Dataset Information

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for uterine evacuation after early pregnancy failure: study protocol for a randomized double blinded placebo-controlled comparison (Triple M Trial).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Early pregnancy failure (EPF) is a common complication of pregnancy. If women do not abort spontaneously, they will undergo medical or surgical treatment in order to remove the products of conception from the uterus. Curettage, although highly effective, is associated with a risk of complications; medical treatment with misoprostol is a safe and less expensive alternative. Unfortunately, after 1 week of expectant management in case of EPF, medical treatment with misoprostol has a complete evacuation rate of approximately 50%. Misoprostol treatment results may be improved by pre-treatment with mifepristone; its effectiveness has already been proven for other indications of pregnancy termination. This study will test the hypothesis that, in EPF, the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to the use of misoprostol alone in terms of complete evacuation (primary outcome), patient satisfaction, complications, side effects and costs (secondary outcomes). METHODS:The trial will be performed multi-centred, prospectively, two-armed, randomised, double-blinded and placebo-controlled. Women with confirmed EPF by ultrasonography (6-14?weeks), managed expectantly for at least 1 week, can be included and randomised to pre-treatment with oral mifepristone (600?mg) or oral placebo (identical in appearance). Randomisation will take place after receiving written consent to participate. In both arms pre-treatment will be followed by oral misoprostol, which will start 36-48?h later consisting of two doses 400??g (4 hrs apart), repeated after 24?h if no tissue is lost. Four hundred sixty-four women will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre. Ultrasonography 2 weeks after treatment will determine short term treatment effect. When the gestational sac is expulsed, expectant management is advised until 6 weeks after treatment when the definitive primary endpoint, complete or incomplete evacuation, will be determined. A sonographic endometrial thickness?

SUBMITTER: van den Berg J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6880504 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for uterine evacuation after early pregnancy failure: study protocol for a randomized double blinded placebo-controlled comparison (Triple M Trial).

van den Berg Joyce J Hamel Charlotte C CC Snijders Marcus P MP Coppus Sjors F SF Vandenbussche Frank P FP

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20191127 1

<h4>Background</h4>Early pregnancy failure (EPF) is a common complication of pregnancy. If women do not abort spontaneously, they will undergo medical or surgical treatment in order to remove the products of conception from the uterus. Curettage, although highly effective, is associated with a risk of complications; medical treatment with misoprostol is a safe and less expensive alternative. Unfortunately, after 1 week of expectant management in case of EPF, medical treatment with misoprostol ha ...[more]

PMID: 31775677

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 ?g 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.

Project description:BackgroundIn case of early pregnancy loss (EPL) women can either choose for expectant, medical or surgical management. One week of expectant management is known to lead to spontaneous abortion in approximately 50% of women. Medical treatment with misoprostol is known to be safe and less costly than surgical management, however less effective in reaching complete evacuation of the uterus. Recently, a number of trials showed that prompt treatment with the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone in reaching complete evacuation. In this analysis we evaluate whether the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared to misoprostol alone, in the treatment of EPL.Methods and findingsA cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a healthcare perspective was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which standard treatment with misoprostol only was compared with a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, in women with EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful management. A limited societal perspective scenario was added. This RCT, the Triple M trial, was a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial executed at 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The trial started on June 27th 2018, and ended prematurely in January 2020 due to highly significant outcomes from the predefined interim-analysis. We included 351 women with a diagnosis of EPL between 6 and 14 weeks gestation after at least one week of unsuccessful expectant management. They were randomized between double blinded pre-treatment with oral mifepristone 600mg (N = 175) or placebo (N = 176) taken on day one, both followed by misoprostol orally. In both groups, an intention-to-treat analysis was performed for 172 patients, showing a significant difference in success rates between participants treated with mifepristone and misoprostol versus those treated with misoprostol alone (79.1% vs 58.7% respectively). In this cost-effective analysis we measured the direct, medical costs related to treatment (planned and unplanned hospital visits, medication, additional treatment) and indirect costs based on the IMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY's) were calculated from participants' scores on the SF-36 questionnaires sent digitally at treatment start, and one, two and six weeks later. We found medical treatment with placebo followed by misoprostol to be 26% more expensive compared to mifepristone followed by misoprostol (p = 0.001). Mean average medical costs per patient were significantly lower in the mifepristone group compared to the placebo group (€528.95 ± 328.93 vs €663.77 ± 456.03, respectively; absolute difference €134.82, 95% CI 50,46-219,18, p = 0.002). Both indirect costs and QALY's were similar between both groups.ConclusionThe sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone, for treatment of EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful expectant management.

