Advertisement

Clinical and service delivery implications of omitting ultrasound before medication abortion provided via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail in the U.S

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To compare outcomes among patients who did or did not have pre-abortion ultrasound or pelvic exam before obtaining medication abortion (MA) via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail.

      Study design

      We analyzed data from participants screened for enrollment into the TelAbortion study at five sites from March 25 to September 15, 2020. We compared participants who had preabortion ultrasound or pelvic exam (“test-MA”) to those who did not (“no-test MA”). Outcomes were: abortion not complete with pills alone (i.e., had procedure intervention or ongoing pregnancy), ongoing pregnancy separately, ectopic pregnancy, hospitalization and/or blood transfusion, and unplanned clinical encounters. We used propensity score weighting and multivariable logistic regression to adjust for baseline characteristics.

      Results

      Our analysis included 287 participants who had no-test MA and 125 who had test-MA. Abortion was not complete with pills alone in 16of 287 (5.6%) no-test MA patients compared to 2of 123 (1.9%) test-MA patients (adjusted risk difference [aRD] = 4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4%−7.1%). No ectopic pregnancies were detected. Groups did not differ regarding hospitalization and/or blood transfusion (p = 0.76) or ongoing pregnancy diagnosis (p = 0.59). Unplanned clinical encounters were more common in no-test MA patients (35of 287, 12.5%) than test-MA patients (10of 125, 8.0%, aRD = 6.7%, 95% CI: 0.5%−13.1%).

      Conclusions

      Compared to patients who had pre-abortion ultrasound, patients who had no-test MA via telemedicine were more likely to have abortions that were not complete with pills alone and/or unplanned clinical encounters. However, both no-test and test-MA patients had similar and very low rates of ongoing pregnancy and hospitalization or blood transfusion.

      Implications

      Omitting pre-abortion ultrasound before provision of medication abortion via telemedicine does not appear to compromise safety or result in more ongoing pregnancies. However, compared to patients who have preabortion ultrasound, patients who do not have pre-abortion tests may be more likely to seek post-treatment care and have procedural interventions.

      Keywords

      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:

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

      References

        • National Abortion Federation
        Clinical Policy Guidelines.
        National Abortion Federation, Washington DC2020
      1. Medication abortion up to 70 days of gestation: ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 225.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136: 855-858https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004083
        • Raymond EG
        • Grossman D
        • Mark A
        • Upadhyay UD
        • Dean G
        • Creinin MD
        • et al.
        Commentary: no-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond.
        Contraception. 2020; 101: 361-366https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2020.04.005
        • Moreau C
        • Shankar M
        • Glasier A
        • Cameron S
        • Gemzell-Danielsson K.
        Abortion regulation in Europe in the era of COVID-19: a spectrum of policy responses.
        BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2020; (bmjsrh-2020-200724)https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200724
        • Aiken A
        • Lohr P
        • Lord J
        • Ghosh N
        • Starling J.
        Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study.
        BJOG. 2021; (1471-0528.16668)https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16668
        • Reynolds-Wright JJ
        • Johnstone A
        • McCabe K
        • Evans E
        • Cameron S.
        Telemedicine medical abortion at home under 12 weeks’ gestation: a prospective observational cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021; (bmjsrh-2020-200976)https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200976
        • Wiebe ER
        • Campbell M
        • Ramasamy H
        • Kelly M.
        Comparing telemedicine to in-clinic medication abortions induced with mifepristone and misoprostol.
        Contraception. 2020; 2100023https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conx.2020.100023
        • Meurice ME
        • Whitehouse KC
        • Blaylock R
        • Chang JJ
        • Lohr PA.
        Client satisfaction and experience of telemedicine and home use of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10 weeks’ gestation at British Pregnancy Advisory Service: a cross-sectional evaluation.
        Contraception. 2021; (S0010782421001438)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.04.027
        • Raymond E
        • Chong E
        • Winikoff B
        • Platais I
        • Mary M
        • Lotarevich T
        • et al.
        TelAbortion: evaluation of a direct to patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States.
        Contraception. 2019; 100: 173-177https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.05.013
        • Chong E
        • Shochet T
        • Raymond E
        • Platais I
        • Anger HA
        • Raidoo S
        • et al.
        Expansion of a direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Contraception. 2021; (S0010782421000913)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.019
        • Austin PC
        • Stuart EA.
        Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies.
        Statist Med. 2015; 34: 3661-3679https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607
        • Raymond EG
        • Shannon C
        • Weaver MA
        • Winikoff B.
        First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: a systematic review.
        Contraception. 2013; 87: 26-37https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.011
        • Abbas D
        • Chong E
        • Raymond EG.
        Outpatient medical abortion is safe and effective through 70days gestation.
        Contraception. 2015; 92: 197-199https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.018
        • Chen MJ
        • Creinin MD.
        Mifepristone With Buccal Misoprostol for Medical Abortion: A Systematic Review.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 12-21https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000897
        • Raymond EG
        • Tan Y-L
        • Comendant R
        • Sagaidac I
        • Hodorogea S
        • Grant M
        • et al.
        Simplified medical abortion screening: a demonstration project.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 292-296https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.11.005
        • Kerestes C
        • Murayama S
        • Tyson J
        • Natavio M
        • Seamon E
        • Raidoo S
        • et al.
        Provision of medication abortion in Hawai‘i during COVID-19: practical experience with multiple care delivery models.
        Contraception. 2021; (S0010782421000974)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.025
        • Kapp N
        • Baldwin MK
        • Rodriguez MI.
        Efficacy of medical abortion prior to 6 gestational weeks: a systematic review.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 90-99https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.09.006
        • Czeisler MÉ
        • Marynak K
        • Clarke KEN
        • Salah Z
        • Shakya I
        • Thierry JM
        • et al.
        Delay or avoidance of medical care because of COVID-19–related concerns — United States, June 2020.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020; 69: 1250-1257https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6936a4
        • Jones RK
        • Upadhyay UD
        • Weitz TA.
        At what cost? Payment for abortion Care by U.S Women..
        Women's Health Issues. 2013; 23: e173-e178https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.03.001
        • Jerman J
        • Frohwirth L
        • Kavanaugh ML
        • Blades N.
        Barriers to abortion care and their consequences for patients traveling for services: qualitative findings from two states: barriers to abortion care and their consequences for patients traveling for services: qualitative findings from two states.
        Perspect Sex Repro H. 2017; 49: 95-102https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12024
        • Tschann M
        • Ly ES
        • Hilliard S
        • Lange HLH.
        Changes to medication abortion clinical practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Contraception. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.04.010
        • Upadhyay UD
        • Schroeder R
        • Roberts SCM.
        Adoption of no-test and telehealth medication abortion care among independent abortion providers in response to COVID-19.
        Contracept X. 2020; 2100049https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conx.2020.100049
        • Nortén H
        • Ilozumba O
        • Wilkinson J
        • Gemzell-Danielsson K
        • Gomperts R.
        10-year evaluation of the use of medical abortion through telemedicine: a retrospective cohort study.
        BJOG. 2021; (1471-0528.16765)https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16765