• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

俄亥俄州强制使用美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的药物流产方案前后的结果比较:一项回顾性队列研究。

Comparison of Outcomes before and after Ohio's Law Mandating Use of the FDA-Approved Protocol for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

作者信息

Upadhyay Ushma D, Johns Nicole E, Combellick Sarah L, Kohn Julia E, Keder Lisa M, Roberts Sarah C M

机构信息

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, California, United States of America.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, New York, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 30;13(8):e1002110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002110. eCollection 2016 Aug.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002110
PMID:27575488
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5004901/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In February 2011, an Ohio law took effect mandating use of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved protocol for mifepristone, which is used with misoprostol for medication abortion. Other state legislatures have passed or enacted similar laws requiring use of the FDA-approved protocol for medication abortion. The objective of this study is to examine the association of this legal change with medication abortion outcomes and utilization.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a retrospective cohort design, comparing outcomes of medication abortion patients in the prelaw period to those in the postlaw period. Sociodemographic and clinical chart data were abstracted from all medication abortion patients from 1 y prior to the law's implementation (January 2010-January 2011) to 3 y post implementation (February 2011-October 2014) at four abortion-providing health care facilities in Ohio. Outcome data were analyzed for all women undergoing abortion at ≤49 d gestation during the study period. The main outcomes were as follows: need for additional intervention following medication abortion (such as aspiration, repeat misoprostol, and blood transfusion), frequency of continuing pregnancy, reports of side effects, and the proportion of abortions that were medication abortions (versus other abortion procedures). Among the 2,783 medication abortions ≤49 d gestation, 4.9% (95% CI: 3.7%-6.2%) in the prelaw and 14.3% (95% CI: 12.6%-16.0%) in the postlaw period required one or more additional interventions. Women obtaining a medication abortion in the postlaw period had three times the odds of requiring an additional intervention as women in the prelaw period (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.11, 95% CI: 2.27-4.27). In a mixed effects multivariable model that uses facility-months as the unit of analysis to account for lack of independence by site, we found that the law change was associated with a 9.4% (95% CI: 4.0%-18.4%) absolute increase in the rate of requiring an additional intervention. The most common subsequent intervention in both periods was an additional misoprostol dose and was most commonly administered to treat incomplete abortion. The percentage of women requiring two or more follow-up visits increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.0%-5.3%) in the prelaw period to 6.2% (95% CI: 5.5%-8.0%) in the postlaw period (p = 0.003). Continuing pregnancy was rare (0.3%). Overall, 12.6% of women reported at least one side effect during their medication abortion: 8.4% (95% CI: 6.8%-10.0%) in the prelaw period and 15.6% (95% CI: 13.8%-17.3%) in the postlaw period (p < 0.001). Medication abortions fell from 22% (95% CI: 20.8%-22.3%) of all abortions the year before the law went into effect (2010) to 5% (95% CI: 4.8%-5.6%) 3 y after (2014) (p < 0.001). The average patient charge increased from US$426 in 2010 to US$551 in 2014, representing a 16% increase after adjusting for inflation in medical prices. The primary limitation to the study is that it was a pre/post-observational study with no control group that was not exposed to the law.

CONCLUSIONS

Ohio law required use of a medication abortion protocol that is associated with a greater need for additional intervention, more visits, more side effects, and higher costs for women relative to the evidence-based protocol. There is no evidence that the change in law led to improved abortion outcomes. Indeed, our findings suggest the opposite. In March 2016, the FDA-protocol was updated, so Ohio providers may now legally provide current evidence-based protocols. However, this law is still in place and bans physicians from using mifepristone based on any new developments in clinical research as best practices continue to be updated.

摘要

背景

2011年2月,俄亥俄州一项法律生效,强制要求使用美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的米非司酮用药方案,该药物与米索前列醇联合用于药物流产。其他州立法机构也通过或颁布了类似法律,要求使用FDA批准的药物流产用药方案。本研究的目的是探讨这一法律变化与药物流产结局及使用情况之间的关联。

