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

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). SETTING: Twenty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. SAMPLE: A cohort of 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. METHODS: Treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol or with matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and a QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost saving of £182 (95% CI £26-£338). Hence, the MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that the MifeMiso intervention is preferable, compared with expectant management, and this is the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, the MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective and less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.

A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mifepristone-Misoprostol Medical Abortions in the First Year at the Regina General Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In July 2017, mifepristone-misoprostol (mife/miso) became available for medical abortion at the Regina General Hospital's Women's Health Centre (RGH WHC). We investigated whether the proportion of abortions performed medically changed as a result of the introduction of mife/miso, whether using mife/miso instead of the surgical alternative would result in cost savings to the health care system, and whether abortion type differed between patients residing in and outside of Regina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 306 medical abortions from the RGH WHC between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. We obtained medical and surgical abortion information from that year and the preceding one from an administrative database. Statistical methods were used to calculate the costs of mife/miso, methotrexate-misoprostol (MTX/miso) and surgical abortion, as well as cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The proportion of medical abortions increased from 15.4% in 2016/2017 to 28.7% in 2017/2018 (χ21 = 54.629; P < 0.001). Calculated costs for mife/miso, with and without complications were CAD $1173.70 and CAD $1708.90, respectively, versus CAD $871.10 and CAD $1204.10, respectively, for MTX/miso, and CAD $1445.95 and CAD $2261.95, respectively, for hospital-based vacuum aspiration. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $318 (the cost of mife/miso), statistical modelling showed a 61.3% chance that mife/miso was more cost-effective than surgical abortion and a 90.8% chance that it was more cost-effective than MTX/miso. Patients from Regina were significantly more likely (χ21 = 29.406; P < 0.001) to receive a medical abortion (34.9% of abortions) than those living outside of Regina (19.6% of abortions). CONCLUSION: The proportion of abortions completed medically increased significantly over the period studied. Patients from Regina were more likely to receive medical abortion during both time periods. Mife/miso had a >50% probability of cost-effectiveness over both surgical and MTX/miso options.

Cost of goods sold analysis and recommendations to reduce costs of co-packaged mifepristone-misoprostol for medical abortion.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the price components of the mifepristone/misoprostol (combi-pack) for medical abortion to improve access is critical for identifying strategies to reduce product costs for quality-assured formulations and expanding its availability and use. METHODS: We constructed a cost of goods sold analysis using data collected from manufacturing companies in Bangladesh, China and India supported by publicly available information related to the product formulation, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), manufacturing location, manufacturer profiles and other individual model components. Key model components were the active pharmaceutical ingredients (quality-assured or not), excipients, labour cost, operating cost and packaging. RESULTS: Combi-pack direct production cost ranges from US$1.08 for finished products which are not quality assured to US$3.05 for products containing quality assured active pharmaceutical ingredients, which means that with a 30% administrative fee applied to those prices, it could be made available between US$1.40 and US$3.97 depending on location, manufacturer's profile, optimal market situation and the quality of the active pharmaceutical ingredients. The main model component impacting on the cost range is the purchase price of mifepristone active pharmaceutical ingredient and the current differential between quality-assured material supported by adequate documentation and API for which quality assurance cannot be demonstrated. Compared to India cost of goods sold is lower in Bangladesh primarily due to lower operating costs, including the cost of labour. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to lower the cost of quality-assured combi-packs, through reducing mifepristone API cost and selection of the manufacturing location. However, manufacturers need to be incentivised to achieve WHO pre-qualification with a carefully built business case and require support in identifying and sourcing competitively priced material and manufacturing products to the necessary standard.

Update on second-trimester surgical abortion.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent literature on surgical second-trimester abortion, with specific attention to cervical preparation techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Confirming previous studies, a recent retrospective observational cohort study, including 54 911 abortions, estimated the total abortion-related complication rate to be 0.41% for second-trimester or later procedures. Cervical preparation is known to reduce risks associated with second-trimester dilation and evacuation (D&E). When considering adjuncts to osmotic dilators for cervical preparation prior to D&E after 16 weeks, both misoprostol and mifepristone are effective alone and in combination or as adjuncts to osmotic dilators. Misoprostol consistently has been shown to cause more pain and cramping than placebo, but is an effective adjunct to osmotic dilators after 16 weeks. Although mifepristone has fewer side-effects, at its current price, it may not be as cost-effective as misoprostol. SUMMARY: Second-trimester abortion is safe. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol for second-trimester abortion has improved safety and efficacy of medical and surgical methods when used alone or in combination and as adjuncts to osmotic dilators. An important aspect of D&E, cervical preparation, is not a one-size-fits-all practice; the approach and methods are contingent on patient, provider and setting and should consider all the evidence-based options.

