Adjuvant misoprostol or mifepristone for cervical preparation with osmotic dilators before dilation and evacuation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety of cervical preparation with osmotic dilators plus same-day misoprostol or overnight mifepristone prior to dilation and evacuation (D&E). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 664 patients initiating abortion between 18 and 22 weeks at an ambulatory health center. We abstracted medical record data from two consecutive 12-month periods in 2017 to 2019. All patients received overnight dilators plus: 600 mcg buccal misoprostol 90 minutes before D&E (period 1); 200 mg oral mifepristone at time of dilators (period 2). Our primary outcome was procedure time. We report frequency of patients experiencing any acute complication, defined as unplanned procedure (i.e., reaspiration, cervical laceration repair, uterine balloon tamponade) or hospital transfer and bleeding complications. RESULTS: We observed higher mean procedure time in the mifepristone group (9.7 ± 5.3 minutes vs 7.9 ± 4.4, p = 0.004). After adjusting for race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, parity, prior cesarean, prior uterine surgery, gestational age, provider, trainee participation, and long-acting reversible contraception initiation, the difference remained statistically significant (relative change 1.09, 95% CI 1.01, 1.17) but failed to reach our threshold for clinical significance. The use of additional misoprostol was more common in the mifepristone group, but the use of an additional set of dilators was not different between groups. Acute complications occurred at a frequency of 4.1% in misoprostol group and 4.3% in mifepristone group (p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: We found procedure time to be longer with adjunctive mifepristone compared to misoprostol; however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Furthermore, the frequency of acute complications was similar between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Overnight mifepristone at the time of cervical dilator placement is a safe and effective alternative to adjuvant same-day misoprostol for cervical preparation prior to D&E and may offer benefits for clinic flow and patient experience.

Two prophylactic pain management regimens for medical abortion ≤63 days' gestation with mifepristone and misoprostol: A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if either prophylactic tramadol 50 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg/metoclopramide 10 mg result in lower maximal pain compared to placebo in women ≤63 days' gestation having a mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Nepal, South Africa, and Vietnam. Participants seeking medical abortion received active treatment or placebo, taken at time of misoprostol and repeated 4 hours later. All had access to additional analgesia. The primary outcome was mean maximum pain score within 8 hours. Participants self-assessed maximum pain using an 11-point numeric rating scale recorded in paper diaries; we analyzed these data using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included use of additional analgesia, side effects, and satisfaction. RESULTS: We enrolled 563 patients between June 2016 and October 2017; 5 participants failed to follow up. Mean adjusted maximum pain scores within 8 hours in both active arms were lower than placebo (tramadol: n = 188, 6.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.46, 7.11); ibuprofen/metoclopramide: n = 187, 6.43 (95% CI 6.10, 6.75); placebo: n = 188, 7.42 (95% CI 7.10, 7.74); p = 0.0001). Additional analgesia was used by 97 (52.2%) participants in the tramadol group, 80 (43.0%) in the ibuprofen/metoclopramide group, and 103 (55.7%) in the placebo group, p = 0.04. More dizziness (p = 0.004), headache (p = 0.03), and vomiting (p < 0.001) occurred in the tramadol group. More participants reported experienced pain was the same or less than expected in the ibuprofen/metoclopramide group (p = 0.05); overall abortion satisfaction did not differ by group (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, tramadol or ibuprofen/metoclopramide co-administered with misoprostol and repeated 4 h later resulted in lower mean maximum pain scores that failed to achieve clinical significance. Women who received ibuprofen/metoclopramide were least likely to use additional analgesia and reported fewer side effects. IMPLICATIONS: Given that tramadol, ibuprofen, and metoclopramide are inexpensive, globally available; and, ibuprofen and metoclopramide are included on the World Health Organization Essential Medicines List, these medicines could be considered for prophylactic pain management during medical abortion.

