Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso trial

Evaluation of the effect of Nigella sativa oil on the outcome of missed abortion in women: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

Background and Aim

Due to the concern about the side effects of chemical drugs and their ineffectiveness, the use of natural compounds as alternatives or complementary therapies has received increasing attention. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of Nigella sativa oil on the outcome of missed abortion.

Methods

In this double-blind clinical trial, 70 nulliparous pregnant women referred to Hajar Hospital and Imam Ali clinics of Shahrekord and had missed abortion before the 12-week gestational age were selected and randomly divided into two interventions and control groups. The intervention group received 5 g of Nigella sativa oil alone daily for up to 3 days and the control group received a placebo. In case of nonresponse, 3 days after the last dose of medication or placebo, 800 μg of misoprostol (vaginal) were used. Data were analyzed by SPSS software. The chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, independent t-test and paired t-test were used for analytical statistics.

Results

According to the results, 18 cases (51.4%) in the intervention group and seven cases (20%) in the control group showed complete evacuation of uterine contents which had a significant difference (p < 0.05). The frequency of vagina physical examination and type of hemorrhage did not show any significant difference between the two groups before and after the intervention. After the intervention, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was significantly decreased in the intervention group but did not change in the control group (p < 0.05). The frequency of adverse events in the intervention group was three (8.6%) and in the control group was one (2.9%) which had no significant difference.

Conclusion

Nigella sativa improves the outcome of missed abortion by reducing HCG and facilitating cervix dilatation and delivery of uterine contents.

Compliance with a guideline on outpatient medical management of miscarriage in a gynaecology ED

This article describes the clinical audit of the Outpatient Medical Management of Miscarriage Guideline (Guideline 2) within the Gynaecology Emergency Department (GED) at a single site dedicated Gynaecology and Maternity Hospital in the UK, the Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust. Clinical audits are quality improvement processes used to identify areas of improvement against a set criterion and, as a result, implement any required change(s) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2002). An audit ensures that the guidelines have been followed to certify safe, effective treatment for women who have suffered a first trimester missed miscarriage and the audit described in this article analysed the success of treatment in avoiding admission to hospital and further intervention, such as surgery. The main findings of the audit were that the GED fell short on compliance rates against some standards, mainly standard 1 (performing a baseline point of care test to measure haemoglobin) and standard 5 (providing the patient with a follow-up phone call, with higher compliance levels to standards 3 and 4, which are in relation to prescribing and administering the treatment. The audit found that 15% of patients required further intervention such as admission to hospital for observation (9%) and surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage (6%). Further training in the clinical setting is required to ensure improved compliance with all standards. A checklist will also be created to ensure all standards are being met.

Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review

Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504.

Clinical Utility of Mifepristone: Apprising the Expanding Horizons

Mifepristone is a progesterone and glucocorticoid receptor antagonist. Medical abortion with mifepristone and prostaglandin has revolutionized the abortion process extending abortion care to the doors of females. From as low as 2 mg/day to doses extending to 600 mg, from daily dosing to single dosage treatment, mifepristone has a wide perspective in the treatment of various pathologies. Cervical dilatation and myometrial contractility have made the utility of mifepristone feasible for second-trimester termination of pregnancy and induction of labor awaiting Food and Drug Administration approvals. Its anti-progesterone action on the menstrual cycle has a new dimension of use as a contraceptive, as well as use as a menstruation inductive agent. Its role in endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy, and adenomyosis requires more intensive research. Apoptotic action of mifepristone, interference of heterotypic cell adhesion to the basement membrane, cell migration, growth inhibition of various cancer cell lines, decreased epidermal growth factor expression, suppression of invasive and metastatic cancer potential, increase in tumor necrosis factor, downregulation of cyclin-dependent kinase 2, B-cell lymphoma 2, and Nuclear factor kappa B have opened its potential to be explored as anti-cancer treatment and its effects on leiomyoma. The drug needs to be studied more for the prospectus of its anti-glucocorticoid actions in a wider dimension beyond its acquiescence for the treatment of Cushing syndrome.

Economic evaluation of medical versus surgical strategies for first trimester therapeutic abortion: A systematic review

Pregnancy termination and abortion-related complications are well-established problems among women at reproductive age and resulted in significant morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, a systematic study was performed to investigate the economic evaluation studies results on costs and benefits of medical and surgical abortion methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect databases as well as Google scholar were searched through June 2021. Original full-text English language studies that performed an economic evaluation analysis comparing medical and surgical methods of pregnancy termination were included in this review. A critical quality assessment was conducted utilizing the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards checklist. The latest web-based tool adjusted the estimates of costs expressed in one specific currency and price year into a specific target currency (the year 2020 $US). Overall, 538 records were retrieved, and 20 studies were deemed eligible for qualitative synthesis. Among the reviewed studies, three studies investigated cost-minimization analysis, three studies investigated cost-utility analysis, and 14 studies investigated cost-effectiveness analysis. The directly comparison of medical with surgical abortion was most frequently studied. Medical abortion saved US$ 6 to US$ 2373 per patient's costs. Medical abortion was cost-effective and cost-saving option in compare to the surgical abortion across all perspectives (the incremental cost effectiveness ratio ranged from US$ 419 to US$ 4,044). Quality scores of included studies ranged from 54% to 100%, and 70% of studies received a score of above 85% and had "excellent" quality. According to the results, based on various economic and clinical effectiveness decision-making criteria used in different studies of health economic evaluation, the majority of research provided evidence on the advantage of pharmaceutical methods compared to surgical methods, as well as the advantages of using combinations therapy compared to single therapeutic interventions.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT

TRIAL DESIGN

A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage.

RESULTS

A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone.

LIMITATIONS

The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.