Women's experiences with medication for menstrual regulation in Bangladesh.

Menstrual regulation has been legal in Bangladesh since 1974, but the use of medication for menstrual regulation is new. In this study, we sought to understand women's experiences using medication for menstrual regulation in Bangladesh. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with rural and urban women between December 2013 and February 2014. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, translated, computer recorded and coded for analysis. The majority of women in our study had had positive experiences with medication for menstrual regulation and successful outcomes, regardless of whether they obtained their medication from medicine sellers/pharmacies, doctors or clinics. Women were strongly influenced by health providers when deciding which method to use. There is a need to educate not only women of reproductive age, but also communities as a whole, about medication for menstrual regulation, with a particular emphasis on cost and branding the medication. Continued efforts to improve counselling by providers about the dose, medication and side-effects of medication for menstrual regulation, along with education of the community about medication as an option for menstrual regulation, will help to de-stigmatise the procedure and the women who seek it.

Medical versus surgical abortion methods for pregnancy in China: a cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both medical and surgical abortions are popular in developing countries. However, the monetary costs of these two methods have not been compared. METHODS: 430 women seeking abortions were recruited in 2008. Either a medical or surgical method was used for the abortion. We adopted the perspective of a third-party payer. Cost-minimization analysis was used based on all charges for the overall procedures in an out-patient clinic in Guangzhou, China. RESULTS: 219 subjects (51%) chose a medical method (mifepristone and misoprostol), whereas 211 subjects (49%) chose a surgical method. The efficacy in the surgical group was significantly higher than in the medical group (100 vs. 90%, p < 0.001). Surgical abortion incurred much more costs than medical abortion on average after initial treatment. When the subsequent costs were accumulated within the 2-week follow-up, the mean total cost in the medical group increased significantly due to failure of abortion and persistent bleeding. Patients undergoing medical abortion eventually incurred equivalent expenses compared to patients undergoing surgical abortion (p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the mean final costs between the two abortion methods. Complications of persistent bleeding and failure to abort (requiring surgical intervention) in the medical treatment group increased the final mean total cost substantially.

Cost-effectiveness of Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Nonviable Early Pregnancy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Early 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. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol vs misoprostol alone in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: Mifepristone pretreatment plus misoprostol administration vs misoprostol alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs 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. Results: Among 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 Relevance: This study found that medical management of EPL with mifepristone pretreatment was cost-effective when compared with misoprostol alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02012491.

Mifepristone Combination Therapy Compared With Misoprostol Monotherapy for the Management of Miscarriage: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether mifepristone pretreatment adversely affects the cost of medical management of miscarriage. METHODS: Decision tree analyses were constructed, and Monte Carlo simulations were run comparing costs of combination therapy (mifepristone and misoprostol) with monotherapy (misoprostol alone) for medical management of miscarriage in multiple scenarios weighing clinical practice, patient income, and surgical evacuation modalities for failed medical management. Rates of completed medical evacuation for each were obtained from a recent randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: In every scenario, combination therapy offered a significant cost advantage over monotherapy. Using a Monte Carlo analysis, cost differences favoring combination therapy ranged from 6.3% to 19.5% in patients making federal minimum wage. The cost savings associated with combination therapy were greatest in scenarios using a staged approach to misoprostol administration and in scenarios using in-operating room dilation and curettage as the only modality for uterine evacuation, a savings of $190.20 (99% CI 189.35-191.07) and $217.85 (99% CI 217.19-218.50) per patient in a low-income wage group, respectively. A smaller difference was seen in scenarios using in-office manual vacuum aspiration to complete medical management failures. As patients' wages increased, the difference in cost between combination therapy and monotherapy increased. CONCLUSION: Mifepristone combined with misoprostol is, overall, more cost effective than monotherapy, and therefore cost should not be a deterrent to its adoption in the management of miscarriage.

