Mifepristone followed by misoprostol compared with placebo followed by misoprostol as medical treatment for early pregnancy loss (the Triple M trial): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, millions of women seek treatment for early pregnancy loss (EPL) annually. Medical management with misoprostol is widely used, but only effective 60% of the time. Pre-treatment with mifepristone prior to misoprostol might improve the success rate of medical management. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 17 Dutch hospitals. Women with a non-viable pregnancy between 6 and 14 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion after at least one week of expectant management. Participants were randomised (1:1) between oral mifepristone 600 mg or an oral placebo tablet. Participants took 400 µg misoprostol orally, repeated after four hours on day two and, if necessary, day three. Primary outcome was expulsion of gestational sac and endometrial thickness <15 mm after 6-8 weeks. Analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03212352. FINDINGS: Between June 28th 2018 and January 8th 2020, 175 women were randomised to mifepristone and 176 to placebo, including 344 in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the mifepristone group 136 (79•1%) of 172 participants reached complete evacuation compared to 101 (58•7%) of 172 participants in the placebo group (p<0•0001, RR 1•35, 95% CI 1•16-1•56). Incidence of serious adverse events was significantly lower in the mifepristone group with 24 (14%) patients affected versus 55 (32%) in the placebo group (p = 0•0005) (Table 3). INTERPRETATION: Pre-treatment with mifepristone prior to misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in managing EPL. FUNDING: Healthcare Insurers Innovation Foundation, Radboud University Medical Centre, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital.

Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Female sterilization is one of the most common contraceptive methods. A small number of women, however, opt for reversal of sterilization procedures after they experience regret. Procedures can be performed by laparotomy or laparoscopy, with or without robotic assistance. Another commonly utilized alternative is IVF. The choice between surgery and IVF is often influenced by reimbursement politics for that particular geographic location. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We evaluated the fertility outcomes of different surgical methods available for the reversal of female sterilization, compared these to IVF and assessed the prognostic factors for success. SEARCH METHODS: Two search strategies were employed. Firstly, we searched for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies presenting fertility outcomes of sterilization reversal up to July 2016. Data on the following outcomes were collected: pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, cost of the procedure and operative time. Eligible study designs included prospective or retrospective studies, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series. No age restriction was applied. Exclusion criteria were patients suffering from tubal infertility from any other reason (e.g. infection, endometriosis and adhesions from previous surgery) and studies including <10 participants. The following factors likely to influence the success of sterilization reversal procedures were then evaluated: female age, BMI and duration and method of sterilization. Secondly, we searched for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies that compared reversal of sterilization to IVF and evaluated them for pregnancy outcomes and cost effectiveness. OUTCOMES: We included 37 studies that investigated a total of 10 689 women. No randomized controlled trials were found. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies of a moderate quality. The pooled pregnancy rate after sterilization reversal was 42-69%, with heterogeneity seen from the different methods utilized. The reported ectopic pregnancy rate was 4-8%. The only prognostic factor affecting the chance of conception was female age. The surgical approach (i.e. laparotomy [microscopic], laparoscopy or robotic) had no impact on the outcome, with the exception of the macroscopic laparotomic technique, which had inferior results and is not currently utilized. For older women, IVF could be a more cost-effective alternative for the reversal of sterilization. However, direct comparative data are lacking and a cut-off age cannot be stated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In sterilized women who suffer regret, surgical tubal re-anastomosis is an effective treatment, especially in younger women. However, there is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing the success rates and costs of surgical reversal with IVF.