-
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aug 2020Abortion and miscarriage are common, affecting millions of US women each year. By age 45, one in four women in the USA will have had an abortion, and at least as many... (Review)
Review
Abortion and miscarriage are common, affecting millions of US women each year. By age 45, one in four women in the USA will have had an abortion, and at least as many will have had a miscarriage. Most individuals seeking abortion services do so before 10 weeks' gestation when medication abortions are a safe and effective option, using a regimen of oral mifepristone followed by misoprostol tablets. When a pregnancy is non-viable before 13 weeks' gestation, it is referred to as an early pregnancy loss or miscarriage and can be managed using the same mifepristone and misoprostol regimen. Given their safety and efficacy, mifepristone and misoprostol can be offered in ambulatory settings without special equipment or on-site emergency services. As more patients find it difficult to access clinical care when faced with an undesired pregnancy or a miscarriage, it is important for general internists and primary care providers to become familiar with how to use medications to manage these common conditions. We summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of mifepristone with misoprostol for early abortion and miscarriage. We discuss clinical considerations and resources for integrating mifepristone and misoprostol into clinical practice. By learning to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol, clinicians can expand access to time-sensitive health services for vulnerable populations.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Middle Aged; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32410127
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-05836-9 -
Endocrine Reviews Oct 2020Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are a new class of compounds developed to target the progesterone receptor (PR) with a mix of agonist and antagonist... (Review)
Review
Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are a new class of compounds developed to target the progesterone receptor (PR) with a mix of agonist and antagonist properties. These compounds have been introduced for the treatment of several gynecological conditions based on the critical role of progesterone in reproduction and reproductive tissues. In patients with uterine fibroids, mifepristone and ulipristal acetate have consistently demonstrated efficacy, and vilaprisan is currently under investigation, while studies of asoprisnil and telapristone were halted for safety concerns. Mifepristone demonstrated utility for the management of endometriosis, while data are limited regarding the efficacy of asoprisnil, ulipristal acetate, telapristone, and vilaprisan for this condition. Currently, none of the SPRMs have shown therapeutic success in treating endometrial cancer. Multiple SPRMs have been assessed for efficacy in treating PR-positive recurrent breast cancer, with in vivo studies suggesting a benefit of mifepristone, and multiple in vitro models suggesting the efficacy of ulipristal acetate and telapristone. Mifepristone, ulipristal acetate, vilaprisan, and asoprisnil effectively treated heavy menstrual bleeding (HBM) in patients with uterine fibroids, but limited data exist regarding the efficacy of SPRMs for HMB outside this context. A notable class effect of SPRMs are benign, PR modulator-associated endometrial changes (PAECs) due to the actions of the compounds on the endometrium. Both mifepristone and ulipristal acetate are effective for emergency contraception, and mifepristone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 for the treatment of Cushing's syndrome due to its additional antiglucocorticoid effect. Based on current evidence, SPRMs show considerable promise for treatment of several gynecologic conditions.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Contraception, Postcoital; Endometrial Neoplasms; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Leiomyoma; Receptors, Progesterone; Receptors, Steroid
PubMed: 32365199
DOI: 10.1210/endrev/bnaa012 -
Australian Journal of General Practice Jun 2020Medical abortion (using mifepristone followed by misoprostol to end an early pregnancy) is a more accessible and less invasive option than surgical termination and can...
BACKGROUND
Medical abortion (using mifepristone followed by misoprostol to end an early pregnancy) is a more accessible and less invasive option than surgical termination and can be provided in primary care settings. However, few general practitioners (GPs) currently provide this service, and there remains great inequity in access to abortion across Australia, particularly for young women and those living in rural and remote area.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this article is to help Australian GPs better understand the practical and legal considerations of providing medical abortion to patients.
DISCUSSION
Provision of medical abortion is well within the scope of community general practice and improves the comprehensiveness of women's sexual and reproductive health services that GPs can deliver. This article will help GPs to better understand the process involved in providing medical abortion, including the practical considerations for patients; be better equipped to support patients who have decided that medical abortion is an appropriate choice for them; and make an informed decision as to whether to become a provider of medical abortion.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Australia; General Practice; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Physician-Patient Relations; Reproductive Health Services
PubMed: 32464732
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-02-20-5223 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34875106
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004044.pub5 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2022To compare immediate initiation with delayed initiation of medication abortion among patients with an undesired pregnancy of unknown location.