Treating miscarriages: a randomised study of cost-effectiveness in medical or surgical choice.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to carry out a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical and surgical treatment of miscarriage using quantitative and qualitative indicators. DESIGN: A prospective study where the data of the clinical course of the treatment and the patients; experiences (pain and satisfaction) were collected from a previous randomised study. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. POPULATION: Ninety-eight eligible women with a diagnosed miscarriage. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by using institutional prices (provider's aspect) of the medical care and the number of patients who experienced pain, dissatisfaction or unsuccessful treatment while treated for the miscarriage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary (uncomplicated treatment) and secondary (complications and other unplanned events) costs of the treatments. RESULTS: Primary costs of the surgical treatment were higher, but the more frequent unplanned events and complications in the medical group brought the costs to the same level. In the medical group, based on the ICER, 12 patients more experienced pain, 7 patients more were dissatisfied with the treatment and 5 patients more had unsuccessful treatment compared with surgically treated patients. In theory, these negative outcomes could have been avoided by investing euro1688 more in the surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Medical treatment of miscarriage was not more cost-effective, when the adverse events were considered. As neither of these two methods was economically superior, the treatment choice should be made on an individual basis by respecting the patient's choice.

Exploring the feasibility of obtaining mifepristone and misoprostol from the internet.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to document the experience of buying abortion pills from online vendors that do not require a prescription and to evaluate the active ingredient content of the pills received. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the internet to identify a convenience sample of websites that sold mifepristone and misoprostol to purchasers in the United States and attempted to order these products. We documented price, shipping time and other aspects of ordering. We sent the samples received to a testing laboratory that measured the amount of active ingredient in individual tablets. RESULTS: We identified 18 websites and ordered 22 products: 20 mifepristone-misoprostol combination products and 2 that contained only misoprostol. We received 18 combination products and the 2 misoprostol products from 16 different sites. No site required a prescription or any relevant medical information. The time between order and receipt of the 20 products ranged from 3 to 21 business days (median 9.5 days). The price for the 18 combination products ranged from $110 to $360, including shipping and fees; the products without mifepristone cost less. Chemical assays found that the 18 tablets labeled 200 mg mifepristone contained between 184.3 mg and 204.1 mg mifepristone, while the 20 tablets labeled 200 mcg misoprostol contained between 34.1 mcg and 201.4 mcg of the active ingredient. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining abortion medications from online pharmaceutical websites is feasible in the United States. The mifepristone tablets received contained within 8% of the labeled amount of active agent. The misoprostol tablets all contained that compound but usually less than labeled. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Given our findings, we expect that some people for whom clinic-based abortion is not easily available or acceptable may consider self-sourcing pills from the internet to be a rational option.

Provider practice models for and costs of delivering medication abortion -- evidence from 11 US abortion care settings.

PURPOSE: Understanding practice models and provider costs for medication abortion (MAB) provision may elucidate ways to facilitate MAB integration into a larger arena of health care services. This study provides descriptive data on the diverse MAB practice models currently being utilized by US health care providers and the costs associated with the components of those models. METHOD: Data were gathered from a sample of 11 abortion care settings, using clinic administrative records and patient satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: Practice models varied dramatically, with a wide range in the type of staff employed to provide MAB. The total episode cost for providing MAB ranged from 252 to 460 US Dollars, and patient satisfaction was high across all practices. CONCLUSION: Information from this study can be used to guide decisions regarding MAB integration into practices not currently providing abortion or which provide only aspiration abortions. The information may also be useful for providers wishing to refine their MAB services.

The costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester, medical and surgical safe abortion services in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite a liberal abortion law, access to safe abortion services in South Africa is challenging for many women. Medication abortion was introduced in 2013, but its reach remains limited. We aimed to estimate the costs and cost effectiveness of providing first-trimester medication abortion and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) services to inform planning for first-trimester service provision in South Africa and similar settings. METHODS: We obtained data on service provision and outcomes from an operations research study where medication abortion was introduced alongside existing MVA services in public hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal province. Clinical data were collected through interviews with first-trimester abortion clients and summaries completed by nurses performing the procedures. In parallel, we performed micro-costing at three of the study hospitals. Using a model built in Excel, we estimated the average cost per medical and surgical procedure and determined the cost per complete abortion performed. Results are presented in 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 1,129 women were eligible for a first trimester abortion at the three study sites. The majority (886, 78.5%) were eligible to choose their abortion procedure; 94.1% (n = 834) chose medication abortion. The total average cost per medication abortion was $63.91 (52.32-75.51). The total average cost per MVA was higher at $69.60 (52.62-86.57); though the cost ranges for the two procedures overlapped. Given average costs, the cost per complete medication abortion was lower than the cost per complete MVA despite three (0.4%) medication abortion women being hospitalized and two (0.3%) having ongoing pregnancies at study exit. Personnel costs were the largest component of the total average cost of both abortion methods. CONCLUSION: This analysis supports the scale-up of medication abortion alongside existing MVA services in South Africa. Women can be offered a choice of methods, including medication abortion with MVA as a back-up, without increasing costs.

