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



      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 as NCT00680394.


      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.


      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.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Creinin M.
        • Shore E.
        • Balasubramanian S.
        • Harwood B.
        The true cost differential between mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol-alone regimens for medical abortion.
        Contraception. 2005; 71: 26-30
      1. Concept Foundation website for Medabon: accessed February 6, 2010.

        • Fernandez M.M.
        • Coeytaux F.
        • de Le��n R.G.
        • Harrison D.L.
        Assessing the global availability of misoprostol.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105 (Epub 2009 Mar 14): 180-186
        • Spitz I.M.
        • Bardin C.W.
        • Benton L.
        • Robbins A.
        Early pregnancy termination with mifepristone and misoprostol in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1241-1247
        • World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation
        Comparison of two doses of mifepristone in combination with misoprostol for early medical abortion: a randomised trial.
        BJOG. 2000; 107: 524-530
        • World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation
        Termination of pregnancy with reduced doses of mifepristone.
        BMJ. 1993; 307: 532-537
        • Ngoc N.T.N.
        • Nhan V.Q.
        • Blum J.
        • et al.
        Is home-based administration of prostaglandin safe and feasible for medical abortion? Results from a multi-centre study in Vietnam.
        BJOG. 2004; 111: 814-819
        • Schaff E.A.
        • Fielding S.L.
        • Westhoff C.
        Randomized trial of oral versus vaginal misoprostol at one day after mifepristone for early medical abortion.
        Contraception. 2001; 64: 81-85
        • Schaff E.A.
        • Fielding S.L.
        • Westhoff C.
        • et al.
        Vaginal misoprostol administered 1, 2, or 3 days after mifepristone for early medical abortion: a randomized trial.
        JAMA. 2000; 284: 1948-1953
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Fox M.C.
        • Teal S.
        • Chen A.
        • Schaff E.A.
        • Meyn L.A.
        MOD study trial group. A randomized comparison of misoprostol 6 to 8 hours versus 24 hours after mifepristone for abortion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 851-859
        • Schreiber C.A.
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Harwood B.
        • Murthy A.S.
        A pilot study of mifepristone and misoprostol administered at the same time for abortion in women with gestation from 50 to 63 days.
        Contraception. 2005; 71: 447-450
        • Winikoff B.
        • Dzuba I.
        • Creinin M.
        • et al.
        Two distinct oral routes of misoprostol in mifepristone medical abortion. A randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 1303-1310
        • Raghavan S.
        • Comendant R.
        • Digol I.
        • Ungureanu S.
        • Friptu V.
        • Bracken H.
        • et al.
        Two-pill regimens of misoprostol after mifepristone medical abortion through 63 days' gestational age: a randomized controlled trial of sublingual and oral misoprostol.
        Contraception. 2009; 79 (Epub 2008 Oct 18): 84-90
        • Clark W.
        • Shannon C.
        • Winikoff B.
        Misoprostol for uterine evacuation in induced abortion and pregnancy failure.
        Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 2: 67-108
        • Schaff E.A.
        • Fielding S.L.
        • Westhoff C.
        Randomized trial of oral versus vaginal misoprostol 2 days after mifepristone 200 mg for abortion up to 63 days of pregnancy.
        Contraception. 2002; 66: 247-250
        • Fjerstad M.
        • Trussell J.
        • Sivin I.
        • Lichtenberg E.S.
        • Cullins V.
        Rates of serious infection after changes in regimens for medical abortion.
        N Eng J Med. 2009; 361: 145-151
        • Borgatta L.
        • Mullally B.
        • Vragovic O.
        • Gittinger E.
        • Chen A.
        Misoprostol as the primary agent for medical abortion in a low income urban settings.
        Contraception. 2004; 70: 121-126
        • Carbonell J.L.
        • Varela L.
        • Velazcro A.
        • Fernandez C.
        The use of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy.
        Contraception. 1997; 55: 165-168
        • Carbonell J.L.
        • Varela L.
        • Velazcro A.
        • Fernandez C.
        • Sanchez C.
        The use of misoprostol for abortion at < or =9 weeks' gestation.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1997; 2: 181-185
        • Aldrich T.A.
        • Winikoff B.
        Does methotrexate confer a significant advantage over misoprostol alone for early medical abortion? A retrospective analysis of 8,678 cases.
        BJOG. 2007; 114: 555-562
        • Blanchard K.
        • Schochet T.
        • Coyaji K.
        • Ngoc N.T.C.
        • Winikoff B.
        Misoprostol alone for early abortion: an evaluation of seven potential regimens.
        Contraception. 2005; 72: 91-97
        • von Hertzen H.
        • Piaggio G.
        • Huong N.T.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of two intervals and two routes of administration of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2007; 369: 1938-1946
        • Jain J.K.
        • Dutton C.
        • Harwood B.
        • Meckstroth K.R.
        • Mishell D.R.
        A prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol to vaginal misoprostol alone for elective termination of early pregnancy.
        Hum Reprod. 2002; 17: 1477-1482
        • Schaff E.A.
        • DiCenzo R.
        • Fielding S.L.
        Comparison of misoprostol plasma concentrations following buccal and sublingual administration.
        Contraception. 2005; 71: 22-25
        • Tang O.S.
        • Gemzell-Danielsoon K.
        • Ho P.C.
        Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects.
        IJGO. 2007; 99: S160-S167
        • Meckstroth K.R.
        • Whitaker A.K.
        • Bertisch S.
        • Goldberg A.B.
        • Darney P.D.
        Misoprostol administered by epithelial routes: drug absorption and uterine response.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 582-590
        • Johansson A.T.L.
        • Nguyen T.L.
        • Sundstrom K.
        Abortion in context: women's experience in two villages in Thai Bihn Province, Vietnam.
        Fam Plann Perspec. 1996; 22: 103-107
        • Moher D.
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Altman D.G.
        The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.
        Lancet. 2001; 357: 1191-1194
        • Altman D.G.
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Moher D.
        • et al.
        The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663-694
        • Clark S.
        • Blum J.
        • Blanchard K.
        • Galv��o L.
        • Fletcher H.
        • Winikoff B.
        Misoprostol use in obstetrics and gynecology in Brazil, Jamaica, and the United States.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002; 76: 65-74
        • Miller S.
        • Lehman T.
        • Campbell M.
        • et al.
        Misoprostol and declining abortion-related morbidity in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: a temporal association.
        BJOG. 2005; 112: 1291-1296