Advertisement

At-home urine pregnancy test assessment after mifepristone and misoprostol for undesired pregnancy of unknown location

  • Allison L. Gilbert
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author.
    Affiliations
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Boston, MA, United States

    Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States

    Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Dallas, TX, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Danielle Gelfand
    Affiliations
    Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jenifer Fortin
    Affiliations
    Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Danielle Roncari
    Affiliations
    Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States

    Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author
  • Alisa B. Goldberg
    Affiliations
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Boston, MA, United States

    Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Objectives

      The ideal assessment after mifepristone and misoprostol for undesired pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) is unknown.

      Study design

      We prospectively followed patients at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (2019–2021) with PUL who received immediate mifepristone and misoprostol with serial at-home urine pregnancy tests (UPT) and in-office serum HCGs.

      Results

      Of 13 patients, 10 had a successful medication abortion. For those who completed UPTs (N = 9), all were negative by Day 14. Two abnormal pregnancies had positive UPTs on Day 14.

      Conclusion

      A negative UPT on Day 14 may help determine complete abortion after medication abortion for undesired PUL. A positive UPT on Day 14 warrants further evaluation.

      Implication

      Patients taking mifepristone and misoprostol in the setting of undesired PUL who cannot access serum testing may consider an at-home UPT to confirm complete abortion.

      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

        • Jones RK
        • Nash E
        • Cross L
        • Philbin J
        • Kirstein M.
        Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all US abortions.
        Guttmacher Institute [Internet]. 2022; ([accessed October 7, 2022]. Available from:)
        • Kortsmit K
        • Mandel MG
        • Reeves JA
        • Clark E
        • Pagano HP
        • Nguyen A
        • et al.
        Abortion surveillance - United States, 2019.
        MMWR Surveill Summ. 2021; 70: 1-29https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7009a1
        • Goldberg AB
        • Fulcher IR
        • Fortin J
        • Hofer RK
        • Cottrill A
        • Dethier D
        • et al.
        Mifepristone and misoprostol for undesired pregnancy of unknown location.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 139: 771-780https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004756
        • Schaff EA
        • Fielding SL
        • Eisinger S
        • Stadalius L
        Mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion when no gestational sac is present.
        Contraception. 2001; 63: 251-254https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-7824(01)00200-1
        • Heller R
        • Cameron S.
        Termination of pregnancy at very early gestation without visible yolk sac on ultrasound.
        J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2015; 41: 90-95https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2014-100924
        • Goldstone P
        • Michelson J
        • Williamson E.
        Effectiveness of early medical abortion using low-dose mifepristone and buccal misoprostol in women with no defined intrauterine gestational sac.
        Contraception. 2013; 87: 855-858https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.013
        • Bizjak I
        • Fiala C
        • Berggren L
        • Hognert H
        • Sääv I
        • Bring J
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of very early medical termination of pregnancy: a cohort study.
        Bjog. 2017; 124: 1993-1999https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14904
        • Li CL
        • Song LP
        • Tang SY
        • Zhou LJGY
        • He H
        • Mo XT
        • et al.
        Efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-dose mifepristone and self-administered misoprostol for ultra-early medical abortion: a randomized controlled trial.
        Reprod Sci. 2017; 24: 731-737https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116669055
        • Barnhart K
        • van Mello NM
        • Bourne T
        • Kirk E
        • Van Calster B
        • Bottomley C
        • et al.
        Pregnancy of unknown location: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome.
        Fertil Steril. 2011; 95: 857-866https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.006
        • Barnhart KT.
        Ectopic pregnancy.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 379-387https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp0810384
        • 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; 109: 190-195https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(03)00012-5