Medical termination for pregnancy in early first trimester (≤ 63 days) using combination of mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone: a systematic review.
First trimester
Medical abortion
Mifepristone
Misoprostol
Systematic review
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 07 2020
07 07 2020
Historique:
received:
27
09
2019
accepted:
26
06
2020
entrez:
9
7
2020
pubmed:
9
7
2020
medline:
20
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A wide range of drugs have been studied for first trimester medical abortion. Studies evaluating different regimens, including combination mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone regimens, show varying results related to safety, efficacy and other outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review were to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion and to compare medical with surgical methods of abortion ≤63 days of gestation. Pubmed and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through January 2019 using a combination of MeSH, keywords and text words. Randomized controlled trials on induced abortion at ≤63 days that compared different regimens of medical abortion using mifepristone and/or misoprostol and trials that compared medical with surgical methods of abortion were included. We extracted data into a pre-designed form, calculated effect estimates, and performed meta-analyses where possible. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and successful abortion. Thirty-three studies composed of 22,275 participants were included in this review. Combined regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol had lower rates of ongoing pregnancy, higher rates of successful abortion and satisfaction compared to misoprostol only regimens. In combined regimens, misoprostol 800 μg was more effective than 400 μg. There was no significant difference in dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol and routes of misoprostol administration in combination or misoprostol alone regimens. The rate of serious adverse events was generally low. In this systematic review, we find that medical methods of abortion utilizing combination mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone are effective, safe and acceptable. More robust studies evaluating both the different combination and misoprostol alone regimens are needed to strengthen existing evidence as well as assess patient perspectives towards a particular regimen.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A wide range of drugs have been studied for first trimester medical abortion. Studies evaluating different regimens, including combination mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone regimens, show varying results related to safety, efficacy and other outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review were to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion and to compare medical with surgical methods of abortion ≤63 days of gestation.
METHODS
Pubmed and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through January 2019 using a combination of MeSH, keywords and text words. Randomized controlled trials on induced abortion at ≤63 days that compared different regimens of medical abortion using mifepristone and/or misoprostol and trials that compared medical with surgical methods of abortion were included. We extracted data into a pre-designed form, calculated effect estimates, and performed meta-analyses where possible. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and successful abortion.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies composed of 22,275 participants were included in this review. Combined regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol had lower rates of ongoing pregnancy, higher rates of successful abortion and satisfaction compared to misoprostol only regimens. In combined regimens, misoprostol 800 μg was more effective than 400 μg. There was no significant difference in dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol and routes of misoprostol administration in combination or misoprostol alone regimens. The rate of serious adverse events was generally low.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, we find that medical methods of abortion utilizing combination mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone are effective, safe and acceptable. More robust studies evaluating both the different combination and misoprostol alone regimens are needed to strengthen existing evidence as well as assess patient perspectives towards a particular regimen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32635921
doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01003-8
pii: 10.1186/s12905-020-01003-8
pmc: PMC7339463
doi:
Substances chimiques
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
0
Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal
0
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Mifepristone
320T6RNW1F
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
142Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Références
Contraception. 2000 Jan;61(1):29-40
pubmed: 10745067
BJOG. 2007 Feb;114(2):207-15
pubmed: 17305893
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;112(6):1303-10
pubmed: 19037040
Indian J Med Sci. 2011 Dec;65(12):511-7
pubmed: 23548251
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017 Apr;20(1):43-47
pubmed: 27804310
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Apr;109(4):885-94
pubmed: 17400850
JAMA. 2000 Oct 18;284(15):1948-53
pubmed: 11035891
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Jun;283(6):1409-13
pubmed: 21431329
N Engl J Med. 1995 Apr 13;332(15):983-7
pubmed: 7885426
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Nov;292(5):1051-4
pubmed: 25911546
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Aug;118(2):166-71
pubmed: 22682768
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Apr;109(1):67-70
pubmed: 20053398
Contraception. 1977 Oct;16(4):377-81
pubmed: 200400
Contraception. 2010 Dec;82(6):513-9
pubmed: 21074013
Contraception. 2012 Sep;86(3):251-6
pubmed: 22305917
BJOG. 2006 Jun;113(6):621-8
pubmed: 16709204
Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):480-5
pubmed: 23102797
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Sep;101(9):792-6
pubmed: 7947529
Contraception. 2009 Feb;79(2):84-90
pubmed: 19135563
Contraception. 2005 Aug;72(2):91-7
pubmed: 16022846
Br Med J. 1970 Jul 25;3(5716):196-7
pubmed: 5448780
Contraception. 2002 Oct;66(4):247-50
pubmed: 12413620
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009 Feb;35(1):78-85
pubmed: 19215552
Hum Reprod. 2002 Jun;17(6):1477-82
pubmed: 12042265
BJOG. 2010 Sep;117(10):1186-96
pubmed: 20560941
Lancet. 2007 Jun 9;369(9577):1938-46
pubmed: 17560446
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Jul;284(1):59-63
pubmed: 20652288
BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1102-8
pubmed: 16045525
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Nov 09;(11):CD002855
pubmed: 22071804
Contraception. 2001 Aug;64(2):81-5
pubmed: 11704083
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Apr;285(4):1055-8
pubmed: 22009509
Hum Reprod. 2003 Nov;18(11):2315-8
pubmed: 14585880
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jan;91(1):28-31
pubmed: 18295212
BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):271-8
pubmed: 17217359
BJOG. 2009 Feb;116(3):381-9
pubmed: 19187370
Contraception. 2005 Nov;72(5):328-32
pubmed: 16246656
Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):410-7
pubmed: 21477682