Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Abstract

Summary Background The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Methods MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m 2 vs ≥35 kg/m 2 ), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. Findings Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54–0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. Interpretation Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in t...

Mifepristone followed by misoprostol compared with placebo followed by misoprostol as medical treatment for early pregnancy loss (the Triple M trial): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial

“…There were no concerns regarding safety of the participants, as SAEs occurred more often in the placebo group receiving current standard treatment, and adverse reactions (although occurring more often in the mifepristone group) were mild. Our findings extend those from previous trials, thus adding to the existing body of evidence in favour of mifepristone pre-treatment [ 21 , 32 ].…”

“…If this fact is not taken into account it might lead to a distorted picture of the amount and ratio of SAE's in both study groups. The low rate of SAE's other than hospitalization for surgical uterine evacuation is comparable to that of other studies [ 20 , 21 , 32 ].…”

Effects of surgical face masks on cardiopulmonary parameters during steady state exercise

“…Wearing face masks should reduce virus transmission 3 – 6 . However, the evidence of its usefulness for reducing respiratory virus infections is heterogeneous 3 , 7 , 8 . Besides its potential virus preventive effects, the use of face masks has shown increased respiratory resistance 9 .…”

Untersuchung von SARS-CoV-2-Ausbrüchen in Deutschland durch Feldteams des Robert Koch-Instituts, Februar–Oktober 2020

“…Die Ergebnisse sprechen für die Verwendung eines Mund-Nasen-Schutzes bei ärztlichem Personal und eine kurze Kontaktzeit (unter 10 Minuten), um das Übertragungsrisiko zu minimieren [ 4 ]. Die Ausbruchsuntersuchung unterstützt damit die aktuellen Richtlinien der WHO und des European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), nach denen alle Mitarbeitenden im Gesundheitswesen bei der Arbeit einen medizinischen Mund-Nasen-Schutz tragen sollten, insbesondere in Gebieten mit einem hohen Anteil nicht nachvollziehbarer Übertragungen [ 5 – 7 ].…”