Reversal of medication abortion with progesterone: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether there is evidence to recommend progesterone for individuals not wishing to complete a medication abortion after taking mifepristone. METHODS: We undertook an updated systematic review including a primary search for studies in which individuals received progesterone to reverse the effects of mifepristone, and a secondary search for studies in which individuals received mifepristone alone. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and grey literature up to December 2022. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for risk of bias assessment. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates among individuals treated with progesterone to those managed expectantly. RESULTS: We did not find new studies in our secondary search. For the main search, we included three case series and one randomised controlled trial. Data were available for 561 individuals who received progesterone after mifepristone, of whom 271 (48%) had ongoing pregnancies. The quality of the evidence in the case series was low due to methodological and ethical issues. Enrollment in the randomised trial stopped early due to bleeding events in both arms. The ongoing pregnancy rate for individuals ≤7 weeks who received progesterone was 42% (95% CI 37-48) compared with 22% (95% CI 11-39) for mifepristone alone. At 7-8 weeks, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 62% (95% CI 52-71) in the progesterone group and 50% (95% CI 15- 85) in the mifepristone alone group. CONCLUSION: Based mostly on poor-quality data, it appears the ongoing pregnancy rate in individuals treated with progesterone after mifepristone is not significantly higher compared to that of individuals receiving mifepristone alone.

Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion.

BACKGROUND: Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling. RESULTS: We included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%-100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%-1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%-22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%-98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates. DISCUSSION: Based on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach. FUNDING: This work did not receive any funding. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: We registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849).

Sociodemographic factors and prenatal care behaviors associated with unplanned pregnancy in a Brazilian birth cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the sociodemographic factors and prenatal behavior characteristics associated with unplanned pregnancy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of mothers of newborns enrolled in a birth cohort in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Questionnaires were administered to postpartum women. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic predictors of unplanned pregnancy and to evaluate the association with adherence to prenatal care recommendations. RESULTS: The cohort included 7608 mothers: 7541 (99.1%) answered the interview and 4056 (53.8%) had an unplanned pregnancy. Adolescents were more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-2.34) as were women over 40 (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.22-2.47). Pregnancy during adolescence (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09-1.48), being single (OR 7.56; 95% CI 5.98-9.56), having two or more previous births (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.52-1.97), and being of a lower socioeconomic status were also predictors. Lack or late initiation of prenatal care, attendance at less than six prenatal visits, drinking alcohol, and smoking during pregnancy were associated with unplanned pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Unplanned pregnancies disproportionately affect women at extremes of age, single, and of low socioeconomic status. These women are less likely to adhere to prenatal care.