Abortion Stigma as a Barrier to Mifepristone Use among Obstetrician-Gynecologists in Alabama for Early Pregnancy Loss.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to identify and characterize barriers to mifepristone use among obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) for early pregnancy loss in a southern US state. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with 19 OB-GYNs in Alabama who manage early pregnancy loss. The interviews explored participants' knowledge of and experience with mifepristone use for miscarriage management and abortion, along with barriers to and facilitators of clinical mifepristone use. The interviews were coded by multiple study staff using inductive and deductive thematic coding. RESULTS: Nearly all of the interviewees identified abortion-related stigma as a barrier to mifepristone use. Interviewees often attributed stigma to a lack of knowledge about the clinical use of mifepristone for early pregnancy loss. The stigmatization of mifepristone due to its association with abortion was related to religious and political objections. Many interviewees also described stigma associated with misoprostol use. Although providers believed that mifepristone use for abortion would not be accepted in their practice, most believed that mifepristone could be used successfully for miscarriage management after practice-wide education on its use. CONCLUSIONS: Mifepristone is strongly associated with abortion stigma among OB-GYNs in Alabama, which is a barrier to its use for miscarriage management. Interventions to decrease abortion stigma and associated stigma surrounding mifepristone are needed to optimize early pregnancy loss care.

Support for Mail-Order Pharmacy Dispensing of Mifepristone for Medication Abortion.

According to this study.

24-Hour Compared With 12-Hour Mifepristone-Misoprostol Interval for Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour and 12-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol intervals for second-trimester medication abortion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants were allocated to receive mifepristone either 24 hours or 12 hours before misoprostol administration. The primary outcome was the time from the first misoprostol administration to abortion (induction time). Secondary outcomes included the time from mifepristone to abortion (total abortion time); fetal expulsion percentages at 12, 24, and 48 hours after the first misoprostol dose; side effects proportion; and pain and satisfaction scores. A sample size of 40 per group (N=80) was planned to compare the 24- and 12-hour regimens. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled between July 2020 and June 2023, with 40 patients per group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median induction time was 9.5 hours (95% CI, 10.3-17.8 hours) and 12.5 hours (95% CI, 13.5-20.2 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval arms, respectively ( P =.028). Median total abortion time was 33.0 hours (95% CI, 34.2-41.9 hours) and 24.5 hours (95% CI, 25.7-32.4 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval groups, respectively ( P <.001). At 12 hours from misoprostol administration, 25 patients (62.5%) in the 24-hour arm and 18 patients (45.0%) in the 12-hour arm completed abortion ( P =.178). At 24 hours from misoprostol administration, 36 patients (90.0%) in the 24-hour arm and 30 patients (75.0%) in the 12-hour arm had complete abortion ( P =.139). The need for additional medication or surgical treatment for uterine evacuation, pain scores, side effects, and satisfaction levels were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: A 24-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol regimen for medication abortion in the second trimester provides a median 3-hour shorter induction time compared with the 12-hour interval. However, the median total abortion time was 8.5-hours longer in the 24-hour interval regimen. These findings can aid in shared decision making before medication abortion in the second trimester. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04160221.

Primary Care's Role in Prescribing Mail-Order Mifepristone.

This Viewpoint discusses the controversy over mail-order mifepristone prescribed by primary care clinicians for first-trimester abortion as it relates to the history of initial approval, the Supreme Court case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v US Food and Drug Administration, and available clinical research.

Mail-Order Pharmacy Dispensing of Mifepristone for Medication Abortion After In-Person Screening.

Importance: Before 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023. Intervention: Mifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications. Results: Clinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

Availability of mifepristone and misoprostol in Oregon pharmacies: A comparison by rural and urban status.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the availability of mifepristone and misoprostol at pharmacies in a state with protective abortion legislation and variation in access by rurality. STUDY DESIGN: Using a secret shopper survey, researchers attempted to contact all community pharmacies in Oregon and evaluate their mifepristone and misoprostol provisions. RESULTS: Among the 444 pharmacies surveyed, mifepristone was planned at 19.2%. Misoprostol was available at 77.5%, but stocking issues and medication ordering impact access, without significant differences by rurality. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy engagement and support are key to increasing access to these essential medicines, which may be improved through education and referral programs.

What's at stake for science in 'abortion pill' case.

Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA's authority over drugs.

