Suppr超能文献

比较两种早期药物流产方案:米非司酮+米索前列醇与单独使用米索前列醇。

Comparing two early medical abortion regimens: mifepristone+misoprostol vs. misoprostol alone.

机构信息

Center for Research and Consultancy in Reproductive Health, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam.

出版信息

Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):410-7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.09.002. Epub 2010 Oct 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical abortion methods have the potential to improve access to high-quality abortion care. Until recently, availability and utilization of mifepristone medical abortion in low-resource countries were restricted due to the limited availability and perceived high cost of mifepristone, leading some providers and policymakers to support use of misoprostol-only regimens. Yet, this may not be desirable if misoprostol-only regimens are considerably less effective and ultimately more costly for health care systems. This study sought to document the differences in efficacy between two nonsurgical abortion regimens.

STUDY DESIGN

This double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial enrolled women with gestational ages up to 63 days seeking early medical abortion from August 2007 to March 2008 at a large tertiary hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Eligible consenting women received either (1) two doses of 800 mcg buccal misoprostol 24 h apart or (2) 200 mg mifepristone and 800 mcg buccal misoprostol 24 h later. Participants self-administered all study drugs and returned to the hospital for follow-up 1 week later. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00680394.

RESULTS

Four hundred women were randomized to either misoprostol-only (198) or mifepristone+misoprostol (202). Complete abortion occurred for 76.2% (n=147) of women allocated to misoprostol-only vs. 96.5% (n=194) of those given mifepristone+misoprostol (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Ongoing pregnancy was documented for 16.6% (32) of misoprostol-only users and 1.5% (3) of mifepristone+misoprostol users (1.62, 0.68-3.90). Side effects were generally similar for both groups, although significantly more women allocated to misoprostol-only reported diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone+misoprostol is significantly more effective than use of misoprostol-alone for early medical abortion. The number of ongoing pregnancies documented with misoprostol-only warranted an early end of the trial after unblinding of the study at interim analysis. Policymakers should advocate for greater access to mifepristone. Future research should prioritize misoprostol-only regimens with shorter dosing intervals.

摘要

背景

非手术流产方法有改善获得高质量流产护理的潜力。直到最近,米非司酮药物流产在资源匮乏国家的可及性和使用率受到限制,原因是米非司酮的供应有限,而且人们认为其成本高,这导致一些提供者和政策制定者支持使用仅米索前列醇方案。然而,如果仅米索前列醇方案的效果明显较差,并且最终对医疗保健系统的成本更高,那么这种方法可能并不理想。本研究旨在记录两种非手术流产方案之间的疗效差异。

研究设计

这项双盲随机安慰剂对照试验于 2007 年 8 月至 2008 年 3 月在越南胡志明市的一家大型三级医院招募了妊娠时间不超过 63 天的希望进行早期药物流产的女性。符合条件的同意参加的女性随机接受以下两种方案之一:(1) 24 小时内口服 800μg 米索前列醇两次;或(2)米非司酮 200mg 加 800μg 米索前列醇 24 小时后。参与者自行服用所有研究药物,并在一周后返回医院进行随访。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册为 NCT00680394。

结果

共有 400 名女性被随机分配至仅米索前列醇组(198 名)或米非司酮+米索前列醇组(202 名)。仅米索前列醇组完全流产的比例为 76.2%(n=147),而米非司酮+米索前列醇组为 96.5%(n=194)(RR 0.79,95%CI 0.73-0.86)。仅米索前列醇组有 16.6%(32 例)发生持续性妊娠,而米非司酮+米索前列醇组有 1.5%(3 例)(1.62,0.68-3.90)。两组的副作用总体相似,但接受米索前列醇单药治疗的女性中,有更多的人报告腹泻。

结论

米非司酮+米索前列醇在早期药物流产方面明显优于仅使用米索前列醇。仅米索前列醇组记录到的持续性妊娠数量在中期分析时研究人员进行了盲法揭盲后,导致试验提前结束。政策制定者应倡导更多地获得米非司酮。未来的研究应优先考虑缩短米索前列醇给药间隔的仅米索前列醇方案。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验