Trends in the Use of Mifepristone for Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss From 2016 to 2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Boos EW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10445186 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trends in the Use of Mifepristone for Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss From 2016 to 2020.
Boos Elise W EW Horta Manuel M Thompson Ivana I Dusetzina Stacie B SB Leech Ashley A AA
JAMA 20230801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMedical management of early pregnancy loss is an alternative to uterine aspiration, but standard medical treatment with misoprostol commonly results in treatment failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol with the efficacy and safety of misoprostol use alone for the management of early pregnancy loss.MethodsWe randomly assigned 300 women who had an anembryonic gestation or in whom embryonic or fetal death was confirmed to receive pretreatment with 200 mg of mifepristone, administered orally, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol, administered vaginally (mifepristone-pretreatment group), or 800 μg of misoprostol alone, administered vaginally (misoprostol-alone group). Participants returned 1 to 4 days after misoprostol use for evaluation, including ultrasound examination, by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment-group assignments. Women in whom the gestational sac was not expelled were offered expectant management, a second dose of misoprostol, or uterine aspiration. We followed all participants for 30 days after randomization. Our primary outcome was gestational sac expulsion with one dose of misoprostol by the first follow-up visit and no additional intervention within 30 days after treatment.ResultsComplete expulsion after one dose of misoprostol occurred in 124 of 148 women (83.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8 to 89.3) in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 100 of 149 women (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.0 to 74.6) in the misoprostol-alone group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43). Uterine aspiration was performed less frequently in the mifepristone-pretreatment group than in the misoprostol-alone group (8.8% vs. 23.5%; relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.68). Bleeding that resulted in blood transfusion occurred in 2.0% of the women in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 0.7% of the women in the misoprostol-alone group (P=0.31); pelvic infection was diagnosed in 1.3% of the women in each group.ConclusionsPretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol resulted in a higher likelihood of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; PreFaiR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02012491 .).
| S-EPMC6437668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare participant-reported bleeding and pain with two medication regimens for early pregnancy loss (EPL).Study designWe performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial in which participants took either mifepristone 200 mg orally followed by misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally 24 hours later or misoprostol alone for medical management of EPL. Participants reported bleeding and pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NPRS, 0-10) with daily paper diaries and at study visits on trial days 3, 8, and 30. We used, Fisher's exact, Pearson chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Student's t-tests to compare onset, duration, and severity of bleeding and pain symptoms between trial arms after misoprostol administration.ResultsAmong 291 participants who submitted diary data, 143 received mifepristone pretreatment. A larger proportion of this group reported moderate or heavy bleeding on trial day 2, the day of misoprostol administration, compared with those who did not receive pretreatment (73% vs 47%, p < 0.01). Between days 4 and 8, more mifepristone-pretreatment participants reported mild or no bleeding, compared with the misoprostol-only arm (78% vs 61%, p < 0.01). Average pain score for trial days 2-4 was higher for the pretreatment group compared with the misoprostol-only group (6.9 vs 6.0, p = 0.01), and there was a trend toward shorter total duration of pain (15 vs 19 hours, p = 0.08). These differences remained after controlling for treatment success across arms.ConclusionsMifepristone pretreatment increased the severity of pain but not bleeding and resulted in a shorter trajectory of symptoms during medical management of EPL.ImplicationsMifepristone pretreatment decreases the duration of heavy bleeding and there was a trend toward decreased duration of pain during medical management of miscarriage, indicating that this medication improves the efficiency, in addition to the efficacy, of this treatment.
