Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: Screening for medication abortion eligibility typically includes ultrasonography or pelvic examination. To reduce physical contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinicians stopped requiring tests before medication abortion and instead screened patients for pregnancy duration and ectopic pregnancy risk by history alone. However, few US-based studies have been conducted on the outcomes and safety of this novel model of care. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and safety of a history-based screening, no-test approach to medication abortion care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients obtaining a medication abortion without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination between February 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, at 14 independent, Planned Parenthood, academic-affiliated, and online-only clinics throughout the US. Exposures: Medications for abortion provided without preabortion ultrasonography or pelvic examination and dispensed to patients in person or by mail. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness, defined as complete abortion after 200 µg of mifepristone and up to 1600 µg of misoprostol without additional intervention, and major abortion-related adverse events, defined as hospital admission, major surgery, or blood transfusion. Results: The study included data on 3779 patients with eligible abortions. The study participants were racially and ethnically diverse and included 870 (23.0%) Black patients, 533 (14.1%) Latinx/Hispanic patients, 1623 (42.9%) White patients, and 327 (8.7%) who identified as multiracial or with other racial or ethnic groups. For most (2626 [69.5%]), it was their first medication abortion. Patients lived in 34 states, and 2785 (73.7%) lived in urban areas. In 2511 (66.4%) abortions, the medications were dispensed in person; in the other 1268 (33.6%), they were mailed to the patient. Follow-up data were obtained for 2825 abortions (74.8%), and multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Across the sample, 12 abortions (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.18%-0.90%) were followed by major abortion-related adverse events, and 4 patients (0.22%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.45%) were treated for ectopic pregnancies. Follow-up identified 9 (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.84%) patients who had pregnancy durations of greater than 70 days on the date the mifepristone was dispensed that were not identified at screening. The adjusted effectiveness rate was 94.8% (95% CI, 93.6%-95.9%). Effectiveness was similar when medications were dispensed in person (95.4%; 95% CI, 94.1%-96.7%) or mailed (93.3%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, screening for medication abortion eligibility by history alone was effective and safe with either in-person dispensing or mailing of medications, resulting in outcomes similar to published rates of models involving ultrasonography or pelvic examination. This approach may facilitate more equitable access to this essential service by increasing the types of clinicians and locations offering abortion care.

"It was close enough, but it wasn't close enough": A qualitative exploration of the impact of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion on access to abortion care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how obtaining a medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling versus traditional in-clinic care impacted participants' access to care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who completed a medication abortion by mail through the TelAbortion study. We asked participants how they learned about telemedicine abortion, reasons for choosing it, what their alternative would have been, and about their experience. We transcribed, coded, and performed qualitative content analysis of the interviews and are presenting a subset of themes related to access to care when the restrictions on clinic dispensing of mifepristone are removed. RESULTS: We interviewed 45 people from January to July 2020. Direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion was more convenient and accessible than in-clinic abortion care when considering the burdens of travel, clinic availability, logistics, and cost that were associated with in-clinic abortion. Stigma led to a prioritization of privacy, and by going to a clinic, participants feared a loss of privacy whereas obtaining a medication abortion by mail made it easier to maintain confidentiality. Faced with these barriers, 13% of participants stated they would have continued their pregnancy if TelAbortion had not been an option. Participants found direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be acceptable and recommended it to others. Benefits of telemedicine were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns around infection exposure with in-clinic care. CONCLUSION: Going to a clinic was a burden for participants, to the point where some would not have otherwise been able to get an abortion. Medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling was a highly acceptable alternative. IMPLICATIONS: Medication abortion by mail can increase access to abortion with the added benefits of increased perceived privacy and decreased logistical burdens. Removing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would allow direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be implemented outside of a research setting without compromising the patient experience.

Provision of medication abortion in Hawai'i during COVID-19: Practical experience with multiple care delivery models.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effectiveness of medication abortion with the implementation of telemedicine and a no-test protocol in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had a medication abortion up to 77 days gestation at the University of Hawai'i between April and November 2020. Patients had the option of traditional in clinic care or telemedicine with either in clinic pickup or mailing of medications. During this time, a no-test protocol for medication abortion without prior labs or ultrasound was in place for eligible patients. The primary outcome was the rate of successful medication abortion without surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes included abortion-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were dispensed mifepristone and misoprostol, 149 (44.6%) with telemedicine with in-person pickup of medications, 75 (22.5%) via telemedicine with medications mailed, and 110 (32.9%) via traditional in person visits. The overall rate of complete medication abortion without surgical intervention was 95.8%, with success rates of 96.8, 97.1, and 93.6% for the clinic pickup, mail, and clinic visit groups, respectively. Success for those without an ultrasound performed prior to the procedure was 96.6%, compared to 95.5% for those with ultrasound. We obtained follow-up data for 87.8% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Medication abortion was safe and effective while offering multiple modes of care delivery including telemedicine visits without an ultrasound performed prior to dispensing medications. IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating telemedicine and a no-test protocol for medication abortion is safe and has the potential to expand access to abortion care. All care models had low rates of adverse events, which contradicts the idea that the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategyincreases the safety of medication abortion.