1
|
Devall A, Chu J, Beeson L, Hardy P, Cheed V, Sun Y, Roberts T, Ogwulu CO, Williams E, Jones L, Papadopoulos JLF, Bender-Atik R, Brewin J, Hinshaw K, Choudhary M, Ahmed A, Naftalin J, Nunes N, Oliver A, Izzat F, Bhatia K, Hassan I, Jeve Y, Hamilton J, Deb S, Bottomley C, Ross J, Watkins L, Underwood M, Cheong Y, Kumar C, Gupta P, Small R, Pringle S, Hodge F, Shahid A, Gallos I, Horne A, Quenby S, Coomarasamy A. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-114. [PMID: 34821547 DOI: 10.3310/hta25680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Devall
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Justin Chu
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Leanne Beeson
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Pollyanna Hardy
- National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Versha Cheed
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Yongzhong Sun
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tracy Roberts
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Chidubem Okeke Ogwulu
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Eleanor Williams
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Jones
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | | | - Kim Hinshaw
- Sunderland Royal Hospital, South Tyneside & Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK
| | - Meenakshi Choudhary
- Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Amna Ahmed
- Sunderland Royal Hospital, South Tyneside & Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK
| | - Joel Naftalin
- University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Natalie Nunes
- West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Isleworth, UK
| | - Abigail Oliver
- St Michael's Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Feras Izzat
- University Hospital Coventry, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Kalsang Bhatia
- Burnley General Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Burnley, UK
| | - Ismail Hassan
- Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Yadava Jeve
- Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Judith Hamilton
- Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shilpa Deb
- Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Cecilia Bottomley
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jackie Ross
- King's College Hospital, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Linda Watkins
- Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Martyn Underwood
- Princess Royal Hospital, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Telford, UK
| | - Ying Cheong
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Chitra Kumar
- Glasgow Royal Infirmary, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Pratima Gupta
- Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rachel Small
- Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Stewart Pringle
- Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Frances Hodge
- Singleton Hospital, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Anupama Shahid
- Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Ioannis Gallos
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Andrew Horne
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Siobhan Quenby
- Biomedical Research Unit in Reproductive Health, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Arri Coomarasamy
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ghosh J, Papadopoulou A, Devall AJ, Jeffery HC, Beeson LE, Do V, Price MJ, Tobias A, Tunçalp Ö, Lavelanet A, Gülmezoglu AM, Coomarasamy A, Gallos ID. Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD012602. [PMID: 34061352 PMCID: PMC8168449 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012602.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jay Ghosh
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Argyro Papadopoulou
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam J Devall
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Hannah C Jeffery
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Leanne E Beeson
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Vivian Do
- University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Aurelio Tobias
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Özge Tunçalp
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Antonella Lavelanet
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Arri Coomarasamy
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ioannis D Gallos
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lemmers M, Verschoor MAC, Kim BV, Hickey M, Vazquez JC, Mol BWJ, Neilson JP. Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 6:CD002253. [PMID: 31206170 PMCID: PMC6574399 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002253.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marike Lemmers
- Academic Medical CenterDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyMeibergdreef 9AmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Marianne AC Verschoor
- Academic Medical CenterDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyMeibergdreef 9AmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Bobae Veronica Kim
- School of Medicine, The University of AdelaideRobinson Research InstituteAdelaideSAAustralia5006
| | - Martha Hickey
- The Royal Women's HospitalThe University of MelbourneLevel 7, Research PrecinctMelbourneVictoriaAustraliaParkville 3052
| | - Juan C Vazquez
- Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN)Departamento de Salud ReproductivaZapata y DVedadoHabanaCuba10 400
| | - Ben Willem J Mol
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology246 Clayton RoadClaytonVictoriaAustralia3168
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Smith PP, Dhillon-Smith RK, O'Toole E, Cooper N, Coomarasamy A, Clark TJ. Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review. BJOG 2019; 126:176-189. [PMID: 30461160 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P P Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - R K Dhillon-Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - E O'Toole