方法与结果

我们采用回顾性队列设计,比较法律实施前和实施后药物流产患者的结局。社会人口统计学和临床病历数据取自俄亥俄州四家提供堕胎服务的医疗机构中,从法律实施前1年(2010年1月至2011年1月)到实施后3年(2011年2月至2014年10月)的所有药物流产患者。对研究期间妊娠≤49天的所有堕胎女性的结局数据进行分析。主要结局如下:药物流产后需要额外干预的情况(如刮宫、重复使用米索前列醇和输血)、持续妊娠的频率、副作用报告以及药物流产(相对于其他堕胎程序)的比例。在2783例妊娠≤49天的药物流产中,法律实施前为4.9%(95%CI:3.7%-6.2%),法律实施后为14.3%(95%CI:12.6%-16.0%)需要一次或多次额外干预。法律实施后接受药物流产的女性需要额外干预的几率是法律实施前女性的三倍(调整后的优势比[AOR]=3.11,95%CI:2.27-4.27)。在一个以机构月为分析单位的混合效应多变量模型中,以考虑各地点缺乏独立性的情况,我们发现法律变化与需要额外干预的发生率绝对增加9.4%(95%CI:4.0%-18.4%)相关。两个时期最常见的后续干预是额外使用一剂米索前列醇,最常用于治疗不完全流产。需要两次或更多次随访的女性比例从法律实施前的4.2%(95%CI:3.0%-5.3%)增加到法律实施后的6.2%(95%CI:5.5%-8.0%)(p=0.003)。持续妊娠很少见(0.3%)。总体而言,12.6%的女性在药物流产期间报告至少一种副作用:法律实施前为8.4%(95%CI:6.8%-10.0%),法律实施后为15.6%(95%CI:13.8%-17.3%)(p<0.001)。药物流产在法律生效前一年(2010年)占所有堕胎的22%(95%CI:20.8%-22.3%),到三年后(2014年)降至5%(95%CI:4.8%-5.6%)(p<0.001)。平均患者费用从2010年时的426美元增加到2014年的551美元,表示在调整医疗价格通胀后增加了16%。本研究的主要局限性在于,它是一项无对照组的前后观察性研究,对照组未受该法律影响。

结论

俄亥俄州法律要求使用的药物流产方案,相对于基于证据的方案,与女性需要更多额外干预、更多次就诊、更多副作用以及更高费用相关。没有证据表明法律变化导致堕胎结局改善。事实上,我们的研究结果表明情况相反。2016年3月,FDA方案进行了更新,因此俄亥俄州的医疗服务提供者现在可以合法提供当前基于证据的方案。然而,这项法律仍然有效,并且禁止医生根据临床研究的任何新进展使用米非司酮,因为最佳实践仍在不断更新。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/00a25363b2ad/pmed.1002110.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/8c0eee602540/pmed.1002110.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/03080d1ccd9e/pmed.1002110.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/00a25363b2ad/pmed.1002110.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/8c0eee602540/pmed.1002110.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/03080d1ccd9e/pmed.1002110.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/54fd/5004901/00a25363b2ad/pmed.1002110.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of Outcomes before and after Ohio's Law Mandating Use of the FDA-Approved Protocol for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.俄亥俄州强制使用美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的药物流产方案前后的结果比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 30;13(8):e1002110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002110. eCollection 2016 Aug.
2
Outcomes During Early Implementation of Mifepristone-Buccal Misoprostol Abortions up to 63 Days of Gestation in a Canadian Clinical Setting.加拿大临床环境中米非司酮-口腔用米索前列醇用于妊娠63天内早期流产的效果。
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 May;41(5):647-652. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.05.030. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
3
Effects of Legislation Regulating Abortion in Arizona.亚利桑那州堕胎立法的影响。
Womens Health Issues. 2018 Jul-Aug;28(4):297-300. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2018.02.002. Epub 2018 Apr 7.
4
Efficacy and safety of medical abortion using mifepristone and buccal misoprostol through 63 days.米非司酮与口腔含服米索前列醇用于63天内药物流产的有效性和安全性。
Contraception. 2015 Apr;91(4):269-73. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.005. Epub 2015 Jan 13.
5
Medication abortion use among low-income and rural Texans before and during state-imposed restrictions and after FDA-updated labeling.在得克萨斯州实施限制以及美国食品药品监督管理局更新标签前后,低收入和农村得克萨斯州居民药物流产使用情况。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;223(2):236.e1-236.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.028. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
6
Randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of same-day administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for termination of pregnancy with the standard 36 to 48 hour protocol.一项随机对照试验,比较米非司酮与米索前列醇同日给药用于终止妊娠的疗效与标准的36至48小时方案。
BJOG. 2007 Feb;114(2):207-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01179.x.
7
Mail-Order Pharmacy Dispensing of Mifepristone for Medication Abortion After In-Person Screening.邮购药店在现场筛查后提供米非司酮药物流产配药服务。
JAMA Intern Med. 2024 Aug 1;184(8):873-881. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.1476.
8
Termination of early pregnancy using flexible, low-dose mifepristone-misoprostol regimens.采用灵活、低剂量米非司酮 - 米索前列醇方案终止早期妊娠。
Contraception. 2007 Dec;76(6):456-60. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2007.08.012. Epub 2007 Nov 9.
9
Outcomes After Early Pregnancy Loss Management With Mifepristone Plus Misoprostol vs Misoprostol Alone.米非司酮联合米索前列醇与单独应用米索前列醇治疗早期妊娠丢失的结局比较。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2435906. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.35906.
10
[The efficacy and acceptability of mifepristone medical abortion with home administration misoprostol provided by private providers linked with the hospital: a prospective study of 433 patients].[由与医院相关的私人提供者提供在家服用米索前列醇的米非司酮药物流产的疗效和可接受性:对433例患者的前瞻性研究]
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Apr;33(4):220-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2005.02.021. Epub 2005 Mar 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Stakeholders' Viewpoints on Working to Advance Health Equity.利益相关者对促进健康公平工作的观点。
Health Equity. 2024 Jan 8;8(1):14-25. doi: 10.1089/heq.2023.29040.rtd. eCollection 2024.
2
Comparing preference for and use of medication abortion in Texas after policy changes in 2014 and 2018.比较 2014 年和 2018 年政策变化后德克萨斯州对药物流产的偏好和使用情况。
Contraception. 2023 Mar;119:109912. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.11.003. Epub 2022 Dec 5.
3
Why restricting access to abortion damages women's health.为什么限制堕胎会损害妇女的健康。

