Buccal misoprostol for treatment of fetal death at 14–28 weeks of pregnancy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Interventions, outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in stillbirth care research: A systematic review to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set could address inconsistent outcome reporting and improve evidence for stillbirth care research, which have been identified as an important research priority.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported by studies evaluating interventions after the diagnosis of a stillbirth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Amed, BNI, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP from 1998 to August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised comparative or non-comparative studies reporting a stillbirth care intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Interventions, outcomes reported, definitions and outcome measurement tools were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty randomised and 200 non-randomised studies were included. Fifty-eight different interventions were reported, labour and birth care (52 studies), hospital bereavement care (28 studies), clinical investigations (116 studies), care in a multiple pregnancy (2 studies), psychosocial support (28 studies) and care in a subsequent pregnancy (14 studies). A total of 391 unique outcomes were reported and organised into 14 outcome domains: labour and birth; postpartum; delivery of care; investigations; multiple pregnancy; mental health; emotional functioning; grief and bereavement; social functioning; relationship; whole person; subsequent pregnancy; subsequent children and siblings and economic. A total of 242 outcome measurement instruments were used, with 0-22 tools per outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome definition and measurement tools in care after stillbirth exists. Considerable research gaps on specific intervention types in stillbirth care were identified. A core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome collection and reporting for stillbirth care research.

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.

Mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol 200 mcg buccal for the medical management of intrauterine fetal death at 14-28 weeks: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether fetal and placental expulsion is more likely within 48 h if women receive mifepristone pre-treatment vs placebo pre-treatment followed by misoprostol 200 mcg buccally for treatment of fetal death at 14 weeks 0 days to 28 weeks and 6 days gestation.

STUDY DESIGN

We randomized 176 women with a confirmed fetal death between 14 weeks and 0 days to 28 weeks and 6 days to mifepristone 200 mg or placebo; 24 h later all participants received misoprostol 200 mcg buccally every 3 h for up to 16 doses or 48 h. The trial took place in Hanoi, Vietnam and Mexico City in 2015-2018.

RESULTS

Complete expulsion of the fetus and placenta within 48 h of misoprostol administration occurred in 74 of 90 women (82.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 72.7%-89.5%) in the mifepristone-misoprostol group and in 70 of 86 women (81.4%, 95% CI, 71.6%-89.0%) in the placebo-misoprostol group (Relative Risk (RR) 1.01, 95%CI 0.87-1.16, p = 0.887). The median time from the start of the misoprostol induction to fetal expulsion was shorter among women who received mifepristone-misoprostol compared to women assigned to placebo-misoprostol (7 h vs ±5 vs 12 ± 13 h; p < 0.001). Women in the mifepristone-misoprostol group were more likely to expel the fetus within 24 h of the start of misoprostol administration (96% vs 78%; RR 1.22 (1.09-1.39) p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION(S)

Mifepristone-misoprostol did not result in a higher rate of complete expulsion of the fetus and the placenta within 48 h of the start of misoprostol administration without any additional surgical intervention or medication (e.g. additional misoprostol doses or oxytocin) than placebo-misoprostol. However, treatment with mifepristone-misoprostol did result in a shorter time to expulsion than placebo misoprostol.

IMPLICATIONS

Pretreatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol bucally resulted in a shorter treatment time for medical management of fetal death than treatment with misoprostol alone. Pre-treatment with mifepristone may be more acceptable to women and providers by both reducing the length of hospital stay and the amount of misoprostol required.

A systematic review of the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of medical management of intrauterine fetal death at 14-28 weeks of gestation

BACKGROUND

Optimal dose, interval, and administration route of misoprostol with added benefit of mifepristone for management of second trimester intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) are not established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of medical management of second trimester IUFD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Research databases from January 2006 to October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials with IUFD cases at 14-28 weeks of gestation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened and extracted data, assessed risk of bias, conducted analyses, and assessed overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials from 1695 citations. When misoprostol is used alone, 400 μg is more effective than 200 μg (RR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92, moderate certainty evidence); the sublingual route is more effective than the oral route (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11, low certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between the sublingual and vaginal route (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03, low certainty evidence). Certainty of evidence related to mifepristone-misoprostol regimens and safety and acceptability is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol 400 μg every 4 hours, sublingually or vaginally, may be effective. We cannot draw conclusions about safety and acceptability, or about the added benefits of mifepristone.

