OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively assess the teratogenic risk to offspring associated with continuing pregnancy after administering mifepristone and/or misoprostol during gestation.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and CBM, from their inception to February 2024, with no language restrictions. We included cohort and case-control studies that analyzed the teratogenic effects of mifepristone and/or misoprostol on fetuses and newborns. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The odds ratios (OR) from individual studies were combined using meta-analysis. Sensitivity testing and heterogeneity analysis were conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were eligible for inclusion, comprising 5193 cases of congenital malformations and 12,232 controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that the use of misoprostol during early pregnancy increased the risk of congenital abnormalities in offspring (OR = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.57-4.62). However, the potential teratogenic effect of mifepristone during pregnancy cannot be ruled out. Additionally, the use of mifepristone and/or misoprostol has been linked to a higher risk of certain congenital anomalies, such as hydrocephalus (OR = 3.41; 95% CI: 1.17-9.97), Möbius syndrome (OR = 26.48; 95% CI: 11.30-62.01), and terminal transverse limb defects (OR = 10.75; 95% CI: 3.93-29.41). (PROSPERO, CRD42024522093, 03182024).

UNASSIGNED: To compare mifepristone plus a misoprostol-combined regimen with misoprostol alone in the medical abortion of first trimester pregnancy.
UNASSIGNED: An internet-based search of available literature was performed using text words contained in titles and abstracts. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Google scholar were used to locate English-based articles published until December 2021. Studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected, appraised, and assessed for methodological quality. The included studies were pooled for meta-analysis, and the results were presented in risk ratio at a 95% confidence interval.
UNASSIGNED: Nine studies comprising 2,052 participants (1,035 intervention and 1,017 controls) were considered. Primary endpoints were complete expulsion, incomplete expulsion, missed abortion, and ongoing pregnancy. The intervention was found to more likely induce complete expulsion irrespective of gestational age (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.14-1.25). The administration of misoprostol 800 mcg after 24 h of mifepristone pre-treatment in the intervention group more likely induced complete expulsion (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.17-1.30) than after 48 h. The intervention group was also more likely to experience complete expulsion when misoprostol was used either vaginally (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.09-1.17) or buccally (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.16-1.30). The intervention was more effective in the subgroup with a negative foetal heartbeat at reducing incomplete abortion (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.26-0.78) compared with the control group. The intervention more likely reduced both missed abortion (RR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.91) and ongoing pregnancy (RR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05-0.26). Fever was less likely to be reported (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.12-0.89), whereas the subjective experience of bleeding was more likely to be encountered (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53) by the intervention group.
UNASSIGNED: The review strengthened the theory that a combined mifepristone and misoprostol regimen can be an effective medical management for inducing abortions during first trimester pregnancy in all contexts. Specifically, there is a high-level certainty of evidence on complete expulsion during the early stage and its ability to reduce both missed and ongoing pregnancies.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019134213, identifier CRD42019134213.

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Gongxuening Capsules in the treatment of abnormal vaginal bleeding after medical abortion. CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, VIP, PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were retrieved to comprehensively collect the clinical randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of Gongxuening Capsules for treatment of abnormal vaginal bleeding after medical abortion from the establishment of the databases to October 10, 2020. Literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation were conducted independently by two system reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cochrane Handbook bias risk assessment tool was used for the literature methodology quality evaluation, RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis, and the evidence quality of outcomes was evaluated by the evidence quality grading system(GRADE). A total of 16 RCTs were inclu-ded. The results of Meta-analysis showed that as compared with the western medicine treatment alone, the addition of Gongxuening Capsules to the western medicine treatment can reduce the amount of vaginal bleeding(RR=1.23, 95%CI[1.19, 1.27], P<0.000 01), shorten vaginal bleeding time(RR_(≤15 d number of people)=1.39, 95%CI[1.31, 1.48], P<0.000 01; MD_(number ofdays)=-1.20, 95%CI[-1.66,-0.74],P<0.000 01). However, there was no obvious advantage in abortion effect(RR=1.02, 95%CI[0.99, 1.06], P=0.14) and menstrual recovery(MD=-0.35, 95%CI[-0.96, 0.25], P=0.25). The results of GRADE showed that the grading level was low for vaginal bleeding volume and vaginal bleeding time, and extremely low for abortion effect and mens-trual recovery. In terms of safety, 16 studies reported adverse events. Only one study showed no adverse events and the rest showed transient nausea, vomiting, stomach burning, upper abdominal discomfort and other gastrointestinal symptoms. The results show that the addition of Gongxuening Capsules to the application of western medicine in treatment of drug abortion can reduce the amount of vaginal bleeding and shorten vaginal bleeding time, but the abortion effect and menstrual recovery have no obvious advantages. The use of Gongxuening Capsules helps to achieve less adverse reactions and higher safety. Due to the small sample size of the included studies and many methodological quality problems, no conclusions with clinical guidance value can be obtained. Large sample-zise, high-qua-lity randomized controlled trials are still needed for further verification.