本文引用的文献

1
A New Label for Mifepristone.米非司酮的新标签
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 9;374(23):2281-2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1604462.
2
Fifteen years: looking back and looking forward.十五年:回顾与展望。
Contraception. 2015 Sep;92(3):177-8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.019. Epub 2015 Jul 2.
3
Mifepristone label laws and trends in use: recent experiences in four US states.米非司酮标签法规及使用趋势:美国四个州的近期经验
PLoS Med. 2022 Jul 26;19(7):e1004075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004075. eCollection 2022 Jul.
4
Abortion Access in Ohio's Changing Legislative Context, 2010-2018.俄亥俄州不断变化的立法环境下的堕胎可及性,2010-2018 年。
Am J Public Health. 2020 Aug;110(8):1228-1234. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305706. Epub 2020 May 21.
5
Experiences of women who travel for abortion: A mixed methods systematic review.女性跨境堕胎的经历:一项混合方法系统评价。
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 9;14(4):e0209991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209991. eCollection 2019.
6
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Women Able to Obtain Medication Abortion Before and After Ohio's Law Requiring Use of the Food and Drug Administration Protocol.俄亥俄州要求遵循美国食品药品监督管理局规程的法律实施前后能够获得药物流产的女性的社会人口学特征。
Health Equity. 2018 Jul 1;2(1):122-130. doi: 10.1089/heq.2018.0002. eCollection 2018.
7
Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008-2014.2008 - 2014年美国不同人群的堕胎率及堕胎终身发生率
Am J Public Health. 2017 Dec;107(12):1904-1909. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042. Epub 2017 Oct 19.
8
Women's Experience Obtaining Abortion Care in Texas after Implementation of Restrictive Abortion Laws: A Qualitative Study.德克萨斯州实施限制堕胎法后妇女获得堕胎护理的体验:一项定性研究。
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 26;11(10):e0165048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165048. eCollection 2016.
Contraception. 2015 Sep;92(3):182-5. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.017. Epub 2015 Jun 23.
4
Safety, efficacy and acceptability of outpatient mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion through 70 days since last menstrual period in public sector facilities in Mexico City.墨西哥城公共部门医疗机构中,自末次月经起70天内门诊米非司酮-米索前列醇药物流产的安全性、有效性和可接受性。
Reprod Health Matters. 2015 Feb;22(44 Suppl 1):75-82. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(15)43825-X.
5
Efficacy and safety of medical abortion using mifepristone and buccal misoprostol through 63 days.米非司酮与口腔含服米索前列醇用于63天内药物流产的有效性和安全性。
Contraception. 2015 Apr;91(4):269-73. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.005. Epub 2015 Jan 13.
6
Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion.堕胎后急诊就诊和并发症的发生率。
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;125(1):175-183. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000603.
7
Abortion surveillance - United States, 2011.流产监测-美国,2011 年。
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014 Nov 28;63(11):1-41.
8
Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.德克萨斯州实施一项限制性法律后堕胎服务的变化。
Contraception. 2014 Nov;90(5):496-501. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Jul 22.
9
Practice bulletin no. 143: medical management of first-trimester abortion.实践公告第 143 号:早期妊娠流产的医学管理。
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;123(3):676-692. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000444454.67279.7d.
10
Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011.美国 2011 年的堕胎发生率和服务提供情况。
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Mar;46(1):3-14. doi: 10.1363/46e0414. Epub 2014 Feb 3.