De-Medicalizing Mifepristone Medical Abortion

NCT ID: NCT00120224

Last Updated: 2007-04-27

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

4410 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2005-05-31

Study Completion Date

2007-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study will investigate the possibility that medical abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol - a safe, proven therapy for terminating early first trimester pregnancy - can be administered in a manner that is simpler and less costly than that routinely employed in the United States.

The researchers hypothesize that:

1. Practitioners themselves, based on history and examination but without sonography, are able to dependably and correctly determine which patients are eligible for medical abortion and which patients either are not eligible or require further evaluation to determine eligibility.
2. Practitioners themselves, based on a symptom diary and low-sensitivity pregnancy test but without sonography, are able to dependably and correctly determine when a successful medical abortion has taken place and when referral for other possible outcomes should be made.
3. A symptom diary and low-sensitivity pregnancy test are safe and effective means of separating those women who could benefit from a follow-up visit from those who do not need one.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Mifepristone medical abortion has been available in France for a decade and a half and in the United States since 2001. Over this time, it has been demonstrated to be as safe as or safer than either surgical abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term. Furthermore, as medical abortion employs medications rather than surgery to terminate a pregnancy, it has the potential to greatly increase the availability of locations providing abortion services in the US, eliminating as it does the need for expensive equipment and surgical training.

Unfortunately, however, although the availability of medical abortion in the US has increased with time, it has yet to achieve its full potential. In large part this appears to be due to two factors which inhibit providers from offering, and women from choosing, the procedure: 1) Although the approved US medical abortion regimen does not require providers to use ultrasound examination as part of the procedure, it has become common practice for providers to do so. This both increases the cost of the procedure and limits the number of facilities that can offer it. 2) While surgical abortion typically requires only one clinic visit, medical abortion requires (officially) three or (in practice) two visits, making it more expensive, less convenient, and less attractive to women.

There is already a great deal of evidence that medical abortion can be safely offered with two (or even fewer) office visits, and without routine ultrasonography. Most medical abortions in the United States, in fact, currently require only two visits, and the possibility exists that women could self-screen at home, based on a symptom checklist, to determine if the second of these (the follow-up visit) is necessary - an approach that could spare the large majority of medical abortion clients who have uncomplicated courses an extra trip to the clinic. There are, in addition, several less-expensive and less technology-intensive approaches to gathering the diagnostic information currently being provided, pre- and post-procedure, by ultrasonography.

The purpose of the current study is to test the feasibility and efficacy of an approach to medical abortion that forgoes the routine use of ultrasonography. It will also provide evidence on the feasibility of eliminating the requirement for a universal follow-up visit based on self-screening by medical abortion clients. In providing data to make these tests, however, the study protocol will not in any way abridge the medical abortion care currently received by clients at the participating facilities. The study will permit clients to receive standard care (including a follow-up visit and pre- and post-procedure ultrasound examinations in all cases) while gathering valuable information which, we hope, will provide a basis for simplifying standard care in the future.

The research questions to be answered by the study are:

1. Do an interview with the abortion client, a pregnancy test and a physical exam provide adequate information to determine which abortion clients are eligible for the medical abortion procedure and which should be referred for sonography (or other diagnostic tests) before making such a determination?
2. Can a self-administered symptom diary and a follow-up low-sensitivity pregnancy test provide an adequate basis to determine whether a woman has undergone a successful medical abortion or whether she requires a sonographic exam (or other diagnostic test) in order to make this determination?
3. Does a post-abortion pelvic examination provide valuable additional information for determining whether a woman has undergone a successful medical abortion or whether she requires a sonographic exam (or other diagnostic test) in order to make this determination?
4. Can a self-administered symptom diary and a low-sensitivity pregnancy test provide an adequate basis for determining which medical abortion clients require a follow-up visit?

The research hypotheses are:

1. Practitioners themselves, based on history and examination but without sonography, are able to dependably and correctly determine which patients are eligible for medical abortion and which patients either are not eligible or require further evaluation to determine eligibility.
2. Practitioners themselves, based on a symptom diary and low-sensitivity pregnancy test but without sonography, are able to dependably and correctly determine when a successful medical abortion has taken place and when referral for other possible outcomes should be made.
3. A symptom diary and low-sensitivity pregnancy test are safe and effective means of separating those women who could benefit from a follow-up visit from those who do not need one.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Medical Abortion

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

DEFINED_POPULATION

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Women presenting at study clinics for medical abortion who agree to complete home study card and return for follow-up visit

Exclusion Criteria

* Women presenting at study clinics for medical abortion who do not agree to participate in study.
Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

David and Lucile Packard Foundation

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Gynuity Health Projects

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Wesley Clark, MPH

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Gynuity Health Projects

Beverly Winikoff, MD, MPH

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Gynuity Health Projects

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties

San Diego, California, United States

Site Status

Family Planning Associates Medical Group

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Planned Parenthood of New York City

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Savitz DA, Terry JW Jr, Dole N, Thorp JM Jr, Siega-Riz AM, Herring AH. Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;187(6):1660-6. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.127601.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12501080 (View on PubMed)

Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;97(2):189-94. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01131-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11165580 (View on PubMed)

Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Gardosi J. Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jan;174(1 Pt 1):278-81. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70408-8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 8572021 (View on PubMed)

Fielding SL, Schaff EA, Nam NY. Clinicians' perception of sonogram indication for mifepristone abortion up to 63 days. Contraception. 2002 Jul;66(1):27-31. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00316-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12169378 (View on PubMed)

Barnhart KT, Simhan H, Kamelle SA. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound above and below the beta-hCG discriminatory zone. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Oct;94(4):583-7. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00347-6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 10511363 (View on PubMed)

Fiala C, Safar P, Bygdeman M, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Verifying the effectiveness of medical abortion; ultrasound versus hCG testing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Aug 15;109(2):190-5. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(03)00012-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12860340 (View on PubMed)

Clark W, Bracken H, Tanenhaus J, Schweikert S, Lichtenberg ES, Winikoff B. Alternatives to a routine follow-up visit for early medical abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;115(2 Pt 1):264-272. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c996f3.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 20093898 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

1.1.2

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id