- Women's Voices Involvement Panel, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Nam Cooper
- Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, UK
| | - A Coomarasamy
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - T J Clark
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caron Kim
- WHODepartment of Reproductive Health and Research20 Avenue AppiaGenevaSwitzerland1211
| | | | | | - Martha Hickey
- The Royal Women's HospitalThe University of MelbourneLevel 7, Research PrecinctMelbourneVictoriaAustraliaParkville 3052
| | - Juan C Vazquez
- Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN)Departamento de Salud ReproductivaZapata y DVedadoHabanaCuba10 400
| | - Lixia Dou
- The University of LiverpoolCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Serum biomarkers may help predict successful misoprostol management of early pregnancy failure. Reprod Biol 2015; 15:79-85. [PMID: 26051455 DOI: 10.1016/j.repbio.2015.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2014] [Revised: 01/30/2015] [Accepted: 02/01/2015] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
In order to simplify management of early pregnancy loss, our goal was to elucidate predictors of successful medical management of miscarriage with a single dose of misoprostol. In this secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial, candidate biomarkers were compared between 49 women with missed abortion who succeeded in passing their pregnancy with a single dose of misoprostol and 46 women who did not pass their pregnancy with a misoprostol single dose. We computed the precision of trophoblastic protein and hormone concentrations to discriminate between women who succeed or fail single dose misoprostol management. We also included demographic factors in our analyses. We found overlap in the concentrations of the individual markers between women who succeeded and failed single-dose misoprostol. However, hCG levels ≥ 4000 mIU/mL and ADAM-12 levels ≥ 2500 pg/mL were independently associated with complete uterine expulsion after one dose of misoprostol in our population. A multivariable logistic model for success included non-Hispanic ethnicity and parity <2 in addition to hCG ≥ 4000 mIU/mL and ADAM-12 ≥ 2500 pg/mL and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 72-90%). Categorizing women with a predicted probability of ≥ 0.65 resulted in a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 77.1% and positive predictive value of 81.8%. While preliminary, our data suggest that serum biomarkers, especially when combined with demographic characteristics, may be helpful in guiding patient decision-making regarding the management of early pregnancy failure (EPF). Further study is warranted.
Collapse
|
7
|
Paul M, Iyengar K, Iyengar S, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Essén B, Klingberg-Allvin M. Simplified follow-up after medical abortion using a low-sensitivity urinary pregnancy test and a pictorial instruction sheet in Rajasthan, India--study protocol and intervention adaptation of a randomised control trial. BMC Womens Health 2014; 14:98. [PMID: 25127545 PMCID: PMC4141880 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-98] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2014] [Accepted: 08/11/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The World Health Organisation suggests that simplification of the medical abortion regime will contribute to an increased acceptability of medical abortion, among women as well as providers. It is expected that a home-based follow-up after a medical abortion will increase the willingness to opt for medical abortion as well as decrease the workload and service costs in the clinic. METHODS/DESIGN This study protocol describes a study that is a randomised, controlled, non-superiority trial. Women screened to participate in the study are those with unwanted pregnancies and gestational ages equal to or less than nine weeks. The randomisation list will be generated using a computerized random number generator and opaque sealed envelopes with group allocation will be prepared. Randomization of the study participants will occur after the first clinical encounter with the doctor. Eligible women randomised to the home-based assessment group will use a low-sensitivity pregnancy test and a pictorial instruction sheet at home, while the women in the clinic follow-up group will return to the clinic for routine follow-up carried out by a doctor. The primary objective of the study this study protocol describes is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based assessment using a low-sensitivity pregnancy test and a pictorial instruction sheet 10-14 days after an early medical abortion. Providers or research assistants will not be blinded during outcome assessment. To ensure feasibility of the self-assessment intervention an adaption phase took place at the selected study sites before study initiation. This resulted in an optimized, tailor-made intervention and in the development of the pictorial instruction sheet with a guide on how to use the low-sensitivity pregnancy test and the danger signs after a medical abortion. DISCUSSION In this paper, we will describe the study protocol for a randomised control trial investigating the efficacy of simplified follow-up in terms of home-based assessment, 10-14 days after a medical abortion. Moreover, a description of the adaptation phase is included for a better understanding of the implementation of the intervention in a setting where literacy is low and the road-connections are poor. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01827995. Registered 04 May 2013.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mandira Paul
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, IMCH, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Kirti Iyengar
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Reproductive Health at Action Research, Training for Health (ARTH) Society, Udaipur, India
