OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to identify and characterize barriers to mifepristone use among obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) for early pregnancy loss in a southern US state.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with 19 OB-GYNs in Alabama who manage early pregnancy loss. The interviews explored participants\' knowledge of and experience with mifepristone use for miscarriage management and abortion, along with barriers to and facilitators of clinical mifepristone use. The interviews were coded by multiple study staff using inductive and deductive thematic coding.
RESULTS: Nearly all of the interviewees identified abortion-related stigma as a barrier to mifepristone use. Interviewees often attributed stigma to a lack of knowledge about the clinical use of mifepristone for early pregnancy loss. The stigmatization of mifepristone due to its association with abortion was related to religious and political objections. Many interviewees also described stigma associated with misoprostol use. Although providers believed that mifepristone use for abortion would not be accepted in their practice, most believed that mifepristone could be used successfully for miscarriage management after practice-wide education on its use.
CONCLUSIONS: Mifepristone is strongly associated with abortion stigma among OB-GYNs in Alabama, which is a barrier to its use for miscarriage management. Interventions to decrease abortion stigma and associated stigma surrounding mifepristone are needed to optimize early pregnancy loss care.

According to this study.

This Viewpoint discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing mifepristone—a drug used in medication abortion—to be widely available in the US, summarizes the history of challenges to the availability of mifepristone, and highlights reasons for concerns that remain after the Court’s current ruling.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour and 12-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol intervals for second-trimester medication abortion.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants were allocated to receive mifepristone either 24 hours or 12 hours before misoprostol administration. The primary outcome was the time from the first misoprostol administration to abortion (induction time). Secondary outcomes included the time from mifepristone to abortion (total abortion time); fetal expulsion percentages at 12, 24, and 48 hours after the first misoprostol dose; side effects proportion; and pain and satisfaction scores. A sample size of 40 per group (N=80) was planned to compare the 24- and 12-hour regimens.
RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled between July 2020 and June 2023, with 40 patients per group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median induction time was 9.5 hours (95% CI, 10.3-17.8 hours) and 12.5 hours (95% CI, 13.5-20.2 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval arms, respectively ( P =.028). Median total abortion time was 33.0 hours (95% CI, 34.2-41.9 hours) and 24.5 hours (95% CI, 25.7-32.4 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval groups, respectively ( P <.001). At 12 hours from misoprostol administration, 25 patients (62.5%) in the 24-hour arm and 18 patients (45.0%) in the 12-hour arm completed abortion ( P =.178). At 24 hours from misoprostol administration, 36 patients (90.0%) in the 24-hour arm and 30 patients (75.0%) in the 12-hour arm had complete abortion ( P =.139). The need for additional medication or surgical treatment for uterine evacuation, pain scores, side effects, and satisfaction levels were not different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A 24-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol regimen for medication abortion in the second trimester provides a median 3-hour shorter induction time compared with the 12-hour interval. However, the median total abortion time was 8.5-hours longer in the 24-hour interval regimen. These findings can aid in shared decision making before medication abortion in the second trimester.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04160221.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the availability of mifepristone and misoprostol at pharmacies in a state with protective abortion legislation and variation in access by rurality.
METHODS: Using a secret shopper survey, researchers attempted to contact all community pharmacies in Oregon and evaluate their mifepristone and misoprostol provisions.
RESULTS: Among the 444 pharmacies surveyed, mifepristone was planned at 19.2%. Misoprostol was available at 77.5%, but stocking issues and medication ordering impact access, without significant differences by rurality.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy engagement and support are key to increasing access to these essential medicines, which may be improved through education and referral programs.

UNASSIGNED: Before 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion.
UNASSIGNED: To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days\' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Mifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person.
UNASSIGNED: Proportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing.
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

This Viewpoint discusses the controversy over mail-order mifepristone prescribed by primary care clinicians for first-trimester abortion as it relates to the history of initial approval, the Supreme Court case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v US Food and Drug Administration, and available clinical research.