| S-EPMC10302372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedication management of early pregnancy loss (EPL), or miscarriage, typically involves the administration of misoprostol with or without pretreatment with mifepristone. Combination treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone but is underutilized in the US.ObjectiveTo describe differences in clinical outcomes after EPL management with mifepristone plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone using commercial claims data.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used national insurance claims data from the IBM MarketScan Research Database. Participants included pregnant people (aged 15-49 years) with private insurance who presented with an initial EPL diagnosis between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022.ExposuresThe primary exposure was the medication used to manage EPL (ie, mifepristone plus misoprostol or misoprostol alone). Other exposures of interest included demographic characteristics and location of service.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was subsequent procedural management (eg, uterine aspiration) after EPL diagnosis and medication management. Other outcomes of interest included return visits, hospitalizations, and complications occurring in the subsequent 6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used, and a multivariable logistic regression model was created to examine factors associated with subsequent procedural management.ResultsThis study included 31 977 patients (mean [SD] age, 32.7 [5.6] years) with claims for EPL who received medication management. Of these patients, 3.0% received mifepristone plus misoprostol and 97.0% received misoprostol alone. Patients who received misoprostol with pretreatment with mifepristone were less likely to have subsequent uterine aspiration (10.5% vs 14.0%; P = .002), and they were also less likely to have subsequent emergency department (ED) visits for EPL (3.5% vs 7.9%; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, use of mifepristone plus misoprostol was associated with decreased odds of subsequent procedural management (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57-0.87]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that mifepristone is underutilized for the medication management of EPL, but its use is associated with a lower need for subsequent uterine aspiration and a decrease in the number of subsequent visits to an ED. Increasing access to mifepristone for EPL management may decrease health care utilization and expenditures.
| S-EPMC11581616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo improve counseling of women by reporting bleeding characteristics at home after medical management of an early pregnancy loss (EPL) with mifepristone and misoprostol, and to evaluate occurring bleeding patterns as a prognostic tool.MethodsThis prospective two-center observational cohort study enrolled 197 women who presented with an EPL (embryonic or anembryonic miscarriage) from December 2017 to April 2019 and chose a home-based medical management with 200 mg mifepristone and 800 mcg misoprostol. From the day of mifepristone intake, the strength of vaginal bleeding was recorded daily for 2 weeks by the patient herself using a diary sheet. Treatment success was defined as no histologically confirmed retained products of conception (RPOC) within 3 months. After considering all drop-out criteria, 154 women were included in the analysis.Results40.0% of patients (95% CI 30.4-49.6) already reported bleeding onset in the time period between the intake of mifepristone and misoprostol. The median duration of vaginal bleeding including spotting was 13 days. The chance of RPOC was about sixfold (OR 6.06, 95% CI 2.15-17.10) in the group of persistent bleeding after 2 weeks compared to the group with a terminated bleeding at that time. Exploratory regression analysis indicated association of higher serum levels of leukocytes at treatment start with RPOC (p = 0.013).ConclusionsTerminated bleeding after 2 weeks is a useful indicator for successful medical induction of EPL. Women undergoing medical treatment with mifepristone must be informed about the high frequency of bleeding onset before misoprostol intake.Clinical trial registrationDRKS-German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00013515, registration date 05.12.2017. http://www.drks.de/DRKS00013515 .
| S-EPMC9349076 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7529708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEarly pregnancy loss (EPL) is the most common complication of pregnancy. A multicenter randomized clinical trial compared 2 strategies for medical management and found that mifepristone pretreatment is 25% more effective than the standard of care, misoprostol alone. The cost of mifepristone may be a barrier to implementation of the regimen.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsThis preplanned. prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrently with a randomized clinical trial in 3 US sites from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2017. Participants included 300 women with anembryonic gestation or embryonic or fetal demise. Cost-effectiveness was computed from the health care sector and societal perspectives, with a 30-day time horizon. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to July 3, 2019.InterventionsMifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol administration vs misoprostol alone.Main outcomes and measuresCosts in 2018 US dollars, effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and treatment efficacy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of mifepristone and misoprostol vs misoprostol alone were calculated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated.ResultsAmong the 300 women included in the randomized clinical trial (mean [SD] age, 30.4 [6.2] years), mean costs were similar for groups receiving mifepristone pretreatment and misoprostol alone from the health care sector perspective ($696.75 [95% CI, $591.88-$801.62] vs $690.88 [95% CI, $562.38-$819.38]; P = .94) and the societal perspective ($3846.30 [95% CI, $2783.01-$4909.58] vs $4845.62 [95% CI, $3186.84-$6504.41]; P = .32). The mifepristone pretreatment group had higher QALYs (0.0820 [95% CI, 0.0815-0.0825] vs 0.0806 [95% CI, 0.0800-0.0812]; P = .001) and a higher completion rate after first treatment (83.8% vs 67.1%; P < .001) than the group receiving misoprostol alone. From the health care sector perspective, mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective relative to misoprostol alone with an ICER of $4225.43 (95% CI, -$195 053.30 to $367 625.10) per QALY gained. From the societal perspective, mifepristone pretreatment dominated misoprostol alone (95% CI, -$5 111 629 to $1 801 384). The probabilities that mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone at a willingness-to-pay of $150 000 per QALY gained from the health care sector and societal perspectives were approximately 90% and 80%, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective when compared with misoprostol alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02012491.