Early abortion in Ontario: options and costs.

OBJECTIVE: Early abortions have been predominantly surgical for many years, but medical options with comparable efficacy and safety are now available. This study compares the costs of two medical options and two surgical options. METHODS: We used a clinical model to compare the costs in Ontario of four options for early abortion: medical abortion using either mifepristone or methotrexate, and surgical abortion by vacuum aspiration in either a hospital or a free-standing clinic. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspectives of society, the health care system, and the patient. RESULTS: From all perspectives, total costs were highest for hospital surgical abortion, followed by surgical abortion in a clinic. From the patient's perspective, total costs were higher for surgical abortion but direct costs (mainly for medications) were higher for medical abortion. The total cost of mifepristone and methotrexate abortion was equal if the price of mifepristone (200 mg) was $59.52. The model was robust but was sensitive to the price of mifepristone. CONCLUSION: Early medical abortion costs less than early surgical abortion from the societal and health care system perspectives but more than surgical abortion from the patient's perspective. Surgical abortion costs more in hospitals than in free-standing clinics from the societal and health care system perspectives, but the costs are the same in both settings from the patient's perspective. No method for early abortion can be identified as best, and patients should be free to choose the option they prefer.

The true cost differential between mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol-alone regimens for medical abortion.

Our objective was to evaluate relative differences in direct and total (direct and indirect) costs for medical abortion regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone. We created formulas to evaluate relative differences in costs in the United States, Chennai (Madras), India, and a hypothetical developing country based on published protocols and efficacy data. Follow-up visits and suction aspiration procedures in the United States were evaluated over a range of costs. American indirect costs were estimated using earning data. Indirect costs in India and the hypothetical developing country were based on mifepristone cost differences between the United States and India. Although mifepristone costs US dollar 83.33 for every 200-mg tablet in the United States, the actual excess cost of using a mifepristone regimen, as compared with a misoprostol-alone regimen, is only US dollar 22 to US dollar 32. The actual cost of a mifepristone regimen is lower than that of a misoprostol-alone regimen in India. In a hypothetical developing country, a mifepristone regimen is likely to be less expensive than regimens using misoprostol alone. Because of the higher efficacy of medical abortion regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol and the need for fewer follow-up evaluations, such regimens are less expensive or only minimally more expensive than those using misoprostol alone.

A qualitative study of insurers' coverage for mifepristone-induced abortion.

In this qualitative evaluation of 14 U.S. health insurers' coverage policies concerning mifepristone-induced medical abortion, the findings suggest that a significant proportion of health plans do not include evidence-based clinical information obtained from recent research, data, and practice. This omission may hinder the adoption of new, evidence-based protocols for medical abortion by physicians. A model coverage policy that contains comprehensive clinical information regarding appropriate clinical regimens for mifepristone is provided as an example for insurers and others in the field.

Reaching women where they are: eliminating the initial in-person medical abortion visit.

The requirement that every woman desiring medical abortion must come in person to a clinical facility to obtain the drugs is a substantial barrier for many women. To eliminate this requirement in the United States, two key components of the standard initial visit would need to be restructured. First, alternatives to ultrasound and pelvic exam would need to be identified for ensuring that gestational age is within the limit for safe and effective treatment. This is probably feasible: for example, data from a large study suggest that in selected patients menstrual history is highly sensitive for this purpose. Second, the Food and Drug Administration would need to remove the medically unwarranted restriction on distribution of mifepristone. These two changes could allow provision of the service by a broader range of providers in nontraditional venues or even by telemedicine. Such options could have profound benefits in reducing cost and expanding access to abortion.

Mifepristone (RU486) in Australian pharmacies: the ethical and practical challenges.