Experiences with pain of early medical abortion: qualitative results from Nepal, South Africa, and Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Medical abortion (MA) has become an increasingly popular choice for women even where surgical abortion services are available. Pain is often cited by women as one of the worst aspects of the MA experience, yet we know little about women's experience with pain management during the process, particularly in low resource settings. The aim of this study is to better understand women's experiences of pain with MA and strategies for improving quality of care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted as part of a three-arm randomized, controlled trial in Nepal, Vietnam, and South Africa to investigate the effect of prophylactic pain management on pain during MA through 63 days' gestation. We purposively sampled seven parous and seven nulliparous women with a range of reported maximum pain levels from each country, totaling 42 participants. Thematic content analysis focused on MA pain experiences and management of pain compared to menstruation, labor, and previous abortions. RESULTS: MA is relatively less painful compared to giving birth and relatively more painful than menstruation, based on four factors: pain intensity, duration, associated symptoms and side effects, and response to pain medications. We identified four types of pain trajectories: minimal overall pain, brief intense pain, intermittent pain, and constant pain. Compared to previous abortion experiences, MA pain was less extreme (but sometimes longer in duration), more private, and less frightening. There were no distinct trends in pain trajectories by treatment group, parity, or country. Methods of coping with pain in MA and menstruation are similar in each respective country context, and use of analgesics was relatively uncommon. The majority of respondents reported that counseling about pain management before the abortion and support during the abortion process helped ease their pain and emotional stress. CONCLUSIONS: Pain management during MA is increasingly essential to ensuring quality abortion care in light of the growing proportion of abortions completed with medication around the world. Incorporating a discussion about pain expectations and pain management strategies into pre-MA counseling and providing access to information and support during the MA process could improve the quality of care and experiences of MA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000017729 , registered January 8, 2013.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of venous thrombosis risk among users of combined oral contraception.

BACKGROUND: Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) containing various progestogens could be associated with differential risks for venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative risks of VTE associated with the use of low-dose (less than 50 µg ethinyl estradiol) COCs containing different progestogens. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception through September 15, 2016, by combining search terms for oral contraception and venous thrombosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting VTE risk estimates among healthy users of progestogen-containing low-dose COCs were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A random-effects model was used to generate pooled adjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals; subgroup and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of monophasic-COC use and study-level characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: There were 22 articles included in the analysis. The use of COCs containing cyproterone acetate, desogestrel, drospirenone, or gestodene was associated with a significantly increased risk of VTE compared with the use of levonorgestrel-containing COCs (pooled risk ratios 1.5-2.0). The analysis restricted to monophasic COC formulations with 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol yielded similar findings. After adjustment for study characteristics, the risk estimates were slightly attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the use of levonorgestrel-containing COCs, the use of COCs containing other progestogens could be associated with a small increase in risk for VTE.

Nonoral combined hormonal contraceptives and thromboembolism: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs), containing estrogen and progestin, are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) compared with nonuse. Few studies have examined whether nonoral formulations (including the combined hormonal patch, combined vaginal ring and combined injectable contraceptives) increase the risk of thrombosis compared with combined oral contraceptives (COCs). OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to examine the risk of VTE and ATE among women using nonoral CHCs compared to women using COCs. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for all English language articles published from database inception through May 2016. We included primary research studies that examined women using the patch, ring or combined injectables compared with women using levonorgestrel-containing or norgestimate-containing COCs. Outcomes of interest included VTE (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) or ATE (acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke). We assessed the quality of each individual piece of evidence using the system developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Of seven analyses from six studies examining VTE among patch users compared with levonorgestrel- or norgestimate-containing COC users, two found a statistically significantly elevated risk among patch users (risk estimates 2.2-2.3), one found an elevated risk that did not meet statistical significance (risk estimate 2.0), and four found no increased risk. Of three studies examining VTE among ring users compared with levonorgestrel COC users, one found a statistically significantly elevated risk among patch users (risk estimate 1.9) and two did not. Two studies did not find an increased risk for ATE among women using the patch compared with norgestimate COCs. We did not identify any studies examining combined injectable contraceptives. CONCLUSION: Limited Level II-2 good to fair evidence demonstrated conflicting results on whether women using the patch or the ring have a higher risk of VTE than women using COCs. Evidence did not demonstrate an increased risk of ATE among women using the patch. Overall, any potential elevated risk likely represents a small number of events on a population level. Additional studies with standard methodology are needed to further clarify any associations and better understand mechanisms of hormone-induced thrombosis among users of nonoral combined hormonal contraception.

Combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) use among obese women and contraceptive effectiveness: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate from the literature whether combined hormonal contraception (CHC), including combined oral contraception pills (COCs), transdermal patch, vaginal ring or combined injectables, have different effectiveness or failure rates by body weight or body mass index (BMI). STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases for all articles in all languages published between inception and February 2016, for evidence relevant to body weight or BMI, CHC use and contraceptive effectiveness. The quality of each individual study was assessed using the system for evaluating evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: From 2874 articles, we identified 15 reports for inclusion, all of fair to poor quality. Fourteen studies measured the association of obesity status and contraceptive failure among COC users. Three fair quality and one poor quality study reported increased COC failure among a heterogeneous population of overweight and obese women compared with normal weight women, while eight fair quality and two poor quality studies did not find an association. Two fair quality studies reported on contraceptive transdermal patches. One pooled analysis described a higher proportion of pregnancies among women using the patch who weighed ≥90 kg; another secondary analysis suggested BMI>30 was associated with increased failure. No studies directly compared contraceptive effectiveness using the combined vaginal ring or combined injectable. CONCLUSION: Current available evidence addressing the risk of CHC failure in obese compared to normal weight women is limited to fair and poor quality studies. Studies of COCs show mixed results, though absolute differences in COC failure by body weight and BMI are small. Based on limited evidence, it appears that increasing body weight and BMI may contribute to decreasing contraceptive patch effectiveness.

Two prophylactic medication approaches in addition to a pain control regimen for early medical abortion < 63 days' gestation with mifepristone and misoprostol: study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is often cited as one of the worst features of medical abortion. Further, inadequate pain management may motivate some women to seek unnecessary clinical care. There is a need to identify effective methods for pain control in this setting. METHODS/DESIGN: We propose a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. 576 participants (288 nulliparous; 288 parous) from study sites in Nepal, South Africa and Vietnam will be randomly allocated to one of three treatments: (1) ibuprofen 400 mg PO and metoclopramide 10 mg PO; (2) tramadol 50 mg PO and a placebo; or (3) two placebo pills, to be taken immediately before misoprostol and repeated once four hours later. All women will be provided with supplementary analgesia for use as needed during the medical abortion. We hypothesize that women receiving prophylactic analgesia will report lower maximal pain scores in the first 8 h following misoprostol administration compared to women receiving placebos for medical abortion through 63 days' gestation. Our primary objective is to determine whether prophylactic administration of ibuprofen and metoclopramide or tramadol provides superior pain relief compared to analgesia administration after pain begins, measured during the first eight hours after misoprostol administration. Secondary objectives include identifying covariates associated with higher reported pain scores; determining any impact of the study medicines on medical abortion success; and, qualitatively exploring women's physical experiences of medical abortion, especially related to pain, and how can they be improved. Data sources include medical records, participant symptom diaries and interview data obtained on the day of enrollment, during the medical abortion, and at follow-up. Participants will be contacted via telephone on day 3 and return for follow-up will occur approximately 14 days after mifepristone, concluding study participation. A subset of 42 women will also be invited to undergo in-depth qualitative interviews following study completion. DISCUSSION: Although pain is one of the most common side effects encountered with medical abortion, little is known about optimal pain management for this process. This multi-arm trial design offers an efficient approach to evaluating two prophylactic pain management regimens compared to use of pain medication as needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000017729 (Prospectively registered 8/1/2013).

The safety of subcutaneously administered depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (104mg/0.65mL): A systematic review.