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

In most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, from clinical trials, the effectiveness and safety of different medical treatments for the termination of non-viable pregnancies.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 October 2018) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as were studies reported in abstract form, if sufficient information was available to assess eligibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three studies (4966 women) were included. The main interventions examined were vaginal, sublingual, oral and buccal misoprostol, mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost. These were compared with surgical management, expectant management, placebo, or different types of medical interventions were compared with each other. The review includes a wide variety of different interventions which have been analysed across 23 different comparisons. Many of the comparisons consist of single studies. We limited the grading of the quality of evidence to two main comparisons: vaginal misoprostol versus placebo and vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation of the uterus. Risk of bias varied widely among the included trials. The quality of the evidence varied between the different comparisons, but was mainly found to be very-low or low quality.Vaginal misoprostol versus placeboVaginal misoprostol may hasten miscarriage when compared with placebo: e.g. complete miscarriage (5 trials, 305 women, risk ratio (RR) 4.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 5.94; low-quality evidence). No trial reported on pelvic infection rate for this comparison. Vaginal misoprostol made little difference to rates of nausea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.40; low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.06; low-quality evidence) or to whether women were satisfied with the acceptability of the method (1 trial, 32 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether vaginal misoprostol reduces blood loss (haemoglobin difference > 10 g/L) (1 trial, 50 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.12; very-low quality) or pain (opiate use) (1 trial, 84 women, RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.11; very-low quality), because the quality of the evidence for these outcomes was found to be very low.Vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation Vaginal misoprostol may be less effective in accomplishing a complete miscarriage compared to surgical management (6 trials, 943 women, average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.03, I² = 46%; low-quality evidence) and may be associated with more nausea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 21.85, 95% CI 1.31 to 364.37; low-quality evidence) and diarrhoea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 40.85, 95% CI 2.52 to 662.57; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between vaginal misoprostol and surgical evacuation for pelvic infection (1 trial, 618 women, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; low-quality evidence), blood loss (post-treatment haematocrit (%) (1 trial, 50 women, mean difference (MD) 1.40%, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.71; low-quality evidence), pain relief (1 trial, 154 women, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.46; low-quality evidence) or women's satisfaction/acceptability of method (1 trial, 45 women, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsBased on findings from a single trial, vaginal misoprostol was more effective at accomplishing complete miscarriage than expectant management (614 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45). There was little difference between vaginal misoprostol and sublingual misoprostol (5 trials, 513 women, average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10, I² = 871%; or between oral and vaginal misoprostol in terms of complete miscarriage at less than 13 weeks (4 trials, 418 women), average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.03; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.13, I² = 90%). However, there was less abdominal pain with vaginal misoprostol in comparison to sublingual (3 trials, 392 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74). A single study (46 women) found mifepristone to be more effective than placebo: miscarriage complete by day five after treatment (46 women, RR 9.50, 95% CI 2.49 to 36.19). However the quality of this evidence is very low: there is a very serious risk of bias with signs of incomplete data and no proper intention-to-treat analysis in the included study; and serious imprecision with wide confidence intervals. Mifepristone did not appear to further hasten miscarriage when added to a misoprostol regimen (3 trials, 447 women, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from randomised trials suggests that medical treatment with vaginal misoprostol may be an acceptable alternative to surgical evacuation or expectant management. In general, side effects of medical treatment were minor, consisting mainly of nausea and diarrhoea. There were no major differences in effectiveness between different routes of administration. Treatment satisfaction was addressed in only a few studies, in which the majority of women were satisfied with the received intervention. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low for several comparisons, mainly because they included only one or two (small) trials; further research is necessary to assess the effectiveness, safety and side effects, optimal route of administration and dose of different medical treatments for early fetal death.

Vaginal Misoprostol Compared With Buccal Misoprostol for Termination of Second-Trimester Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol with buccal misoprostol for second-trimester termination of pregnancies.

METHODS

In a randomized trial, we compared 400 micrograms vaginal and buccal misoprostol every 3 hours for up to six doses for induction of labor at 13-24 weeks of gestation with a live fetus and intact membranes. Women who had a uterine scar were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was induction-to-abortion interval. Based on a two-tailed α of 0.05, we planned to include 65 patients per group to detect a 50% difference in the primary outcome with a power of 80%.

RESULTS

From January 2014 to December 2014, 172 women were screened and 130 were randomized: 65 vaginal and 65 buccal misoprostol. Characteristics of patients were similar between groups. Patients administered vaginal misoprostol compared with buccal misoprostol had a shorter induction-to-abortion interval (25±17 hours compared with 40±29 hours, P=.001) and a higher abortion rate within both 24 hours (41 [63%] compared with 27 [42%] P=.014) and 48 hours (59 [91%] compared with 44 [68%], P=.001). Complete abortion rates were similar in both groups (vaginal 51 [78%] compared with buccal 54 [83%]). The incidence of side effects was similar for both groups. The perceived pain was higher in the buccal group, but the small difference did not appear to be clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal compared with buccal misoprostol administration has a shorter induction-to-abortion interval for second-trimester termination of viable pregnancies. However, both administration routes are equally effective for induction of termination.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02048098.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Spontaneous Membranous Dysmenorrhea in an Adolescent Girl: A Case Report and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Membranous dysmenorrhea is a rare entity. It involves the sloughing of the endometrium in 1 cylindrical or membranous piece, retaining the shape of the uterine cavity. Herein, we report the first case of spontaneous membranous dysmenorrhea in an adolescent girl.

CASE

A 17-year-old girl was admitted to the emergency clinic with severe painful menstrual bleeding and passage of tissue via the vagina. Bloody endometrial tissue resembling the endometrial cavity expulsed from the vagina was seen on inspection. The pathologic diagnosis of the mass was membranous dysmenorrhea.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first case of the spontaneous occurrence of membranous dysmenorrhea. The relationship between membranous dysmenorrhea and endogenous or exogenous progesterone should be investigated further. A review of the literature on membranous dysmenorrhea is presented.

[Fetal death beyond 14 weeks of gestation: induction of labor and obtaining of uterine vacuity]

The objective of this review was to assess benefits and harms of different management options for induction of labor and obtaining of uterine vacuity in case of fetal death beyond of 14 weeks of gestation. In second-trimester, the data are numerous but low methodological quality. In terms of efficiency (induction-expulsion time and uterine evacuation within 24 hours rate) and tolerance in the absence of antecedent of caesarean section, the best protocol for induction of labor in the second-trimester of pregnancy appears to be mifepristone 200mg orally followed 24-48 hours later by vaginal administration of misoprostol 200 to 400 μg every 4 to 6 hours. In third-trimester, there is very little data. The circumstances are similar to induction of labor with living fetus. A term or near term, oxytocin and dinoprostone have a marketing authorization in this indication but misoprostol may be an alternative as the Bishop score and dose of induction of labor with living fetus. In case of previous caesarean section, the risk of uterine rupture is increased in case of a medical induction of labor with prostaglandins. The lowest effective doses should be used (100 to 200 μg every 4 to 6 hours). Prior cervical preparation by the administration of mifepristone and possibly the use of laminar seems essential in this situation.