Medical management of early pregnancy loss is cost-effective compared with office uterine aspiration.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss, also referred to as miscarriage, is common, affecting approximately 1 million people in the United States annually. Early pregnancy loss can be treated with expectant management, medications, or surgical procedures-strategies that differ in patient experience, effectiveness, and cost. One of the medications used for early pregnancy loss treatment, mifepristone, is uniquely regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness from the healthcare sector perspective of medical management of early pregnancy loss, using the standard of care medication regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, with that of office uterine aspiration. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analytical model to compare the cost-effectiveness of early pregnancy loss treatment with medical management with that of office uterine aspiration. Data on medical management came from the Pregnancy Failure Regimens randomized clinical trial, and data on uterine aspiration came from the published literature. The analysis was from the healthcare sector perspective with a 30-day time horizon. Costs were in 2018 US dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjust life-years gained and the rate of complete gestational sac expulsion with no additional interventions. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjust life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key uncertainties. RESULTS: Mean per-person costs were higher for uterine aspiration than for medical management ($828 [95% confidence interval, $789-$868] vs $661 [95% confidence interval, $556-$766]; P=.004). Uterine aspiration more frequently led to complete gestational sac expulsion than medical management (97.3% vs 83.8%; P=.0001); however, estimated quality-adjust life-years were higher for medical management than for uterine aspiration (0.082 [95% confidence interval, 0.8148-0.08248] vs 0.079 [95% confidence interval, 0.0789-0.0791]; P<.0001). Medical management dominated uterine aspiration, with lower costs and higher confidence interval. The probability that medical management is cost-effective relative to uterine aspiration is 97.5% for all willingness-to-pay values of ≥$5600/quality-adjust life-year. Sensitivity analysis did not identify any thresholds that would substantially change outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although office-based uterine aspiration more often results in treatment completion without further intervention, medical management with mifepristone pretreatment costs less and yields similar quality-adjust life-years, making it an attractive alternative. Our findings provided evidence that increasing access to mifepristone and eliminating unnecessary restrictions will improve early pregnancy care.

Implementation of an HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Strategy Into Abortion and Early Pregnancy Loss Care.

BACKGROUND: Family planning and abortion clinics routinely address sexual health. We sought to evaluate implementation outcomes of an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care strategy for patients seeking management of induced abortion and pregnancy loss. SETTING: Single-center, urban, academic, hospital-based family planning service. METHODS: We used a multifaceted implementation strategy directed toward family planning providers comprised of educational sessions, an electronic medical record-prompted verbal assessment of HIV risk, electronic medical record shortcuts for PrEP prescription, and support of a PrEP navigator. We assessed penetration of the intervention by calculating the penetration of a PrEP offer, measured as the proportion of encounters in which PrEP was offered to PrEP-eligible individuals. We evaluated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention using belief elicitation interviews with providers. RESULTS: From November 2018 to April 2019, the proportion of PrEP eligible patients who were offered PrEP, was 87.9% (29/33). Providers found the intervention acceptable and appropriate, but reported barriers including time constraints, and disappointment if patients did not adhere to PrEP. Providers liked that PrEP provision in abortion care settings felt innovative, and that they could contribute to HIV prevention. CONCLUSION: Family planning providers in an academic center found HIV risk assessment and PrEP provision to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate. Further research should evaluate implementation outcomes of PrEP care strategies in additional abortion care contexts, including clinics offering reproductive health care outside of academia.