Kulier R, Gülmezoglu A M, Hofmeyr G J, Cheng L N, Campana A
Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Route de Florissant 3, Geneva, Switzerland, CH-1208.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(1):CD002855. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub2.
Surgical abortion up to 63 days by vacuum aspiration or dilatation and curettage has been the method of choice since the 1960s. Medical abortion became an alternative method of first trimester pregnancy termination with the availability of prostaglandins in the early 1970s and anti-progesterones in the 1980s. The most widely researched drugs are prostaglandins (PGs) alone, mifepristone alone, methotrexate alone, mifepristone with prostaglandins and methotrexate with prostaglandins.
To compare different medical methods for first trimester abortion.
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and Popline were systematically searched. Reference lists of retrieved papers were also searched. Experts in WHO/HRP were contacted.
Types of studies. Randomised controlled trials comparing different medical methods (e.g. single drug, combination), ways of application, or different dose regimens, single or combined, for medical abortion, were considered. Trials were assessed and included if they had adequate concealment of allocation, randomisation procedure and follow-up. Women, pregnant in the first trimester, undergoing medical abortion were the participants. Different medical methods used for first trimester abortion, compared with each other or placebo were included. The outcomes sought include mortality, failure to achieve complete abortion, surgical evacuation (as emergency procedure, non-emergency procedure, or undefined), ongoing pregnancy at follow-up, time until passing of conceptus (> 3-6 hours), blood transfusion, blood loss (measured or clinically relevant drop in haemoglobin), days of bleeding, pain resulting from the procedure (reported by the women or measured by use of analgesics), additional uterotonics used, women's dissatisfaction with the procedure, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea.
Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion from the results of the search strategy described previously. The selection of trials for inclusion in the review was performed independently by two reviewers after employing the search strategy described previously. Trials under consideration were evaluated for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. A form was designed to facilitate the data extraction. Data were processed using Revman software.
Thirty-nine trials were included in the review. The effectiveness outcomes below refer to 'failure to achieve complete abortion' with the intended method unless otherwise stated. 1) Combined regimen mifepristone/prostaglandin: Mifepristone 600 mg compared to 200 mg shows similar effectiveness in achieving complete abortion (4 trials, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32). Misoprostol administered orally is less effective (more failures) than the vaginal route (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.44 to 6.24) and may be associated with more frequent side effects such as nausea and diarrhoea. 2) Mifepristone alone is less effective compared to the combined regimen mifepristone/prostaglandin (RR 3.76 95% CI 2.30 to 6.15). 3) Similarly, the 5 trials included in the comparison of prostaglandin compared to the combined regimen reported in all but one higher effectiveness with the combined regime compared to prostaglandin. The results of these studies were not pooled but the RR of failure with prostaglandin alone is between 1.4 to 3.75 and the 95% confidence intervals indicate statistical significance. 4) In one trial comparing gemeprost 0.5 mg with misoprostol 800 mcg, misoprostol was more effective (failure with gemeprost: RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.18). 5) There was no difference when using split dose compared to single dose of prostaglandin. 6) Combined regimen methotrexate/prostaglandin: there was no statistically significant difference in failure to achieve complete abortion comparing methotrexate administered intramuscular to oral (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.07). Similarly, early (day 3) vs late (day 5) administration of prostaglandin showed no significant of prostaglandin showed no significant difference (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.43). One trial compared the effect of tamoxifen vs methotrexate and no statistically significant differences were observed in effectiveness between the groups.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Safe and effective medical abortion methods are available. Combined regimens are more effective than single agents. In the combined regimen, the dose of mifepristone can be lowered to 200 mg without significantly decreasing the method effectiveness. Misoprostol vaginally is more effective than orally. Some of the results are based on small studies only and therefore carry some uncertainty. Almost all trials were conducted in hospital settings with good access to support and emergency services. It is therefore not clear if the results are readily applicable to under-resourced settings where such services are lacking even if the agents used are available.