OBJECTIVE: The recent legalization of mifepristone has given women in Australia a new option for termination of pregnancy. Pharmacists are well positioned to provide information and supply mifepristone for patients. However, there are ethical and legal concerns in Australia regarding the supply of mifepristone, as pharmacists may choose to conscientiously object to supplying mifepristone and are subject to differing abortion laws between states and territories in Australia. The objective of this study was to explore attitudes and knowledge of Australian pharmacists about mifepristone. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 41 registered pharmacists working in a pharmacy or hospital in Sydney, Australia. When data saturation was achieved, audiotaped transcripts were deidentified and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analyzed using a framework approach for applied policy research and categorized into the following themes: contextual, diagnostic, evaluative and strategic. RESULTS: Analysis of the transcripts yielded four themes: (a) pharmacists' contextual view on pregnancy termination, the role of the pharmacist and impact on the pharmacy workplace; (b) diagnostic reasons for differing views; (c) evaluation of actual and perceived pharmacy practice in relation to the supply of mifepristone and (d) strategies to improve pharmacists' services, awareness and education. CONCLUSION: Australian pharmacists in this study perceived themselves to have a potentially important role as medicine experts in patient health care and safety in medical termination of pregnancy. However, there was a general lack of clinical, ethical and legal knowledge about medical termination of pregnancy and its legislation. IMPLICATIONS: To ensure patient safety, well-being and autonomy, there is an imperative need for pharmacist-specific training and guidelines to be made available and open discussion to be initiated within the profession to raise awareness, in particular regarding professional accountability for full patient care.

The accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001.

CONTEXT: A woman's ability to obtain an abortion is affected both by the availability of a provider and by access-related factors such as cost, convenience, gestational limits and the provision of early medical abortion services. METHODS: In 2001-2002, The Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed all known abortion providers in the United States, collecting information on their delivery of abortion services and on the number of abortions performed. RESULTS: A minority of abortion providers offer services before five weeks from the last menstrual period (37%) or after 20 weeks (24% or fewer), but the proportions have increased since 1993. Providers estimate that one-quarter of women having abortions in nonhospital facilities travel 50 miles or more for services, and that 7% are initially unsure of their abortion decision. The majority of providers (59%) say that these clients usually receive abortions during a single visit. An average self-paying client was charged $372 for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks in 2001, up from $319 in 1997; only 26% of clients receive services billed directly to public or private insurance. Early medical abortions are becoming increasingly available but are more expensive than surgical abortions. More than half (56%) of providers experienced antiabortion harassment in 2000, but types of harassment other than picketing have declined since 1996. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion at very early and late gestations and early medical abortion are more available than before, but charges have increased and antiabortion picketing remains at high levels. Thus, many women still face substantial barriers to obtaining an abortion.

[Mifepristone and misoprostol in therapeutic abortions]. / Mifépristone et misoprostol dans les interruptions médicales de grossesses.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience with the mifepristone and misoprostol combination in second and third trimester medically induced abortion. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective study without control group between January 1993 and december 1994. STUDY SITE: Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris. PATIENTS: Fifty-three patients admitted for a medically induced abortion. RESULTS: Induction-to-abortion mean time was 12.9 +/- 7.5 hours (time distinctly decreased in fetal death: 8.3 +/- 4.4 hours). CONCLUSION: The combination of misoprostol with mifepristone has equivalent with the other protocol used for therapeutic pregnancy termination, is less expensive (25 to 100 times) and finally is simple and non-invasive.

Trends in use of medical abortion in the United States: reanalysis of surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001-2008.

BACKGROUND: With changing patterns and increasing use of medical abortion in the United States, it is important to have accurate statistics on the use of this method regularly available. This study assesses the accuracy of medical abortion data reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and describes trends over time in the use of medical abortion relative to other methods. STUDY DESIGN: This analysis included data reported to CDC for 2001-2008. Year-specific analyses included all states that monitored medical abortion for a given year, while trend analyses were restricted to states that monitored medical abortion continuously from 2001 to 2008. Data quality and completeness were assessed by (a) examining abortions reported with an unspecified method type within the gestational age limit for medical abortion (med-eligible abortions) and (b) comparing the percentage of all abortions and med-eligible abortions reported to CDC as medical abortions with estimates based on published mifepristone sales data for the United States from 2001 to 2007. RESULTS: During 2001-2008, the percentage of med-eligible abortions reported to CDC with an unspecified method type remained low (1.0%-2.2%); CDC data and mifepristone sales estimates for 2001-2007 demonstrated strong agreement [all abortions: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.983; med-eligible abortions: ICC=0.988]. During 2001-2008, the percentage of abortions reported to CDC as medical abortions increased (p<.001 for all abortions and for med-eligible abortions). Among states that reported medical abortions for 2008, 15% of all abortions and 23% of med-eligible abortions were reported as medical abortions. CONCLUSION: CDC's Abortion Surveillance System provides an important annual data source that accurately describes the use of medical abortion relative to other methods in the United States.