Clinical and service delivery implications of omitting ultrasound before medication abortion provided via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail in the U.S.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes among patients who did or did not have pre-abortion ultrasound or pelvic exam before obtaining medication abortion (MA) via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from participants screened for enrollment into the TelAbortion study at five sites from March 25 to September 15, 2020. We compared participants who had preabortion ultrasound or pelvic exam ("test-MA") to those who did not ("no-test MA"). Outcomes were: abortion not complete with pills alone (i.e., had procedure intervention or ongoing pregnancy), ongoing pregnancy separately, ectopic pregnancy, hospitalization and/or blood transfusion, and unplanned clinical encounters. We used propensity score weighting and multivariable logistic regression to adjust for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Our analysis included 287 participants who had no-test MA and 125 who had test-MA. Abortion was not complete with pills alone in 16of 287 (5.6%) no-test MA patients compared to 2of 123 (1.9%) test-MA patients (adjusted risk difference [aRD] = 4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4%-7.1%). No ectopic pregnancies were detected. Groups did not differ regarding hospitalization and/or blood transfusion (p = 0.76) or ongoing pregnancy diagnosis (p = 0.59). Unplanned clinical encounters were more common in no-test MA patients (35of 287, 12.5%) than test-MA patients (10of 125, 8.0%, aRD = 6.7%, 95% CI: 0.5%-13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients who had pre-abortion ultrasound, patients who had no-test MA via telemedicine were more likely to have abortions that were not complete with pills alone and/or unplanned clinical encounters. However, both no-test and test-MA patients had similar and very low rates of ongoing pregnancy and hospitalization or blood transfusion. IMPLICATIONS: Omitting pre-abortion ultrasound before provision of medication abortion via telemedicine does not appear to compromise safety or result in more ongoing pregnancies. However, compared to patients who have preabortion ultrasound, patients who do not have pre-abortion tests may be more likely to seek post-treatment care and have procedural interventions.

"False positive" urine pregnancy test results after successful medication abortion.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the proportion of high-sensitivity urine pregnancy test (HSPT) results that were positive by time after successful medication abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from an ongoing study that provides mifepristone and misoprostol for medication abortion by direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail. Providers evaluated abortion outcomes by patient interview and clinical tests per clinical judgment and participant preference. We identified all participants enrolled July 2016 to September, 2020 who had an HSPT result and no indication of viable pregnancy after treatment. We used logistic regression to examine the association between the timing of the initial post-treatment HSPT, gestational age, and the proportion of HSPTs that gave a positive result. RESULTS: Of the 472 participants in our analysis, 88 (19%) had positive initial HSPTs. The proportions that were positive at ≤20 days, 21 to 27 days, 28 to 34 days, and ≥35 days after mifepristone ingestion was 14 of 29 (48%), 15 of 58 (26%), 49 of 258 (19%), and 10 of 127 (8%), respectively (p < 0.001). Gestational age at mifepristone ingestion was not significantly related to positive HSPT results (p = 0.28). Multivariable logistic regression confirmed both findings and did not identify a statistically significant interaction between these variables. In the 67 participants who relied solely on further HSPTs to confirm abortion outcome, the median interval between the initial positive test and first negative test was 14 days. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of participants with positive HSPTs declined with time after successful medication abortion. However, nearly one-fifth of participants with complete abortion had positive tests 4 weeks after treatment. IMPLICATIONS: HSPTs provide an inexpensive, convenient option for confirming success of medication abortion at home. However, a substantial minority of patients without ongoing pregnancy have positive HSPT results. Development of a symptom-based strategy for medication abortion outcome assessment without any confirmatory tests should be a priority.

Risk of pregnancy and external validity in clinical trials of emergency contraception.

OBJECTIVES: To compare women who enroll in emergency contraception (EC) trials to those who decline and to understand why eligible women decline to participate. METHODS: Data were collected from all women seeking EC (n = 5,787) at three clinics in the USA and UK during a period of nearly 1 year (from September 1997 to August 1998). The main outcome measures were pregnancy risk calculated by adjusted cycle day of ovulation. RESULTS: Enrolled and non-enrolled women had similar mean ages and similar mean cycle lengths. However, the enrolled and non-enrolled groups were different with respect to adjusted cycle day of unprotected sexual intercourse (UPSI), the regularity of their cycles, recent hormone use, breastfeeding, the number of other acts of UPSI they had engaged in during the same cycle, and their willingness to participate in the study. Expected pregnancy risk among enrolled patients was higher than among non-enrolled EC seekers (6.5% vs 5.0%, p<0.001, calculated using Dixon conception probabilities, and 5.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.086, calculated using Trussell conception probabilities). Unwillingness to take part in the study was the most common reason women did not enrol in the trial. Otherwise-eligible women most often declined to enrol because they were concerned about the effectiveness of the trial regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Women in EC trials are likely to face higher pregnancy risk than the general population. Clinical trials might overestimate the number of pregnancies averted by treatment because the number of expected pregnancies in trial populations is not representative of the population of all EC seekers. This information could be useful in projecting the public health impact of expanded EC access.

Modifying the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency contraceptives can prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. The best-studied regimen ("Yuzpe") consists of ordinary combined oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. Women traditionally take one dose within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, and a second dose 12 hours later. Historically, half experience nausea and a fifth vomit. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 1). women could use combined oral contraceptives other than those containing levonorgestrel and 2). eliminating the second dose improves comfort and convenience. METHODS: Women presenting within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse were randomized to receive 1). standard two-dose Yuzpe, 2). a variant of Yuzpe substituting norethindrone for levonorgestrel, or 3). only the first dose of Yuzpe, followed 12 hours later by a placebo. RESULTS: Perfect-use failure rates were low in all groups and did not differ in a statistically significant way (standard Yuzpe 2.0% [n = 589], norethindrone-ethinyl estradiol 2.7% [n = 547], single dose of Yuzpe 2.9% [n = 546]). Typical-use failure rates were slightly higher but similarly did not differ significantly. Side effects were similar across groups, except that women taking the single dose reported half the vomiting. Taking the pills with food did not seem to reduce nausea or vomiting, and the pills were not more effective when started sooner after unprotected intercourse. CONCLUSION: Oral contraceptives containing norethindrone-ethinyl estradiol work approximately as well for emergency contraception as levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol formulations and should be offered when first-line therapies are not available.

Differences between emergency contraception users in the United States and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: to characterize emergency contraception (EC) users and clinical trial participants in the United States and the United Kingdom, comparing previous EC use and awareness, contraceptive history, and experience with EC. METHODS: We collected data from all EC seekers (n=5383) at 1 US and 2 UK clinics (9/97-8/98). We also collected detailed information from women (n=2157) enrolling in an EC trial at the first 3 clinics and 2 additional UK sites (9/97-2/00). RESULTS: More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought EC. Fifty-eight percent of UK trial participants had used EC previously compared to 18% in the United States. Most participants in both groups used contraception regularly and reported needing EC because of condom breaks (67% and 56%). More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception (38% v 28%). US women reported more side effects at follow-up than UK women did (76% v 59%), although similar proportions would take EC again or recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: US and UK women in our trial experienced different side effects. Researchers should use caution when presenting aggregate results from international multicenter trials. In addition, readers should be aware that such aggregate results might mask important geographical differences. More research on experience with EC and barriers to contraceptive use in the United States is needed.