| | - Sharad Iyengar
- Division of Reproductive Health at Action Research, Training for Health (ARTH) Society, Udaipur, India
| | | | - Birgitta Essén
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, IMCH, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Marie Klingberg-Allvin
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- School of education, health and social studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James P Neilson
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rausch M, Lorch S, Chung K, Frederick M, Zhang J, Barnhart K. A cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical versus medical management of early pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril 2011; 97:355-60. [PMID: 22192348 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2011] [Revised: 11/28/2011] [Accepted: 11/29/2011] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the cost-effectiveness of medical and surgical management of early pregnancy loss. DESIGN Analyses of cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and utilities of a multicenter trial with 652 women with first-trimester pregnancy failure randomized to medical or surgical management. SETTING Analysis of data from a multicenter trial. PATIENT(S) Secondary analysis of a multicenter trial. INTERVENTION(S) Cost-effectiveness analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Cost and effectiveness of competing treatment strategies. RESULT(S) Cost analysis of treatment demonstrates an increased cost of US$336 for 13% increased efficacy of surgical management. This analysis was sensitive to the probability of an extra office visit, the cost of the visit, and the probability of success. When the surgical arm is divided into outpatient manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) versus inpatient electric vacuum aspiration (EVA), there is an increased cost of $745 for EVA but a decreased cost of $202 for MVA compared with medical management. In general, MVA was found to be more cost-effective than medical management. For treatment of incomplete or inevitable abortion, medical management was found to be less costly and more efficacious. Utilities studies demonstrated that a patient would need to prefer surgery 14% less than medication for its treatment efficacy to be outweighed by the desire to avoid surgery. CONCLUSION(S) Surgical or medical management of early pregnancy failure can be cost effective, depending on the circumstances. Surgery is cost effective and more efficacious when performed in an outpatient setting. For incomplete or inevitable abortion, medical management is cost effective and more efficacious.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Rausch
- North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Dalton VK, Harris LH, Bell JD, Schulkin J, Steinauer J, Zochowski M, Fendrick AM. Treatment of early pregnancy failure: does induced abortion training affect later practices? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204:493.e1-6. [PMID: 21419385 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2010] [Revised: 12/17/2010] [Accepted: 01/24/2011] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to examine the relationship between induced abortion training and views toward, and use of, office uterine evacuation and misoprostol in early pregnancy failure (EPF) care. STUDY DESIGN We surveyed 308 obstetrician-gynecologists on their knowledge and attitudes toward treatment options for EPF and previous training in office-based uterine evacuation. RESULTS Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported training in office uterine evacuation, and 20.3% reported induced abortion training. Induced abortion training was associated with strongly positive views toward both office-based uterine evacuation and misoprostol as treatment for EPF compared with those with office uterine evacuation training in other settings (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; P < .004 and OR, 3.22; P < .003, respectively). Furthermore, induced abortion training was associated with the use of office uterine evacuation for EPF treatment compared with those with office evacuation training in other settings (OR, 2.90; P = .004). CONCLUSION Training experiences, especially induced abortion training, are associated with the use of office uterine evacuation for EPF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa K Dalton
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, 48109, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Dalton VK, Harris LH, Gold KJ, Kane-Low L, Schulkin J, Guire K, Fendrick AM. Provider knowledge, attitudes, and treatment preferences for early pregnancy failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202:531.e1-8. [PMID: 20227674 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2009] [Revised: 12/09/2009] [Accepted: 02/08/2010] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We sought to describe health care provider knowledge, attitudes, and treatment preferences for early pregnancy failure (EPF). STUDY DESIGN We surveyed 976 obstetrician/gynecologists, midwives, and family medicine practitioners on their knowledge and attitudes toward treatment options for EPF, and barriers to adopting misoprostol and office uterine evacuations. We used descriptive statistics to compare practices by provider specialty and logistic regression to identify associations between provider factors and treatment practices. RESULTS Seventy percent of providers have not used misoprostol and 91% have not used an office uterine evacuation to treat EPF in the past 6 months. Beliefs about safety and patient preferences, and prior induced abortion training were significantly associated with use of both of these treatments. CONCLUSION Increasing education and training on the use of misoprostol and office uterine evacuation, and clarifying patient treatment preferences may increase the willingness of providers to adopt new practices for EPF treatment.
