Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Misoprostol in the Treatment of Incomplete Miscarriage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of misoprostol in the treatment of incomplete miscarriage.

Data sources The PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases (clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for the relevant articles, and search strategies were developed using a combination of thematic Medical Subject Headings terms and text words. The last search was conducted on July 4, 2022. No language restrictions were applied.

Selection of studies Randomized clinical trials with patients of gestational age up to 6/7 weeks with a diagnosis of incomplete abortion and who were managed with at least 1 of the 3 types of treatment studied were included. A total of 8,087 studies were screened.

Data collection Data were synthesized using the statistical package Review Manager V.5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). For dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived for each study. Heterogeneity between the trial results was evaluated using the standard test, I² statistic.

Data synthesis When comparing misoprostol with medical vacuum aspiration (MVA), the rate of complete abortion was higher in the MVA group (OR = 0.16; 95%CI = 0.07–0.36). Hemorrhage or heavy bleeding was more common in the misoprostol group (OR = 3.00; 95%CI = 1.96–4.59), but pain after treatment was more common in patients treated with MVA (OR = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.52–0.80). No statistically significant differences were observed in the general acceptability of the treatments.

Conclusion Misoprostol has been determined as a safe option with good acceptance by patients.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a eficácia, segurança e aceitabilidade do misoprostol no tratamento do aborto incompleto.

Fontes de dados Os bancos de dados PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library e bancos de dados de Ensaios Clínicos (clinicaltrials.gov) foram pesquisados para os artigos relevantes, e estratégias de busca foram desenvolvidas usando uma combinação de termos temáticos de Medical Subject Headings e palavras de texto. A última pesquisa foi realizada em 4 de julho de 2022. Nenhuma restrição de idioma foi aplicada.

Seleção dos estudos Foram incluídos ensaios clínicos randomizados com pacientes com idade gestacional até 6/7 semanas com diagnóstico de aborto incompleto e que foram manejadas com pelo menos um dos três tipos de tratamento estudados. Um total de 8.087 estudos foram selecionados.

Coleta de dados Os dados foram sintetizados usando o pacote estatístico Review Manager V.5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Para resultados dicotômicos, o odds ratio (OR, na sigla em inglês) e o intervalo de confiança (IC) de 95% foram derivados para cada estudo. A heterogeneidade entre os resultados do ensaio foi avaliada usando o teste padrão, estatística I².

Síntese dos dados Ao comparar misoprostol com aspiração a vácuo médico (MVA, na sigla em inglês), a taxa de aborto completo foi maior no grupo MVA (OR = 0,16; IC95% = 0,07–0,36). Hemorragia ou sangramento intenso foi mais comum no grupo do misoprostol (OR = 3,00; 95%CI = 1,96–4,59), mas a dor após o tratamento foi mais comum em pacientes tratados com MVA (OR = 0,65; 95%CI = 0,52–0,80). Não foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas na aceitabilidade geral dos tratamentos.

Conclusão O misoprostol tem se mostrado uma opção segura e com boa aceitação pelos pacientes.