OBJECTIVE
To compare immediate initiation with delayed initiation of medication abortion among patients with an undesired pregnancy of unknown location.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study used electronic medical record data from the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (2014-2019) for patients who requested medication abortion with a last menstrual period (LMP) of 42 days or less and pregnancy of unknown location (no gestational sac) on initial ultrasonogram. Clinicians could initiate medication abortion with mifepristone followed by misoprostol while simultaneously excluding ectopic pregnancy with serial serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) testing (same-day-start group) or establish a diagnosis with serial hCG tests and repeat ultrasonogram before initiating treatment (delay-for-diagnosis group). We compared primary safety outcomes (time to diagnosis of pregnancy location [rule out ectopic], emergency department visits, adverse events, and nonadherence with follow-up) between groups. We also reported secondary efficacy outcomes: time to complete abortion, successful medication abortion (no uterine aspiration), and ongoing pregnancy.
RESULTS
Of 5,619 medication abortion visits for patients with an LMP of 42 days or less, 452 patients had pregnancy of unknown location (8.0%). Three patients underwent immediate uterine aspiration, 55 had same-day start, and 394 had delay for diagnosis. Thirty-one patients (7.9%), all in the delay-for-diagnosis group, were treated for ectopic pregnancy, including four that were ruptured. Among patients with no major ectopic pregnancy risk factors (n=432), same-day start had shorter time to diagnosis (median 5.0 days vs 9.0 days; P=.005), with no significant difference in emergency department visits (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.43-1.88) or nonadherence with follow-up (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.39-2.15). Among patients who proceeded with abortion (n=270), same-day start had shorter time to complete abortion (median 5.0 days vs 19.0 days; P<.001). Of those who had medication abortion with known outcome (n=170), the rate of successful medication abortion was lower (85.4% vs 96.7%; P=.013) and the rate of ongoing pregnancy was higher (10.4% vs 2.5%; P=.041) among patients in the same-day-start group.
CONCLUSION
In patients with undesired pregnancy of unknown location, immediate initiation of medication abortion is associated with more rapid exclusion of ectopic pregnancy and pregnancy termination but lower abortion efficacy.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35576336
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004756 -
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2020The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
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 μg 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/mvs ≥35 kg/m), 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.
Topics: Abortion, Missed; Adult; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32853559
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31788-8 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2023Adenomyosis is a common chronic gynecological disorder, and its treatment is an unmet need. New therapies need to be developed. Mifepristone is being tested for... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Adenomyosis is a common chronic gynecological disorder, and its treatment is an unmet need. New therapies need to be developed. Mifepristone is being tested for adenomyosis treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether mifepristone is effective and safe for adenomyosis treatment.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in 10 hospitals in China. In total, 134 patients with adenomyosis pain symptoms were enrolled. Trial enrollment began in May 2018 and was completed in April 2019, and analyses were conducted from October 2019 to February 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive mifepristone 10 mg or placebo orally once a day for 12 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was the change in adenomyosis-associated dysmenorrhea intensity, evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the change in menstrual blood loss, increased level of hemoglobin in patients with anemia, CA125 level, platelet count, and uterine volume after 12 weeks of treatment. Safety was assessed according to adverse events, vital signs, gynecological examinations, and laboratory evaluations.
RESULTS
In total, 134 patients with adenomyosis and dysmenorrhea were randomly assigned, and 126 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, including 61 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [4.6] years) randomized to receive mifepristone and 65 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [5.0] years) randomized to received the placebo. The characteristics of the included patients at baseline were similar between groups. The mean (SD) change in VAS score was -6.63 (1.92) in the mifepristone group and -0.95 (1.75) in the placebo group (P < .001). The total remission rates for dysmenorrhea in the mifepristone group were significantly better than those in the placebo group (effective remission: 56 patients [91.8%] vs 15 patients [23.1%]; complete remission: 54 patients [88.5%] vs 4 patients [6.2%]). All the secondary end points showed significant improvements after mifepristone treatment for menstrual blood loss, hemoglobin (mean [SD] change from baseline: 2.13 [1.38] g/dL vs 0.48 [0.97] g/dL; P < .001), CA125 (mean [SD] change from baseline: -62.23 [76.99] U/mL vs 26.89 [118.70] U/mL; P < .001), platelet count (mean [SD] change from baseline: -28.87 [54.30]×103/µL vs 2.06 [41.78]×103/µL; P < .001), and uterine volume (mean [SD] change from baseline: -29.32 [39.34] cm3 vs 18.39 [66.46] cm3; P < .001). Safety analysis revealed no significant difference between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This randomized clinical trial showed that mifepristone could be a new option for treating patients with adenomyosis, based on its efficacy and acceptable tolerability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03520439.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Middle Aged; Adenomyosis; Mifepristone; Hormone Antagonists; Dysmenorrhea; Pain; China; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37307001
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17860 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Abortion, Missed; Abortion, Spontaneous; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Vacuum Curettage; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 34061352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012602.pub2