Pain management for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Medical abortion is known to be a painful process, but the optimal method of pain management is unclear. We sought to identify and compare pain management regimens for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted our search in August 2019 and included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: We included four RCTs and one observational study. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, meta-analysis was not possible. Only one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000mg (MD 2.26/10 [CI 3-1.52 lower]). For other interventions (pregabalin 300mg vs placebo; ibuprofen 800mg vs placebo; therapeutic vs prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800mg; ambulation vs non-ambulation during treatment) there appeared to be little to no difference with comparator. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review provide some support for the use of ibuprofen as a single dose given with misoprostol prophylactically, or in response to pain as needed. The optimal dosing of ibuprofen is unclear, but a single dose of ibuprofen 1600mg was shown to be effective and it was less certain whether 800mg was effective.

Uptake of long-acting reversible contraception after telemedicine delivered abortion during Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19, early medical abortion (EMA) at home in Scotland was largely delivered by telemedicine. Short-acting post-abortion contraception was provided with EMA medications, but long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (implant, injectable and intrauterine device) required an in-person visit. We wished to assess LARC uptake following telemedicine abortion, and factors associated with method receipt. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study of patients accessing abortion via NHS Lothian (October 2020 to February 2021). Patients were offered contraception at telemedicine consultation and their choice was recorded in their clinical notes. Those wishing LARC were directed to the service's rapid-access LARC clinic. We reviewed electronic patient records six weeks post-abortion to determine whether patients received their chosen method. RESULTS: 944 patients had an abortion; 768 (81.4%) had EMA, 131 (13.9%) had a medical or surgical abortion in hospital. The most popular contraceptive method was the progestogen-only pill (n = 324, 34%). 330 patients (35%) requested LARC but less than half (153/330; 46%) received this. Of patients choosing LARC, those who attended the clinic for a pre-abortion ultrasound, or had an abortion in hospital, were more likely to initiate LARC than those having full telemedicine EMA. Nulliparity, gestation over 7 weeks, and age under-26 years were also positively associated with initiating LARC. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19 there was demand for post-abortion LARC but less than half of patients received this by six weeks. Provision was enhanced when in-person clinical interactions took place. Interventions are required to facilitate timely access and initiation of LARC with telemedicine delivered abortion care.

Pain management for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation.

BACKGROUND: Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Medical abortion is known to be a painful process, but the optimal method of pain management is unclear. We sought to identify and compare pain management regimens for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation.  OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine if there is evidence of superiority of any particular pain relief regimen in the management of combination medical abortion (mifepristone + misoprostol) under 14 weeks' gestation (i.e. up to 13 + 6 weeks or 97 days). Secondary objectives To compare the rate of gastrointestinal side effects resulting from different methods of analgesia To compare the rate of complete abortion resulting from different methods of analgesia during medical abortion To determine if the induction-to-abortion interval is associated with different methods of analgesia To determine if any method of analgesia is associated with unscheduled contact with the care provider in relation to pain. SEARCH METHODS: On 21 August 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov together with reference checking and handsearching of conference abstracts of relevant learned societies and professional organisations to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs)) of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks' gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JRW and MA) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion with a third and fourth author as required (CM and SC). Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs and one NRSI. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, we were unable to perform meta-analysis for any of the primary or secondary outcomes in this review. Only one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000 mg (mean difference (MD) 2.26 out of 10 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00 to 1.52 lower; 1 RCT 108 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing pregabalin 300 mg with placebo (MD 0.5 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 1.41 lower to 0.41 higher; 1 RCT, 107 women; low-certainty evidence).  There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing ibuprofen 800 mg with placebo (MD 1.4 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 3.33 lower to 0.53 higher; 1 RCT, 61 women; low-certainty evidence). Ambulation or non-ambulation during medical abortion treatment may have little to no effect on pain score, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.1 out of 5 higher, 95% CI 0.26 lower to 0.46 higher; 1 NRSI, 130 women; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800 mg (MD 0.2 out of 10 higher, 95% CI 0.41 lower to 0.81 higher; 1 RCT, 228 women; low-certainty evidence).   Other outcomes of interest were reported inconsistently across studies. Where these outcomes were reported, there was no evidence of difference in incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, complete abortion rate, interval between misoprostol administration to pregnancy expulsion, unscheduled contact with a care provider, patient satisfaction with analgesia regimen nor patient satisfaction with abortion experience overall. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review provide some support for the use of ibuprofen as a single dose given with misoprostol prophylactically, or in response to pain as needed. The optimal dosing of ibuprofen is unclear, but a single dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg was shown to be effective, and it was less certain whether 800 mg was effective. Paracetamol 2000 mg does not improve pain scores as much as ibuprofen 1600 mg, however its use does not appear to cause greater frequency of side effects or reduce the success of the abortion. A single dose of pregabalin 300 mg does not affect pain scores during medical abortion, but like paracetamol, does not appear to cause harm. Ambulation or non-ambulation during the medical abortion procedure does not appear to affect pain scores, outcomes, or duration of treatment and so women can be advised to mobilise or not, as they wish. The majority of outcomes in this review had low- to very low-certainty evidence, primarily due to small sample sizes and two studies at high risk of bias. High-quality, large-scale RCT research is needed for pain management during medical abortion at gestations less than 14 weeks. Consistent recording of pain with a validated measure would be of value to the field going forward.