Collapse
|
12
|
Neilson JP, Gyte GML, Hickey M, Vazquez JC, Dou L. Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007223. [PMID: 20091626 PMCID: PMC4042279 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007223.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James P Neilson
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gillian ML Gyte
- Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Martha Hickey
- The University of Melbourne, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Juan C Vazquez
- Departamento de Salud Reproductiva, Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN), Habana, Cuba
| | - Lixia Dou
- Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Harwood B, Nansel T. Quality of life and acceptability of medical versus surgical management of early pregnancy failure. BJOG 2008; 115:501-8. [PMID: 18271887 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01632.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study compares quality of life (QOL) and acceptability of medical versus surgical treatment of early pregnancy failure (EPF). DESIGN A randomised clinical trial of treatment for EPF compared misoprostol vaginally versus vacuum aspiration (VA). SETTING A multisite trial at four US Urban University Hospitals. POPULATION A total of 652 women with an EPF were randomised to treatment. METHODS Participants completed a daily symptom diary and a questionnaire 2 weeks after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The questionnaire assessment included subscales of the Short Form-36 Health Survey Revised for QOL and measures of wellbeing, recovery difficulties, and treatment acceptability. RESULTS The two groups did not differ in mean scores for QOL except bodily pain; medical treatment was associated with higher levels of bodily pain than VA (P < 0.001). Success of treatment was not related to QOL, but acceptability of the procedure was decreased for medical therapy if unsuccessful (P = 0.003). Type of treatment was not associated with differences in recovery, and the two groups reported similar acceptability except for cramping (P = 0.02), bleeding (P < 0.001), and symptom duration (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Despite reporting greater pain and lower acceptability of treatment-related symptoms, QOL and treatment acceptability were similar for medical and surgical treatment of EPF. Acceptability, but not QOL, was influenced by success or failure of medical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Harwood
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kent A. Management of early pregnancy failure. REVIEWS IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 2008; 1:90-91. [PMID: 18769660 PMCID: PMC2505161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Athol Kent
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
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 before 14 weeks has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early pregnancy failure (anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic and fetal deaths before 24 weeks). SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-random studies were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted unblinded. MAIN RESULTS Twenty four studies (1888 women) were included. Vaginal misoprostol hastens miscarriage (complete or incomplete) when compared with placebo: e.g. miscarriage less than 24 hours (two trials, 138 women, relative risk (RR) 4.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.70 to 8.28), with less need for uterine curettage (two trials, 104 women, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60) and no significant increase in nausea or diarrhoea. Lower-dose regimens of vaginal misoprostol tend to be less effective in producing miscarriage (three trials, 247 women, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00) with similar incidence of nausea. There seems no clear advantage to administering a 'wet' preparation of vaginal misoprostol or of adding methotrexate, or of using laminaria tents after 14 weeks. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than vaginal prostaglandin E in avoiding surgical evacuation. Oral misoprostol was less effective than vaginal misoprostol in producing complete miscarriage (two trials, 218 women, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). Sublingual misoprostol had equivalent efficacy to vaginal misoprostol in inducing complete miscarriage but was associated with more frequent diarrhoea. The two trials of mifepristone treatment generated conflicting results. There was no statistically significant difference between vaginal misoprostol and gemeprost in the induction of miscarriage for fetal death after 13 weeks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Available evidence from randomised trials supports the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment to terminate non-viable pregnancies before 24 weeks. Further research is required to assess effectiveness and safety, optimal route of administration and dose. Conflicting findings about the value of mifepristone need to be resolved by additional study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P Neilson
- University of Liverpool, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK L8 7SS.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|