自20世纪60年代以来,通过真空吸引术或扩张刮宫术进行长达63天的手术流产一直是首选方法。随着20世纪70年代初前列腺素以及80年代抗孕激素的出现,药物流产成为孕早期终止妊娠的另一种方法。研究最为广泛的药物有单独使用的前列腺素(PGs)、单独使用的米非司酮、单独使用的甲氨蝶呤、米非司酮与前列腺素联用以及甲氨蝶呤与前列腺素联用。
比较孕早期流产的不同药物方法。
系统检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库、MEDLINE和Popline。还检索了检索到论文的参考文献列表。联系了世界卫生组织/人类生殖规划署的专家。
研究类型。比较不同药物方法(如单一药物、联合用药)、应用方式或不同剂量方案(单一或联合)用于药物流产的随机对照试验被纳入考虑。如果试验在分配隐藏、随机化程序和随访方面充分,则对其进行评估并纳入。参与者为孕早期接受药物流产的妇女。纳入相互比较或与安慰剂比较的用于孕早期流产的不同药物方法。所寻求的结果包括死亡率、未能实现完全流产、手术清宫(作为紧急程序、非紧急程序或未明确)、随访时持续妊娠、直至排出妊娠物的时间(>3 - 6小时)、输血、失血(测量或血红蛋白临床上相关下降)、出血天数、手术引起的疼痛(妇女报告或通过使用镇痛药测量)、额外使用的宫缩剂、妇女对手术的不满、恶心、呕吐、腹泻。
两名综述作者根据上述检索策略的结果独立选择纳入试验。在采用上述检索策略后,由两名综述作者独立进行纳入综述试验的选择。对考虑纳入的试验进行评估以确定其纳入的适宜性和方法学质量,而不考虑其结果。设计了一种表格以方便数据提取。使用Revman软件处理数据。
本综述纳入了39项试验。除非另有说明,以下有效性结果指的是使用预期方法“未能实现完全流产”。1)米非司酮/前列腺素联合方案:600mg米非司酮与200mg米非司酮相比,在实现完全流产方面显示出相似的有效性(4项试验,RR 1.07,95%CI 0.87至1.32)。口服米索前列醇比经阴道途径效果差(更多失败病例)(RR 3.00,95%CI 1.44至6.24),并且可能与更频繁的副作用如恶心和腹泻相关。2)单独使用米非司酮与米非司酮/前列腺素联合方案相比效果较差(RR 3.76,95%CI 2.30至6.15)。3)同样,在前列腺素与联合方案比较的5项试验中,除一项试验外,所有试验均报告联合方案比前列腺素有效性更高。这些研究结果未进行汇总,但单独使用前列腺素失败的RR在1.4至3.75之间,95%置信区间表明具有统计学意义。4)在一项比较0.5mg吉美前列素与800mcg米索前列醇的试验中,米索前列醇更有效(吉美前列素失败:RR 2.86,95%CI 1.14至7.18)。5)使用前列腺素分剂量与单剂量相比没有差异。6)甲氨蝶呤/前列腺素联合方案:肌肉注射甲氨蝶呤与口服甲氨蝶呤在未能实现完全流产方面无统计学显著差异(RR 2.04,95%CI 0.51至8.07)。同样,前列腺素早期(第3天)与晚期(第5天)给药无显著差异(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.36至1.43)。一项试验比较了他莫昔芬与甲氨蝶呤的效果,两组在有效性方面未观察到统计学显著差异。
有安全有效的药物流产方法。联合方案比单一药物更有效。在联合方案中,米非司酮剂量可降至200mg而不会显著降低方法的有效性。经阴道给予米索前列醇比口服更有效。部分结果仅基于小型研究,因此存在一定不确定性。几乎所有试验均在能够获得良好支持和急救服务的医院环境中进行。因此,尚不清楚即使所用药物可用,这些结果是否能直接应用于缺乏此类服务的资源匮乏环境。