Utility of a routine ultrasound for detection of ectopic pregnancies among women requesting abortion: a retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Routine ultrasound may be used in abortion services to determine gestational age and confirm an intrauterine pregnancy. However, ultrasound adds complexity to care and results may be inconclusive, delaying abortion. We sought to determine the rate of ectopic pregnancy and the utility of routine ultrasound in its detection, in a community abortion service. METHODS: Retrospective case record review of women requesting abortion over a 5-year period (2015-2019) with an outcome of ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) at a service (Edinburgh, UK) conducting routine ultrasound on all women. Records were searched for symptoms at presentation, development of symptoms during clinical care, significant risk factors and routine ultrasound findings. RESULTS: Only 29/11 381 women (0.25%, 95% CI 0.18%, 0.33%) had an ectopic pregnancy or PUL (tubal=18, caesarean scar=1, heterotopic=1, PUL=9). Eleven (38%) cases had either symptoms at presentation (n=8) and/or significant risk factors for ectopic pregnancy (n=4). A further 12 women developed symptoms during their clinical care. Of the remaining six, three were PUL treated with methotrexate and three were ectopic (salpingectomy=2, methotrexate=1). In three cases, the baseline ultrasound indicated a probable early intrauterine pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Ectopic pregnancies are uncommon among women presenting for abortion. The value of routine ultrasound in excluding ectopic pregnancy in symptom-free women without significant risk factors is questionable as it may aid detection of some cases but may provide false reassurance that a pregnancy is intrauterine.

Medical Abortion before Confirmed Intrauterine Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

"Very early medical abortion" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is to present the current evidence on efficacy, safety (focused on ectopic pregnancies), and how to assess treatment success of VEMA. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of VEMA. The field is small and so our objective was to map all relevant literature, without conducting meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase on April 19, 2022. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. A total of 373 articles were identified. Six articles (representing four observational and one pilot trial) were included in the final review. Across all included studies, treatment efficacy ranged between 91 and 100%. Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was low and very few cases (n = 2) of ruptures were reported. Most studies used serial serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (s-hCG) levels to determine success of abortion; one study used low sensitivity urine hCG. From the available evidence, VEMA appears to be efficacious and does not appear to cause harm to ectopic pregnancies. Treatment can be assessed with pre- and postabortion s-hCG. Good quality, randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to best inform practice.

Will Men Use Novel Male Contraceptive Methods and Will Women Trust Them? A Systematic Review.

Novel male contraceptives have been in development for almost as long as female methods, yet there are no products available on the market. Hormonal approaches tested clinically to date include the use of oral, injectable, implant and transdermal methods. The study of attitudes toward male contraception has been inconsistent and there have been no systematic reviews drawing these data together. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence for male and female acceptability of novel male contraception. We identified 32 studies and present a narrative synthesis of quantitative data and a thematic synthesis of qualitative data. In novel drug trials, the proportion of male participants willing to use a male contraceptive ranged from 34.0% to as high as 82.3%. In studies regarding hypothetical drugs, male willingness to use ranged from 13.6% to 83.0%. High proportions of women (42.8%-94.0%) reported willingness to use a novel male method in both hypothetical studies and actual drug trials. In qualitative studies, both men and women expressed the desire to share responsibility for contraception. There is consistent interest among both men and women in novel male contraceptive methods and willingness to use them. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020173281.

Information on early medical abortion for women using an audiovisual animation vs face-to-face consultation: A consortium randomized and quasi-randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is some evidence that audiovisual formats can be an effective way of providing information about early medical abortion (EMA). A short animation (3 minutes) was developed about EMA in three languages that summarized the EMA process for use in the UK, France and Sweden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare information on EMA delivered by an animated film vs a face-to-face consultation. Women requesting EMA (≤9 weeks' gestation) from abortion clinics in Edinburgh (UK), Paris (France) and Stockholm (Sweden) were recruited. The primary outcome was women's recall of prespecified key information on EMA. Secondary outcomes were acceptability of mode of information delivery, clarity and helpfulness of information rated on a Likert scale. The study was prospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov, ID number: NCT03417362. RESULTS: 172 women completed the study (Edinburgh = 50, Paris = 78, Stockholm = 48). There was no statistically significant difference in recall scores between the animation and standard arms in Edinburgh and Stockholm sites. However, the difference between arms at the Paris site was statistically significant (P = .007) in favor of the animation. All participants in the animation arm rated it as an acceptable way to receive information on EMA. CONCLUSIONS: A "short" audiovisual animation can adequately and acceptably deliver key information about EMA. This intervention could be used routinely to provide standardized and high-quality information to women seeking EMA.