Expanding access to medical abortion through pharmacies is a potential strategy to promote safe abortion care. To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion offered in pharmacy settings with clinic-based medical abortion.
We searched multiple databases and the gray literature through November 2020. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies. We applied standard risk of bias tools to each included study and used GRADE methodology to assess certainty of evidence. The primary outcomes were completion of abortion without additional intervention, need for blood transfusion, and presence of uterine or systemic infection within 30 days of medical abortion.
Our search yielded 2030 studies. One prospective cohort study from Nepal met inclusion criteria. This study collected data on 605 women obtaining medical abortion rom either a clinic or pharmacy, and was judged to have low risk of bias for our primary outcome. For women who received medical abortion in a pharmacy compared to a clinic there was probably little or no difference in complete abortion rates (adjusted risk difference 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 3.8, 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty of evidence). No cases of blood transfusion were reported in the study and a composite outcome comprised mainly of infection complications showed little or no difference between settings (adjusted risk difference 0.8; 95% CI -1.0 to 2.8, 1 study, 600 participants; very low certainty of evidence).
Evidence from just one nonrandomized study provides low certainty evidence that the effectiveness of medical abortion is probably not different between the pharmacy or clinic setting.
Provision of medical abortions through pharmacy-based models of care may improve access to safe abortion. Comparative studies examining each model of care and outcomes on safety, effectiveness, and patient experience are needed.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 1- and 2-day drug administration interval between mifepristone and misoprostol for second-trimester pregnancy termination and provide evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS: Search strategy: the search was performed in Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for the relevant published studies from their establishment to March 2020.
METHODS: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- and 2-day time interval of mifepristone-misoprostol for termination of pregnancy during second-trimester pregnancy were considered. Data were processed using Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS: Meta-analyses of three RCTs showed no significant difference was reported in the induction-to-abortion time and successful abortion rate between 1- and 2-day mifepristone and misoprostol intervals. Statistical difference was not identified in the induction-to-abortion time between the two drug administration intervals in nulliparous or parous women.
CONCLUSIONS: Both 1- and 2-day dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol are suitable for clinical use for second-trimester medical termination of pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone and misoprostol are recommended for second-trimester medical abortion, but consensus is unclear on the ideal regimen.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating efficacy, safety and satisfaction of medical abortion at ≥ 12 weeks\' gestation.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Popline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 2008 to May 2017.
UNASSIGNED: We included RCTs on medical abortion at ≥ 12 weeks\' gestation using mifepristone and/or misoprostol. We excluded studies with spontaneous abortion, fetal demise and mechanical cervical ripening and those not reporting ongoing pregnancy (OP).
METHODS: After extracting prespecified data and assessing risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane handbook, we used Revman5 software to combine data and GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: We included 43 of the 1894 references identified. Combination mifepristone-misoprostol had lower rates of OP [risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.35] vs. misoprostol only. A 24-h interval between mifepristone and misoprostol had lower OP rate at 24 h than simultaneous dosing (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.23-7.94). Every 3-h dosing had lower OP rate at 48 h (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.88).
CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparisons of buccal misoprostol to sublingual or vaginal routes after mifepristone were limited. Evidence from clinical trials on how to best manage women with prior uterine incisions was lacking.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis supports the use of mifepristone 200 mg 1 to 2 days before misoprostol 400 mcg vaginally every 3 h at ≥ 12 weeks\' gestation.
CONCLUSIONS: Where available, providers should use mifepristone plus misoprostol for second-trimester medical abortion. Vaginal misoprostol appears to be most efficacious with fewest side effects, but sublingual and buccal routes are also acceptable.

A wide range of drugs have been studied for first trimester medical abortion. Studies evaluating different regimens, including combination mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone regimens, show varying results related to safety, efficacy and other outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review were to compare the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of medical abortion and to compare medical with surgical methods of abortion ≤63 days of gestation.
Pubmed and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through January 2019 using a combination of MeSH, keywords and text words. Randomized controlled trials on induced abortion at ≤63 days that compared different regimens of medical abortion using mifepristone and/or misoprostol and trials that compared medical with surgical methods of abortion were included. We extracted data into a pre-designed form, calculated effect estimates, and performed meta-analyses where possible. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and successful abortion.
Thirty-three studies composed of 22,275 participants were included in this review. Combined regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol had lower rates of ongoing pregnancy, higher rates of successful abortion and satisfaction compared to misoprostol only regimens. In combined regimens, misoprostol 800 μg was more effective than 400 μg. There was no significant difference in dosing intervals between mifepristone and misoprostol and routes of misoprostol administration in combination or misoprostol alone regimens. The rate of serious adverse events was generally low.
In this systematic review, we find that medical methods of abortion utilizing combination mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone are effective, safe and acceptable. More robust studies evaluating both the different combination and misoprostol alone regimens are needed to strengthen existing evidence as well as assess patient perspectives towards a particular regimen.