Retrospective cohort study comparing success of medical management of early pregnancy loss in pregnancies conceived with and without medical assistance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rates of medical management using a combined mifepristone and misoprostol protocol in cases of early pregnancy loss (EPL) between women who conceived without medical assistance and those who conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), after fresh or frozen embryo transfer, and evaluate for the predictive factors of success, time to first passage of tissue, and time to complete resolution of pregnancy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENT(S): Women who presented with EPL below 13 weeks of gestation between June 2013 and July 2021 who were managed medically with mifepristone 200 mg orally and misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally were included in the study. INTERVENTION(S): Medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol; conception without medical assistance vs. post-IVF, after fresh or frozen embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We evaluated overall success and performed subgroup analysis according to the mode of conception and compared fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfers for IVF pregnancies. In all groups, we also calculated success according to gestational age and compared the time to first passage of tissue. The potential predictive factors of treatment success were analyzed. The side effects and complications of treatment were recorded. RESULT(S): A total of 930 women were included in the study, 99 (11%) of whom achieved pregnancy after IVF. The overall success of medical treatment was 89% with no statistically significant difference according to the mode of conception (89% vs. 89%) or type of transfer (fresh 89% vs. frozen 89%). Only lower gestational age by sonography was independently predictive of treatment success, showing a negative regression coefficient of ß = -0.333 and an odds ratio of 0.717. The mean time to first passage of tissue was 5.0 ± 2.1 hours. Altogether, 666 women (72%) showed pregnancy resolution on the day of medication administration, an additional 110 women at 1-week follow-up, and a further 74 women after ≥4 weeks on ultrasound. CONCLUSION(S): Medical management of EPL with mifepristone and misoprostol is a highly successful treatment option that results in completed abortion in a timely fashion in both pregnancies conceived without medical assistance and those conceived after IVF.

Progesterone after mifepristone: A pilot prospective single arm clinical trial for women who have changed their mind after commencing medical abortion.

AIM: This pilot study aimed to assess the utility of an oral progesterone treatment protocol for women who commenced medical abortion and then changed their mind and wished instead to maintain their pregnancy. METHODS: The Progesterone-After-Mifepristone-pilot for efficacy and reproducibility (PAMper) trial was designed as a prospective single-arm pilot clinical trial, conducted via telehealth. Women aged 18 to 45 years in Australia who reported ingesting mifepristone within the last 72 h to initiate medical abortion and had not taken misoprostol were included. Initial contact was by a web-based form. Following informed consent, participants were prescribed oral progesterone to be taken 400 mg twice per day for 3 days then 400 mg at night until completion of a 19 day course. Pregnancy viability was assessed by ultrasound scan after 14 days of progesterone treatment. RESULTS: Between October 2020 and June 2021, nine women contacted the PAMper trial, of whom six enrolled and commenced progesterone treatment. These women reported ingesting mifepristone at 40-70 days of gestation, with progesterone being commenced within 5.7-72 h of mifepristone ingestion. Five participants had ongoing, live pregnancies at the primary endpoint (ultrasound at >2 weeks). One participant had a miscarriage after 9 days of progesterone treatment. There were no clinically significant adverse events. CONCLUSION: This small study demonstrated a clinically sound protocol for researching the use of progesterone-after-mifepristone for women in this circumstance. Results of this pilot study support the need for further larger scale trials in this field.

Early pregnancy loss medical management in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review clinical practice outcomes of early pregnancy loss (EPL) medical management using mifepristone and misoprostol outside of a clinical trial setting. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed a deidentified database of patients who received mifepristone-misoprostol for EPL from May 2018 to May 2021 at our academic center-based clinic, which was a study site for a multicenter mifepristone-misoprostol EPL trial completed in March 2018. All patients received mifepristone 200 mg orally and misoprostol 800 mcg vaginally or buccally, with clinic follow-up typically scheduled within 1 week. The primary outcome was successful medical management, defined as management without the need for aspiration, and the secondary outcomes included additional interventions and indications, follow-up ultrasonography findings, and adverse events requiring treatment. RESULTS: We treated 90 patients with a median ultrasound-measured gestational size of 49 (range 30-80) days and median time from mifepristone to misoprostol of 24 (range 8-66) hours. Follow-up was completed in clinic by 80 (88.9%), completed remotely by five (5.6%), and not completed by five (5.6%) patients. Overall, 76 (95% CI 82.9%-96.0%) of 85 patients (89.4%) with follow-up were successfully managed without uterine aspiration. Eighty patients had initial follow-up ultrasonography interpreted as gestational sac expulsion; seven (8.8%) of these ultimately underwent aspiration, including one patient who had a previously undiagnosed cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Two patients had significant safety outcomes: one pelvic infection and one blood transfusion during aspiration in the patient with a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of a clinical trial setting, medical management of EPL with mifepristone and misoprostol remains effective and safe. IMPLICATIONS: Medical management of EPL with mifepristone and misoprostol is effective and safe outside of a clinical trial setting. A standardized protocol based on the best available clinical trial evidence can be used in clinical practice for the medical management of EPL.

Judicial interference with mifepristone.

In the days since Texas federal judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk invalidated the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of mifepristone, a medication used to terminate pregnancy, a shock wave of concern has swept through many people, organizations, and companies that work closely with the agency. The strong opposition reflects the high stakes not only for pregnant persons and for the FDA, but also for the scientific process of drug development and public access to safe and effective medications. Twists and turns in the case are already happening. A federal appeals court stayed the full suspension of mifepristone, but permitted multiple restrictions on its availability. Then the Supreme Court, which recently overturned the constitutional right to abortion, kept the status quo in place for a few days while considering the government's appeal. The results of the legal battle will be enormously consequential for reproductive health care-and far beyond, for innovation, science, and health.