| S-EPMC7439768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of medical and surgical management of early pregnancy loss.DesignAnalyses 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.SettingAnalysis 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.
| S-EPMC3269545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCannabis policy liberalization has increased cannabis availability for medical or recreational purposes. Up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care.ObjectiveTo describe recent trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States.DesignEcological study with repeated measures.SettingState registry data via state reports and data requests on medical cannabis licensure from 2016 to 2020.ParticipantsMedical cannabis patients (persons with medical cannabis licenses) in the United States.MeasurementsTotal patient volume, patients per 10 000 of total population, and patient-reported qualifying conditions (that is, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure)-including whether these symptoms align with current therapeutic evidence of cannabis-cannabinoid efficacy.ResultsIn 2020, 26 states and Washington, DC reported patient numbers, and 19 states reported patient-reported qualifying conditions. Total enrolled patients increased approximately 4.5-fold from 678 408 in 2016 to 2 974 433 in 2020. Patients per 10 000 total population generally increased from 2016 to 2020, most dramatically in Oklahoma (927.1 patients per 10 000 population). However, enrollment increased in states without recreational legalization (that is, medical-only states), whereas enrollment decreased in 5 of 7 with recreational legalization (that is, recreational states). In 2020, 68.2% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value versus 84.6% in 2016. Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2020 (60.6%), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (10.6%).LimitationMissing state data; lack of rationale for discontinuing medical cannabis licensure.ConclusionEnrollment in medical cannabis programs approximately increased 4.5-fold from 2016 to 2020, although enrollment decreased in recreational states. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis increased from 15.4% (2016) to 31.8% (2020). Thoughtful regulatory and clinical strategies are needed to effectively manage this rapidly changing landscape.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC10233658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEvidence strongly supports the use of mifepristone-misoprostol combination treatment for early pregnancy loss (EPL) among pregnancies conceived without assisted reproductive technologies. No literature exists, however, regarding the efficacy of this treatment in the medical management of EPL among pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). These patients differ as some use exogenous hormonal supplementation to provide pregnancy support. Thus, the management for EPL may differ between unassisted conceptions and those after ET. Mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, may demonstrate an altered treatment effect when used with misoprostol to manage EPL in assisted reproductive technologie-conceived pregnancies.ObjectiveTo describe our institution's experience using mifepristone-misoprostol to manage EPL after in vitro fertilization with embryo transfer IVF-ET.DesignRetrospective case series.SettingSingle academic institution from 2020 to 2022.PatientssNine patients with ultrasound confirmed EPL after IVF-ET.InterventionsAll 9 patients underwent in vitro fertilization followed by fresh or frozen embryo transfer. All 9 received 200 mg of mifepristone 24 hours before 800 μg of misoprostol.Main outcome measurementsIncomplete abortion, need for surgical management, number of days to negative serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).ResultsOf the 9 subjects included, one had a programmed frozen embryo transfer cycle, 6 had modified natural frozen embryo transfer cycles, and 2 underwent fresh ET. Eight subjects had successful expulsion of tissue with one dose of treatment, and one required uterine aspiration. No subjects required additional dosing of misoprostol. The mean number of days elapsed from mifepristone treatment to tissue expulsion was 4.89 ± 11.30 days and the mean days to negative-range serum hCG was 36.89 ± 18.59 days. At the initial ultrasound, all pregnancies had one gestational sac seen; 5/9 had a yolk sac; only 3 had fetal cardiac activity. The mean gestational age at the time of EPL diagnosis was 55.22 ± 8.77 days, with the majority (8/9) having completed 7 weeks gestation.ConclusionsMifepristone-misoprostol combination treatment appears to be a reasonable option for those with EPL after IVF-ET. Future, larger-scale studies are needed comparing combination treatment with misoprostol only among various ET protocols.
| S-EPMC10028465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration.Study designWe developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties.ResultsMean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes.ConclusionAlthough office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.
| S-EPMC10302401 | biostudies-literature