Comparative study between single dose 600 μg and repeated dose of oral misoprostol for treatment of incomplete abortion

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (13 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery, or alternative methods of medical treatment. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (5577 women). There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). We did not identify any difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Further studies, including long-term follow-up, are clearly needed to confirm these findings. There is an urgent need for studies on women who miscarry at more than 13 weeks' gestation.

Effectiveness of a single dose of oral misoprostol 600 μg for treatment in early pregnancy failure

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness, side-effects and acceptability of a single dose of oral misoprostol 600 μg for treatment of 1st trimester pregnancy failure. A prospective descriptive study was conducted on pregnant women of < 13 weeks' gestation, diagnosed as 1st trimester pregnancy failure. Patients were assigned to receive a single dose of misoprostol 600 μg orally and then evaluated 48 h after drug administration for complete abortion. A total of 55 women were recruited to the study. The complete abortion rate was 65.5%. Pain and diarrhoea were the most common side-effects. Acceptability and satisfactory rates were 70.9% and 70.9%, respectively. In conclusion, a single dose of oral misoprostol 600 μg is a fair method for the management of 1st trimester pregnancy failure. Side-effects are tolerable and satisfaction is high. Thus, this method may be used as an alternative treatment.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparative study between oral and sublingual 600 µg misoprostol for the treatment of incomplete abortion

AIM

To evaluate and compare effectiveness, side effects and patient acceptability between oral and sublingual 600 µg misoprostol for the treatment of incomplete abortion.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Pregnant women of less than 14 weeks gestation, diagnosed with incomplete abortion, were randomly assigned to receive 600 µg misoprostol orally or sublingually. The patients were evaluated at 48 h after drug administration for complete abortion.

RESULTS

A total of 64 women were recruited to the study (32 in the oral group and 32 in the sublingual group). The complete abortion rate was not statistically different between oral and sublingual groups (87.5% versus 84.4%, P > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in side effects and satisfaction rate. Fever/chills were the most common side effects.

CONCLUSION

Both sublingual and oral 600 µg misoprostol are useful for the management of incomplete abortion. Side effects and satisfaction rates are not different. Thus, these methods may be used as alternative treatments of incomplete abortion.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Two routes of administration for misoprostol in the treatment of incomplete abortion: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of 400 mcg sublingual misoprostol and 600 mcg oral misoprostol for treatment of incomplete abortion.

STUDY DESIGN

We used an open-label randomized controlled trial conducted from July 2005 to August 2006 in a large tertiary level maternity hospital in Antananarivo, Madagascar, and a large tertiary level hospital in Chisinau, Moldova. Three hundred consenting women seeking treatment for clinically diagnosed incomplete abortion with uterine size <or=12 weeks since last menstrual period were randomized to misoprostol either 600 mcg orally or 400 mcg sublingually. The primary outcome measure was the complete resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of incomplete abortion without need for surgical intervention. Women were seen for follow-up on Day 7 and, if necessary, on Day 14 to assess abortion status. The study was powered to detect a 7% difference in efficacy with a total of 142 women required in each arm.

RESULTS

Efficacy rates were 94.6% and 94.5%, for the oral and sublingual routes, respectively (RR: 1.00, 95% CI=0.95-1.06, p=.98). At 1 week follow-up, more than 80% of women had completed abortions (77.8% oral and 84.8% sublingual, p=.12). Mean pain scores were 2.95 and 3.04, respectively, for the oral and sublingual groups. Side effects included abdominal pain, bleeding, headaches and dizziness/weakness with no differences reported between the two groups. Acceptability and satisfaction were high for both routes and women indicated a preference for medical versus surgical treatment if ever needed in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatment regimens were very effective. Four hundred micrograms of sublingual misoprostol and 600 mcg oral misoprostol appear to have similar safety and effectiveness profiles when used for the treatment of incomplete abortion. A lower 400-mcg misoprostol dose may provide an alternative treatment option as well as have potential benefits in terms of cost.

A randomized controlled trial comparing powdery sublingual misoprostol and sublingual misoprostol tablet for management of embryonic death or anembryonic pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To compare complete abortion rate, duration of abortion, and side effects between 600 microg powdery sublingual misoprostol and 600 microg sublingual misoprostol tablet for management of embryonic death or anembryonic pregnancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four pregnant women up to 13 weeks of gestation diagnosed with embryonic death or anembryonic pregnancy were randomized to receive 600 microg powdery sublingual misoprostol or 600 microg sublingual misoprostol tablet. Complete abortion was evaluated by transvaginal ultrasound at 48 h.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients received 600 microg powdery sublingual misoprostol and 28 patients received 600 microg sublingual misoprostol tablet. Complete abortion rate was 34.6% in powdery sublingual misoprostol group and 32.1% in sublingual misoprostol tablet group (P = 0.847). Duration of abortion in powdery sublingual misoprostol group and sublingual misoprostol tablet group was similar (34.7 +/- 18.8 vs. 36.9 +/- 17.8 h, respectively, P = 0.656). There was no significant difference in the side effects between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Single dose of 600 microg of powdery sublingual misoprostol does not improve its efficacy for management of embryonic death or anembryonic pregnancy when compared to sublingual misoprostol tablet.

Contemporary management of early pregnancy failure

Early pregnancy failure is a common pregnancy complication. This paper reviews the terminology, diagnosis, and treatment of early pregnancy failure. Although surgical curettage has been the standard of care for more than 50 years, additional treatment options exist which appear to be satisfactory to patients. Manual vacuum curettage in the office is an effective alternative to electric vacuum curettage in an operating room. Nonsurgical treatments, including expectant and medical management, are reasonable alternatives depending on the clinical situation and the patient's desires. Clinicians need to understand how these options compare to provide appropriate counseling to patients.

Long-term reproductive outcome subsequent to medical versus surgical treatment for miscarriage

BACKGROUND

When compared with the conventional surgical evacuation for the treatment of miscarriage, medical evacuation has been largely accepted as an effective and safe management. However, there is a lack of data on the long-term reproductive outcome of these two treatment modalities, which is crucial in patient counselling. The current study evaluates and compares the long-term fertility and pregnancy outcome following these two treatments.

METHODS

A cohort of 604 women enrolled in a previous randomized controlled trial comparing medical and surgical evacuation for miscarriage were followed up prospectively by telephone interview at a median of 6 (range 4-9) years using a structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 423 women were contacted and four declined to participate (response rate 69.4%). Of these, 261 women (131 medical and 130 surgical evacuations) had attempted to become pregnant since the miscarriage. There were no differences in their baseline characteristics including age, reproductive and contraceptive history. The natural conception rates were the same (97.7%, P = 0.99) and the cumulative pregnancy rates were similar between groups, being 60 and 80% at 12 and 24 months respectively. The median time-to-pregnancy was 8 months in both groups (P = 0.97) and the subsequent live birth rates (85.2 versus 88.2%, P = 0.72) resulting from the immediate pregnancy following previous treatment were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term conception rate and pregnancy outcome are not different following medical or surgical evacuation for miscarriage. Women should be reassured that their long-term fertility potential will not be compromised after medical treatment.