Management of early pregnancy loss among obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts and barriers to mifepristone use

被引:6
作者
Neill, Sara [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Hoe, Emily [1 ,3 ]
Fortin, Jennifer [4 ]
Goldberg, Alisa B. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Janiak, Elizabeth [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Boston, MA USA
[4] ASPIRE Ctr Sexual & Reprod Hlth, Planned Parenthood League Massachusetts, Boston, MA USA
[5] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Boston, MA USA
关键词
Abortion; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Manual vacuum aspiration; Miscarriage; Misoprostol; Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies; Program (REMS); ABORTION PROVISION; MISCARRIAGE; REFERRALS; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110108
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives: To measure the prevalence of early pregnancy loss management types among obstetrician-gy-necologists in Massachusetts, and delineate barriers, facilitators, demographic and practice-related factors associated with mifepristone use for early pregnancy loss. Study design: We surveyed a census of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts. Descriptive statistics measured the prevalence of offering expectant, misoprostol-alone, mifepristone and misoprostol, dilation and curettage in the office and operating room, and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated barriers and facilitators to mifepristone use. Data were weighted to account for nonresponders. Results: 198 obstetrician-gynecologists responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Participants most commonly offered expectant management (98%), dilation and curettage in the operating room (94%), and misoprostol-only medication management (80%). Fewer offered mifepristone-misoprostol (51%) or dilation and curettage in an office setting (45%). Those in private practice or other practice types had lower odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol than those in academic practice (private practice: aOR 0.34, 95% con-fidence interval [CI] [0.19, 0.61]). Female physicians had higher odds of offering mifepristone-misoprostol (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.11, 3.49]). Obstetrician-gynecologists who included medication abortion in their practice had much higher odds of using mifepristone for early pregnancy loss (aOR 25.06, 95% CI [14.52, 43.24]). The Food and Drug Administration Risk and Evaluation Management Strategies Program was a primary barrier among those not using mifepristone (54%). Conclusions: Many obstetrician-gynecologists do not offer mifepristone-based regimens for early pregnancy loss, which are more efficacious than misoprostol-only regimens. The Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program is a major barrier to mifepristone use. Implications: Half of obstetrician-gynecologists in Massachusetts do not use mifepristone for early preg-nancy loss management. Major barriers include lack of experience with mifepristone and the Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Program regulations. Removing medically un-necessary regulations and increasing education on mifepristone via access to abortion care experts may increase uptake of this practice. (c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Early Pregnancy Loss [J].
Prager, Sarah ;
Dalton, Vanessa K. ;
Allen, Rebecca H. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 132 (05) :E197-E207
[2]   Remind Me Again: Physician Response to Web Surveys: The Effect of Email Reminders Across 11 Opinion Survey Efforts at the American Board of Internal Medicine from 2017 to 2019 [J].
Barnhart, Brendan J. ;
Reddy, Siddharta G. ;
Arnold, Gerald K. .
EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2021, 44 (03) :245-259
[3]  
Belluck P., 2023, The New York Times
[4]   Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [J].
Chu, Justin J. ;
Devall, Adam J. ;
Beeson, Leanne E. ;
Hardy, Pollyanna ;
Cheed, Versha ;
Sun, Yongzhong ;
Roberts, Tracy E. ;
Ogwulu, C. Okeke ;
Williams, Eleanor ;
Jones, Laura L. ;
Papadopoulos, Jenny H. La Fontaine ;
Bender-Atik, Ruth ;
Brewin, Jane ;
Hinshaw, Kim ;
Choudhary, Meenakshi ;
Ahmed, Amna ;
Naftalin, Joel ;
Nunes, Natalie ;
Oliver, Abigail ;
Izzat, Feras ;
Bhatia, Kalsang ;
Hassan, Ismail ;
Jeve, Yadava ;
Hamilton, Judith ;
Deb, Shilpa ;
Bottomley, Cecilia ;
Ross, Jackie ;
Watkins, Linda ;
Underwood, Martyn ;
Cheong, Ying ;
Kumar, Chitra S. ;
Gupta, Pratima ;
Small, Rachel ;
Pringle, Stewart ;
Hodge, Frances ;
Shahid, Anupama ;
Gallos, Ioannis D. ;
Horne, Andrew W. ;
Quenby, Siobhan ;
Coomarasamy, Arri .
LANCET, 2020, 396 (10253) :770-778
[5]  
Danco Laboratories. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011, Initial REMS Approval: NDA 20-687
[6]   Estimating abortion provision and abortion referrals among United States obstetrician-gynecologists in private practice [J].
Desai, Sheila ;
Jones, Rachel K. ;
Castle, Kate .
CONTRACEPTION, 2018, 97 (04) :297-302
[7]  
Flanigan T.S., 2008, P SURVEY RES METHODS, P4136
[8]   Induced Abortion Provision Among a National Sample of Obstetrician-Gynecologists [J].
Grossman, Daniel ;
Grindlay, Kate ;
Altshuler, Anna L. ;
Schulkin, Jay .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 133 (03) :477-483
[9]  
Holt K, 2017, FAM MED, V49, P527
[10]   Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2020 [J].
Jones, Rachel K. ;
Kirstein, Marielle ;
Philbin, Jesse .
PERSPECTIVES ON SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2022, 54 (04) :128-141