Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT.

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.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately one in four women. Sometimes, medical treatment (i.e. tablets) may be offered to start or speed up the miscarriage process in order for the womb to empty itself. A drug called misoprostol (a tablet that makes the womb contract) is currently recommended for this treatment. However, the addition of another drug called mifepristone [a tablet that reduces pregnancy hormones (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France)] might help the miscarriage to resolve more quickly. Therefore, we carried out the MifeMiso trial to test if mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone in resolving miscarriage within 7 days. Women were randomly allocated by a computer to receive either mifepristone or placebo, followed by misoprostol 2 days later. Neither the women nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment they received. Some women also talked to the researchers about their experiences of taking part in the study. In total, 711 women were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol or placebo plus misoprostol. Overall, 83% of women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol had miscarriage resolution within 7 days, compared with 76% of the women who received a placebo plus misoprostol. Surgery was required less often in women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol: 17% of women who received it required surgery, compared with 25% of women who received the placebo. Treatment with mifepristone did not appear to have any negative effects. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more cost-effective than misoprostol alone, with an average saving of £182 per woman. Having taken part in the study, most women would choose medical management again and would recommend it to someone they knew who was experiencing a miscarriage.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. 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. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. 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. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Communities of practice - quality improvement or research in general practice.

BACKGROUND: A 'communities of practice' (CoP) approach has the potential to address quality improvement issues and facilitate research in general practice by engaging those most intimately involved in delivering services - the health professionals. OBJECTIVE: This article outlines the CoP approach and discusses some of the challenges involved in using this approach to raise standards in general practice and how these challenges might be addressed. DISCUSSION: General practitioner insight needs to be harnessed in order to develop solutions that are conceived in, and informed by, clinical practice. A CoP approach provides control to the practitioners over selection of the most relevant research question and outcome measure. However, the method is challenging as it requires a focus that is suitable, that motivates the participants, and effective management strategies and resources to support the CoP.