7-0.9%) in approximately 33,000 pregnancies through 63 days of gestation. Only 332 women with pregnancies between 64 and 70 days of gestation are reported in the literature with an overall efficacy of 93.1% (95% CI 89.6-95.5%) and a continuing pregnancy rate of 2.9% (95% CI 1.4-5.7%). Currently available data suggest that regimens with a 24-hour time interval between mifepristone and buccal misoprostol administration are slightly less effective than those with a 24- to 48-hour interval. Rates of surgical evacuation for reasons other than ongoing pregnancy range from 1.8% to 4.2%. Severe adverse events like blood transfusion (0.03-0.6%) and hospitalization (0.04-0.9%) are uncommon.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient medical abortion regimens with mifepristone followed in 24-48 hours by buccal misoprostol are highly effective for pregnancy termination through 63 days of gestation. More data are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes with regimens containing mifepristone followed in 24 hours by buccal misoprostol and in pregnancies beyond 63 days of gestation.