CONTEXT: Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestogen-only contraceptive injectable, has traditionally been formulated as a crystalline suspension delivered intramuscularly (IM) at a dose of 150mg/1.0mL. A new, lower dose formulation of DMPA (104mg/0.65mL) has been developed for subcutaneous administration (SC). Given its increasing global availability and public health relevance, DMPA-SC was prioritized for inclusion as a new method referenced in the World Health Organization (WHO) Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC), 5th Edition. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the published peer-reviewed literature regarding the safety of DMPA-SC among women with various characteristics or medical conditions. Results of this review informed the decision-making of a WHO Guideline Development Group in order to include recommendations on contraceptive eligibility within the revised MEC. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant evidence published in peer-reviewed journals regarding the safety of DMPA-SC when used by women of reproductive age, particularly those with select characteristics or conditions specified in the MEC, from inception through June 2015. The quality of each individual study was assessed using the system for grading evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met criteria for inclusion. Ten reported results relevant to DMPA users of varying age or with obesity, endometriosis or HIV; four compared the safety of DMPA-SC and DMPA-IM when used by general populations of healthy women. A randomized trial evaluating changes in bone mineral density among adult DMPA-SC and DMPA-IM users demonstrated no differences at 2years of follow-up. Limited evidence reported no consistent differences in weight change or bleeding patterns according to age; however, adolescents (<18years) were not included in any studies. Similar contraceptive efficacy, weight change, bleeding patterns and occurrence of other adverse effects among obese and nonobese DMPA-SC users were observed. Women with endometriosis using DMPA-SC over 6months had minimal decreases in bone mineral density, weight gain, few serious adverse events and experienced improved pain symptoms. Women living with HIV tolerated injection of DMPA-SC with rare complications. DMPA-SC and DMPA-IM also show therapeutic equivalence and similar effects on weight gain, changes in bleeding patterns and reports of other adverse effects when these different delivery systems were used by general populations of women. CONCLUSION: Evidence for use of DMPA-SC by women with select conditions and characteristics including age, obesity, endometriosis or HIV demonstrates that this method can generally be used safely in these contexts. Further, DMPA-SC and DMPA-IM appear to be therapeutically equivalent with similar safety profiles when used by healthy women.

Safety of the progesterone-releasing vaginal ring (PVR) among lactating women: A systematic review.

CONTEXT: Lactation causes a delay in ovulation in the postpartum period, and therefore a delay in the resumption of menses. However, return to fertility is variable in the postpartum period and is contingent upon numerous factors. The postpartum period is therefore a critical time to initiate effective contraception in order to support the numerous beneficial health outcomes of optimal pregnancy spacing. Breastfeeding women have an unmet need for highly effective birth control methods that do not interfere with lactation and that are safe for their infants. The progesterone-releasing vaginal ring (PVR) releases a natural progesterone that suppresses ovulation and is specifically designed for breastfeeding women in the first postpartum year. OBJECTIVE: To review the published peer-reviewed literature regarding the safety and effectiveness of the PVR used for contraception among lactating women, as well as the safety for their infants. Results of this review informed the decisions of the Guideline Development Group to include recommendations on contraceptive eligibility for the PVR within the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 5th Edition. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Popline, and LILACS bibliographic databases for articles published in any language from database inception through October 1, 2014. We reviewed the literature for evidence regarding the safety of the PVR among breastfeeding women using the method, as well as for their infants. The US Preventive Services Task Force system was applied to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Seven articles met our criteria for inclusion in this review. All studies were of a prospective cohort design. All studies consistently showed that use of the PVR among breastfeeding women compares favorably to other methods of contraception with regard to effectiveness, does not compromise a woman's breastfeeding performance, and does not adversely affect infant growth during the first year postpartum. CONCLUSION: The PVR is a safe and highly effective method of contraception for use among breastfeeding women. It should be offered to women who plan to breastfeed in the context of postpartum contraceptive counseling.

The combined oral contraceptive pill -- recent developments, risks and benefits.

The introduction of the birth control pill as an effective, coitally-independent method of contraception was a public health milestone of the last century. Over time, combined oral contraception (COC) formulations and pill-taking regimens have evolved with improved safety and tolerability while maintaining contraceptive efficacy. In addition to protection against pregnancy, use of combined oral contraception confers a number of significant non-contraceptive benefits to users. COC use is also associated with well-studied risks. Common side effects are generally self-limiting and improve with increasing duration of use while serious adverse events, including venous thromboembolism, are rare among healthy COC users. Contraceptive decision-making should include consideration of both the risks and benefits of a given method versus the real consequences of unintended pregnancy.

Conscientious objection to provision of legal abortion care.

Despite advances in scientific evidence, technologies, and human rights rationale for providing safe abortion, a broad range of cultural, regulatory, and health system barriers that deter access to abortion continues to exist in many countries. When conscientious objection to provision of abortion becomes one of these barriers, it can create risks to women's health and the enjoyment of their human rights. To eliminate this barrier, states should implement regulations for healthcare providers on how to invoke conscientious objection without jeopardizing women's access to safe, legal abortion services, especially with regard to timely referral for care and in emergency cases when referral is not possible. In addition, states should take all necessary measures to ensure that all women and adolescents have the means to prevent unintended pregnancies and to obtain safe abortion.