Publication History

Received: 29 November 2022

Accepted: 28 July 2023

Article published online:
23 December 2023

© 2023. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Ganatra B, Tunçalp Ö, Johnston HB, Johnson Jr BR, Gülmezoglu AM, Temmerman M. From concept to measurement: operationalizing WHO's definition of unsafe abortion. Bull World Health Organ 2014; 92 (03) 155
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A. et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2014; 2 (06) e323-e333
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Diniz D, Medeiros M, Madeiro A. Pesquisa Nacional de Aborto 2016. Cien Saude Colet 2017; 22: 653-660
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 World Health Organization & Reproductive Health And Research. Medical Management of Abortion. 2018 . Open Worldcat, Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536779/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology, Society of Family Planning. Medication Abortion Up to 70 Days of Gestation: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 225. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (04) e31-e47
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Sotiriadis A, Makrydimas G, Papatheodorou S, Ioannidis JP. Expectant, medical, or surgical management of first-trimester miscarriage: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (5 Pt 1): 1104-1113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 World Health Organization. WHO: recommended definitions, terminology and format for statistical tables related to the perinatal period and use of a new certificate for cause of perinatal deaths. Modifications recommended by FIGO as amended October 14, 1976. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977; 56 (03) 247-253
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kulier R, Kapp N, Gülmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, Cheng L, Campana A. Medical methods for first trimester abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2011 (11) CD002855
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Kapp N, Eckersberger E, Lavelanet A, Rodriguez MI. Medical abortion in the late first trimester: a systematic review. Contraception 2019; 99 (02) 77-86
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD. et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928-d5928
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P. et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (04) 407-415
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Igogo P, Karanja J, Kamau K, Tamooh H. Use of misoprostol for incomplete abortion in resource-poor settings. Contraception 2015; 92 (04) 370
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Hamel C, Coppus S, van den Berg J, Hink E, van Seeters J, van Kesteren P. et al. 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. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 32: 100716 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100716.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Chu JJ, Devall AJ, Beeson LE, Hardy P, Cheed V, Sun Y. et al. Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2020; 396 (10253): 770-778
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Sinha P, Suneja A, Guleria K, Aggarwal R, Vaid NB. Comparison of mifepristone followed by misoprostol with misoprostol alone for treatment of early pregnancy failure: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. J Obstet Gynecol India 2018; 68 (01) 39-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Flynn AN, Roe AH, Koelper N, McAllister A, Sammel MD, Schreiber CA. Timing and efficacy of mifepristone pretreatment for medical management of early pregnancy loss. Contraception 2021; 103 (06) 404-407
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Schreiber CA, Creinin MD, Atrio J, Sonalkar S, Ratcliffe SJ, Barnhart KT. Mifepristone pretreatment for the medical management of early pregnancy loss. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (23) 2161-2170
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Sonalkar S, Koelper N, Creinin MD, Atrio JM, Sammel MD, McAllister A. et al. Management of early pregnancy loss with mifepristone and misoprostol: clinical predictors of treatment success from a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (04) 551.e1-551.e7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Das CM, Sharma M, Pardeep K, Khurshid F. To Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Manual Vacuum Aspiration with Misoprostol (ST mom) 600mg in Incomplete Miscarriage. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci 2014; 13 (03) 93-96
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Ibiyemi KF, Ijaiya MA, Adesina KT. Randomised Trial of Oral Misoprostol Versus Manual Vacuum Aspiration for the Treatment of Incomplete Abortion at a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2019; 19 (01) e38-e43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Montesinos R, Durocher J, León W, Arellano M, Peña M, Pinto E. et al. Oral misoprostol for the management of incomplete abortion in Ecuador. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115 (02) 135-139
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Nwafor JI, Agwu UM, Egbuji CC, Ekwedigwe KC. Misoprostol versus manual vacuum aspiration for treatment of first-trimester incomplete miscarriage in a low-resource setting: A randomized controlled trial. Niger J Clin Pract 2020; 23 (05) 638-646
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Dabash R, Ramadan MC, Darwish E, Hassanein N, Blum J, Winikoff B. A randomized controlled trial of 400-μg sublingual misoprostol versus manual vacuum aspiration for the treatment of incomplete abortion in two Egyptian hospitals. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 111 (02) 131-135
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Chigbu B, Onwere S, Aluka C, Kamanu C, Ezenobi O. Is Misoprostol a Suitable Alternative to the Surgical Evacuation of Incomplete Abortion in Rural South-Eastern Nigeria?. East Afr Med J 2012; 89 (05) 172-177
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Taylor J, Diop A, Blum J, Dolo O, Winikoff B. Oral misoprostol as an alternative to surgical management for incomplete abortion in Ghana. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112 (01) 40-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Ani VC, Enebe JT, Dim CC, Dim NR, Ozumba BC. Sublingual misoprostol versus manual vacuum aspiration for treatment of incomplete abortion in Nigeria: a randomized control study. Pan Afr Med J 2022; 41: 90
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Shochet T, Diop A, Gaye A, Nayama M, Sall AB, Bukola F. et al. Sublingual misoprostol versus standard surgical care for treatment of incomplete abortion in five sub-Saharan African countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 127
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Huong NT, Austamyan K, Cabezas E, Gomez M. et al; WHO Research Group on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Efficacy of two intervals and two routes of administration of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet 2007; 369 (9577) 1938-1946 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60914-3.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Sheldon WR, Durocher J, Dzuba IG, Sayette H, Martin R, Velasco MC. et al. Early abortion with buccal versus sublingual misoprostol alone: a multicenter, randomized trial. Contraception 2019; 99 (05) 272-277 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.02.002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Ng BK, Annamalai R, Lim PS, Aqmar Suraya S, Nur Azurah AG, Muhammad Abdul Jamil MY. Outpatient versus inpatient intravaginal misoprostol for the treatment of first trimester incomplete miscarriage: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291 (01) 105-113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Trinder J, Brocklehurst P, Porter R, Read M, Vyas S, Smith L. Management of miscarriage: expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial). BMJ 2006; 332 (7552) 1235-1240
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Smith LFP, Ewings PD, Quinlan C. Incidence of pregnancy after expectant, medical, or surgical management of spontaneous first trimester miscarriage: long term follow-up of miscarriage treatment (MIST) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009; 339: b3827-b3827
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Ghosh J, Papadopoulou A, Devall AJ, Jeffrey HC, Beeson LE, Do V. et al. Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6 (06) CD012602
  PubMedGoogle Scholar