To compare the effectiveness of outpatient medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and two misoprostol 800 mcg doses at 64-70 and 71-77 days of gestation.
We conducted a retrospective chart review of medical abortion outcomes among clients with 64-77 day gestations at a Mexico City public clinic between February 2014 and November 2016 who took mifepristone 200 mg followed 24-48 h later by two doses of misoprostol 800 mcg four hours apart (first dose buccally, second dose sublingually). The primary outcome was successful medical abortion, defined as pregnancy expulsion without surgical intervention. We also assessed additional management and visits to other facilities. We compared outcomes by gestational age (64-70 vs 71-77 days).
Of 602 charts reviewed, we analyzed 232 and 218 in the respective groups for effectiveness; nearly 25% of clients were lost to follow up. Treatment success occurred in 231 (99.6%, 95% CI 97.6-100%) clients at 64-70 days and 213 (97.7%, 95% CI 94.7-99.3%) clients at 71-77 days (p = 0.11). Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 1 (0.4%, 95% CI 0-2.4%) and 3 (1.4%, 95% CI 0.3-4.0%) clients, respectively (p = 0.36). Two charts from the 71-77 days group documented visits to other facilities: one bleeding concern prior to scheduled follow up and a hemorrhage during an aspiration intervention.
Regimen effectiveness was high at 64-70 and 71-77 days among clients who attended follow up. However, with 25% attrition, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about effectiveness and associated safety.
Mifepristone 200 mg followed by two doses of misoprostol 800 mcg four hours apart is a promising medical abortion regimen to improve efficacy in pregnancies from 64-77 days of gestation as compared to regimens with an initial single misoprostol dose. Prospective research is recommended to achieve more robust efficacy estimates.

Globally, a growing proportion of induced abortions are medical abortions. The procedure has been hailed as a revolutionary technology, which, according to experts, has the potential to transform women\'s experiences of abortion and the way abortion services are accessed. Noticeably absent in the discourse, however, are women\'s voices. More specifically, there is a lack of understanding about what shapes women\'s preferences for medical abortion and the challenges they experience in accessing the drugs for the procedure. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to draw attention to these important issues which exist, but are often embedded within research highlighting other dominating aspects of medical abortions. A comprehensive search of four databases - supplemented by searching reference sections of selected articles, tracking their citations, and hand searching special editions on medical abortion - was conducted. A total of 45 peer-reviewed studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies were assessed for quality and analyzed using a critical interpretive synthesis approach. The findings revealed significant variations in women\'s preferences for surgical versus medical abortions. Country-specific abortion laws, implementing protocols, side-effects, rates of failures, and the need to verify the abortion shaped women\'s preference for abortion methods. Overall, women who preferred medical abortions did so because they perceived it as a \'natural\' and safe procedure that can be self-conducted at home, thereby reducing their dependency on the health system. However, women face significant barriers to medical abortion care. These include legal requirements around type of provider, site of service, need for follow-up, providers\' limited knowledge of the procedure, and preferences for surgical abortions. Borderless internet-based services have enabled some women to circumvent these barriers. Our review suggests that medical abortions are used by women either in countries where the health system is fully supportive or where the health system is completely disengaged, usually due to restricted abortion laws. In those countries where abortions are legal but often difficult to access due to health system barriers, women tend to prefer surgical abortions.

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are safe, effective and convenient post-abortal methods. However, there is concern that some LARCs may reduce the effectiveness of abortifacient drugs or result in other adverse outcomes.
We undertook two systematic reviews to examine the early administration of LARCs in women undergoing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol. (i) For women who are having a medical abortion and who plan to use a progestogen-only contraceptive implant or injectable, does administration of the contraception at the same time as mifepristone influence the efficacy of the abortion? (Implant/injectable review). (ii) For women who have had a medical abortion, how soon after expulsion of the products of conception is it safe to insert an intrauterine contraceptive device/system? (LNG-IUS/Cu-IUD review).
On 19 November 2018, we searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; the Cochrane Library; Cinahl Plus; and Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in English from 1985 (Implant/injectable review) or 2007 (LNG-IUS/Cu-IUD review) onwards, conducted in women undergoing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol and studying either (i) simultaneous administration of mifepristone and a progestogen-only contraceptive implant or injectable compared to administration >24 h after mifepristone, or (ii) immediate insertion of intrauterine contraception after expulsion of the products of conception compared to early insertion (≤7 days) or to delayed insertion (>7 days) or early compared to delayed insertion. One author assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. All the outcomes were analysed as risk ratios and meta-analysed in Review Manager 5.3 using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and a fixed-effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Two RCTs (n = 1027) showed lower \'subsequent unintended pregnancy\' rates and higher \'patient satisfaction\' rates, and no other differences, after simultaneous administration of mifepristone and the implant compared to delayed administration. One RCT (n = 461) showed higher \'patient satisfaction\' rates after simultaneous administration than after delayed administration of mifepristone and the injectable, but no other differences between these interventions. Three RCTs (n = 536) found no differences other than higher copper IUC uptake after early compared to delayed insertion at ≤9 weeks of gestation and higher rates of IUC expulsion, continuation and uptake after immediate compared to delayed insertion at 9+1-12+0 weeks of gestation and higher IUC continuation rates after immediate compared to delayed insertion at 12+1-20+0 weeks of gestation. The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to high and was mainly compromised by low event rates, high attrition and no blinding.
The contraceptive implant or injectable should be offered on the day of taking mifepristone. Intrauterine methods of contraception should be offered as soon as possible after expulsion of the pregnancy.