Project description:BackgroundA wide range of drugs have been studied for first trimester medical abortion. Studies evaluating different regimens, including combination mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone regimens, show varying results related to safety, efficacy and other outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review were to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion and to compare medical with surgical methods of abortion ≤63 days of gestation.MethodsPubmed and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through January 2019 using a combination of MeSH, keywords and text words. Randomized controlled trials on induced abortion at ≤63 days that compared different regimens of medical abortion using mifepristone and/or misoprostol and trials that compared medical with surgical methods of abortion were included. We extracted data into a pre-designed form, calculated effect estimates, and performed meta-analyses where possible. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and successful abortion.ResultsThirty-three studies composed of 22,275 participants were included in this review. Combined regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol had lower rates of ongoing pregnancy, higher rates of successful abortion and satisfaction compared to misoprostol only regimens. In combined regimens, misoprostol 800 μg was more effective than 400 μg. There was no significant difference in dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol and routes of misoprostol administration in combination or misoprostol alone regimens. The rate of serious adverse events was generally low.ConclusionIn this systematic review, we find that medical methods of abortion utilizing combination mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone are effective, safe and acceptable. More robust studies evaluating both the different combination and misoprostol alone regimens are needed to strengthen existing evidence as well as assess patient perspectives towards a particular regimen.

Project description:BackgroundThe Induction of labor is the most common obstetric procedure in daily practice. Introducing propranolol as a new drug to augment the action of prostaglandins will help in the induction process and decrease CS rates. Several researchers have used propranolol in the augmentation of labor.AimThis pilot study compares propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction in primigravids.MethodsThis is a Randomized clinical trial, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at Ain Shams University Maternity hospital. This study included 128 pregnant full-term primigravid women candidates for labor induction, randomized into two groups. All candidates underwent labor induction with 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol. Group I received 20 mg of oral propranolol tablets, while group II received sugary pills as a placebo. Candidates who responded successfully to induction were assessed for possible augmentation of labor by amniotomy or oxytocin infusion. The Primary outcome was induction to delivery interval, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of the latent phase, mode of delivery, and APGAR score of the neonate.ResultsThe induction-delivery time was (11.8 ± 8.1 h. vs. 12.6 ± 8.9 h., P value = 0.027) and the duration of the latent phase of labor (7.9 ± 5.6 h. vs. 9.2 ± 6.03 h., P value = 0.017) were significantly shorter in the group of misoprostol and propranolol compared to the group of misoprostol and placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups' mode of delivery, indications for cesarean section, misoprostol, and oxytocin doses, or neonatal outcome. (P value > 0.05).ConclusionPropranolol, when used with misoprostol for induction of labor, results in augmentation of action of misoprostol and a significantly shorter induction-delivery interval.Trial registrationWe retrospectively registered this trial in clinicaltrial.gov on 01/09/2020 (NCT04533841). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533841.

Project description:BackgroundUterine fibroids are the most common benign uterine tumours present in women of reproductive age. Mifepristone (RU-486) competitively binds and inhibits progesterone receptors. Studies have suggested that fibroid growth depends on the sexual steroids. Mifepristone has been shown to decrease fibroid size. This review summarises the effects of mifepristone treatment on fibroids and the associated adverse effects as described in randomised controlled trials.ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of mifepristone for the management of uterine fibroids in pre-menopausal women.Search methodsWe searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility (Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and subfertility Review Group), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (to November 2011). We handsearched a number of journals, and searched reference lists, databases of ongoing trials and the Internet. There were no language restrictions.Selection criteriaOnly truly randomised controlled trials of mifepristone versus other forms of medical therapy or placebo in pre-menopausal women with confirmed uterine fibroids were included.Data collection and analysisFour authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Data were analysed using the Peto odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and the weighted mean differences for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were performed using the fixed-effect model.Main resultsThree studies involving 112 participants were included. Comparison interventions included different dosages of mifepristone, placebo and vitamin B tablets. There is evidence that treatment with mifepristone relieves heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo (Peto OR 17.84; 95% CI 6.72 to 47.38; 2 RCTs, 77 women, I(2) = 0%). Three studies (Bagaria 2009; Engman 2009; Fiscella 2006) were included in the meta-analysis of this comparison. There was no evidence of an effect of mifepristone on the fibroid volume (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.41; 99 women). Two studies (Bagaria 2009; Fiscella 2006) were included in the meta-analysis of this comparison. There was no evidence of an effect of mifepristone on uterine volume (mean difference (MD) -77.24; 95% CI -240.62 to 86.14; 72 women). The pooled data suggest an increased adverse event (abnormal endometrial histology) in the mifepristone group compared to placebo (OR 31.65; 95% CI 4.83 to 207.35; 2 RCTs; 54 women; I(2) = 0%). Only one study (Bagaria 2009) reported endometrial hyperplasia at the end of the therapy (12/19 women in the mifepristone group versus 0/16 in the placebo group; OR 55.0; 95% CI 2.86 to 105.67). Engman 2009 found a significantly higher rate of cystic glandular dilatation in women in the mifepristone group (5/8 women biopsied) compared with the placebo group (1/11 women biopsied) (OR 16.67; 95% CI 1.36 to 204.03). One study (Fiscella 2006) suggested significant improvements (P < 0.001) for specific quality of life outcomes.Authors' conclusionsMifepristone reduced heavy menstrual bleeding and improved fibroid-specific quality of life. However, it was not found to reduce fibroid volume. Further well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are needed before a recommendation can be made on the use of mifepristone for the treatment of uterine fibroids.

Dataset Information

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for uterine evacuation after early pregnancy failure: study protocol for a randomized double blinded placebo-controlled comparison (Triple M Trial).

Publications

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for uterine evacuation after early pregnancy failure: study protocol for a randomized double blinded placebo-controlled comparison (Triple M Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets