Daniel Grossman1, Kari White2, Lisa Harris3, Matthew Reeves4, Paul D Blumenthal5, Beverly Winikoff6, David A Grimes7. 1. Ibis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA 94612, USA; Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Electronic address: DGrossman@ibisreproductivehealth.org. 2. Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Department of Women's Studies, Program in Sexual Rights and Reproductive Justice, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. 4. National Abortion Federation, Washington, DC 20036, USA; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 6. Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY 10010, USA. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical abortion "reversal" treatment. Since the usual care for women seeking to continue pregnancies after ingesting mifepristone is expectant management with fetal surveillance, we also performed a systematic review of continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus and the Cochrane Library for articles published through March 2015 reporting the proportion of pregnancies continuing after treatment with either mifepristone alone or after an additional treatment following mifepristone aimed at reversing its effect. RESULTS: From 1115 articles retrieved, 1 study met inclusion criteria for abortion reversal, and 13 studies met criteria for continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone. The one report of abortion reversal was a case series of 7 patients receiving varying doses of progesterone in oil intramuscularly or micronized progesterone orally or vaginally; 1 patient was lost to follow-up. The study was of poor quality and lacked clear information on patient selection. Four of six women continued the pregnancy to term [67%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 30-90%]. Assuming the lost patient aborted resulted in a continuing pregnancy proportion of 57% (95% CI 25-84%). The proportion of pregnancies continuing 1-2 weeks after mifepristone alone varied from 8% (95% CI 3-22%) to 46% (95% CI 37-56%). Continuing pregnancy was more common with lower mifepristone doses and advanced gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: In the rare case that a woman changes her mind after starting medical abortion, evidence is insufficient to determine whether treatment with progesterone after mifepristone results in a higher proportion of continuing pregnancies compared to expectant management. IMPLICATIONS: Legislation requiring physicians to inform patients about abortion reversal transforms an unproven therapy into law and represents legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical abortion "reversal" treatment. Since the usual care for women seeking to continue pregnancies after ingesting mifepristone is expectant management with fetal surveillance, we also performed a systematic review of continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone. STUDY DESIGN: We searched PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus and the Cochrane Library for articles published through March 2015 reporting the proportion of pregnancies continuing after treatment with either mifepristone alone or after an additional treatment following mifepristone aimed at reversing its effect. RESULTS: From 1115 articles retrieved, 1 study met inclusion criteria for abortion reversal, and 13 studies met criteria for continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone. The one report of abortion reversal was a case series of 7 patients receiving varying doses of progesterone in oil intramuscularly or micronized progesterone orally or vaginally; 1 patient was lost to follow-up. The study was of poor quality and lacked clear information on patient selection. Four of six women continued the pregnancy to term [67%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 30-90%]. Assuming the lost patient aborted resulted in a continuing pregnancy proportion of 57% (95% CI 25-84%). The proportion of pregnancies continuing 1-2 weeks after mifepristone alone varied from 8% (95% CI 3-22%) to 46% (95% CI 37-56%). Continuing pregnancy was more common with lower mifepristone doses and advanced gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: In the rare case that a woman changes her mind after starting medical abortion, evidence is insufficient to determine whether treatment with progesterone after mifepristone results in a higher proportion of continuing pregnancies compared to expectant management. IMPLICATIONS: Legislation requiring physicians to inform patients about abortion reversal transforms an unproven therapy into law and represents legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship.