Kurt T Barnhart1, Karl R Hansen2, Mary D Stephenson3, Rebecca Usadi4, Anne Z Steiner5, Marcelle I Cedars6, Emily S Jungheim7, Kathleen M Hoeger8, Stephen A Krawetz9, Benjie Mills10, Meredith Alston11, Christos Coutifaris1, Suneeta Senapati1, Sarita Sonalkar1, Michael P Diamond12, Robert A Wild2, Mitchell Rosen6, Mary D Sammel13, Nanette Santoro14, Esther Eisenberg15, Hao Huang16, Heping Zhang16. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California at San Francisco. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 10. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Prisma Health, University of South Carolina School of Medicine-Greenville. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado and Denver Health Medical Center, Denver. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia. 13. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado, Denver. 15. Fertility and Infertility Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Maryland. 16. Department of Biostatistics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
Importance: Women with an early nonviable pregnancy of unknown location are at high risk of ectopic pregnancy and its inherent morbidity and mortality. Successful and timely resolution of the gestation, while minimizing unscheduled interventions, are important priorities. Objective: To determine if active management is more effective in achieving pregnancy resolution than expectant management and whether the use of empirical methotrexate is noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited 255 hemodynamically stable women with a diagnosed persisting pregnancy of unknown location between July 25, 2014, and June 4, 2019, in 12 medical centers in the United States (final follow up, August 19, 2019). Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to expectant management (n = 86), active management with uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed (n = 87), or active management with empirical methotrexate using a 2-dose protocol (n = 82). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was successful resolution of the pregnancy without change from initial strategy. The primary hypothesis tested for superiority of the active groups combined vs expectant management, and a secondary hypothesis tested for noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed using a noninferiority margin of -12%. Results: Among 255 patients who were randomized (median age, 31 years; interquartile range, 27-36 years), 253 (99.2%) completed the trial. Ninety-nine patients (39%) declined their randomized allocation (26.7% declined expectant management, 48.3% declined uterine evacuation, and 41.5% declined empirical methotrexate) and crossed over to a different group. Compared with patients randomized to receive expectant management (n = 86), women randomized to receive active management (n = 169) were significantly more likely to experience successful pregnancy resolution without change in their initial management strategy (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4% [95% CI, 2.8% to 28.1%]; rate ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.96]). Among active management strategies, empirical methotrexate was noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed with regard to successful pregnancy resolution without change in management strategy (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -8.4% to ∞]). The most common adverse event was vaginal bleeding for all of the 3 management groups (44.2%-52.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location, patients randomized to receive active management, compared with those randomized to receive expectant management, more frequently achieved successful pregnancy resolution without change from the initial management strategy. The substantial crossover between groups should be considered when interpreting the results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152696.
Importance: Women with an early nonviable pregnancy of unknown location are at high risk of ectopic pregnancy and its inherent morbidity and mortality. Successful and timely resolution of the gestation, while minimizing unscheduled interventions, are important priorities. Objective: To determine if active management is more effective in achieving pregnancy resolution than expectant management and whether the use of empirical methotrexate is noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited 255 hemodynamically stable women with a diagnosed persisting pregnancy of unknown location between July 25, 2014, and June 4, 2019, in 12 medical centers in the United States (final follow up, August 19, 2019). Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to expectant management (n = 86), active management with uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed (n = 87), or active management with empirical methotrexate using a 2-dose protocol (n = 82). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was successful resolution of the pregnancy without change from initial strategy. The primary hypothesis tested for superiority of the active groups combined vs expectant management, and a secondary hypothesis tested for noninferiority of empirical methotrexate compared with uterine evacuation with methotrexate as needed using a noninferiority margin of -12%. Results: Among 255 patients who were randomized (median age, 31 years; interquartile range, 27-36 years), 253 (99.2%) completed the trial. Ninety-nine patients (39%) declined their randomized allocation (26.7% declined expectant management, 48.3% declined uterine evacuation, and 41.5% declined empirical methotrexate) and crossed over to a different group. Compared with patients randomized to receive expectant management (n = 86), women randomized to receive active management (n = 169) were significantly more likely to experience successful pregnancy resolution without change in their initial management strategy (51.5% vs 36.0%; difference, 15.4% [95% CI, 2.8% to 28.1%]; rate ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.96]). Among active management strategies, empirical methotrexate was noninferior to uterine evacuation followed by methotrexate if needed with regard to successful pregnancy resolution without change in management strategy (54.9% vs 48.3%; difference, 6.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -8.4% to ∞]). The most common adverse event was vaginal bleeding for all of the 3 management groups (44.2%-52.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with a persisting pregnancy of unknown location, patients randomized to receive active management, compared with those randomized to receive expectant management, more frequently achieved successful pregnancy resolution without change from the initial management strategy. The substantial crossover between groups should be considered when interpreting the results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152696.
Authors: Snigdha Alur-Gupta; Laura G Cooney; Suneeta Senapati; Mary D Sammel; Kurt T Barnhart Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kurt Barnhart; Amy C Hummel; Mary D Sammel; Seema Menon; John Jain; Nahida Chakhtoura Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Kurt T Barnhart; Mary D Sammel; Mary Stephenson; Jared Robins; Karl R Hansen; Wahid A Youssef; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Alisa B Goldberg; Isabel R Fulcher; Jennifer Fortin; Rebecca K Hofer; Alex Cottrill; Divya Dethier; Allison Gilbert; Elizabeth Janiak; Danielle Roncari Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Jessica K Wu; Emily N Sadecki; Moira A Kyweluk; Suneeta Senapati; Anne N Flynn; Elizabeth Steider; Tracey Thomas; Kurt T Barnhart Journal: F S Rep Date: 2022-07-09