Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (29)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jain, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Mishell, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jain, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Mishell, D. R., Jr
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1477-1482, June 2002
© 2002 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

A prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol to vaginal misoprostol alone for elective termination of early pregnancy

John K. Jain1,4, Caryn Dutton1, Bryna Harwood2, Karen R. Meckstroth3 and Daniel R. Mishell, Jr1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Women's and Children's Hospital, Los Angeles, CA 90033, 2 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Magee–Women's Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and 3 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA

BACKGROUND: Vaginal misoprostol has been shown to be an effective single agent for medical abortion. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial compared a regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol with misoprostol alone for termination of early pregnancy. METHODS: 250 women with gestations <=56 days were randomized by a random number table to receive either 200 mg mifepristone orally or placebo followed 48 h later by 800 µg vaginal misoprostol. Administration of misoprostol was repeated every 24 h up to three doses if abortion failed to occur. Abortion success was defined as complete abortion without the use of surgical aspiration. RESULTS: Successful medical abortions occurred in 114 out of 119 subjects (95.7%) after mifepristone followed by vaginal misoprostol. In all, 110 out of 125 subjects (88.0%) successfully aborted after placebo and vaginal misoprostol. The higher success rate of complete abortion with the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen was statistically significant compared with the placebo and misoprostol regimen (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol was significantly more effective for termination of pregnancies <=56 days than misoprostol alone. The 88% efficacy obtained with vaginal misoprostol alone may be clinically acceptable when mifepristone is not available.

Key words: abortion/medical abortion/mifepristone/misoprostol/pregnancy

4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: 1240 N. Mission Rd, room 8K9, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.E-mail: jjain{at}hsc.usc.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ReproductionHome page
N. B Morison, T. J Kaitu'u-Lino, I. S Fraser, and L. A Salamonsen
Stimulation of epithelial repair is a likely mechanism for the action of mifepristone in reducing duration of bleeding in users of progestogen-only contraceptives
Reproduction, August 1, 2008; 136(2): 267 - 274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
D. A. Grimes and M. D. Creinin
Induced Abortion: An Overview for Internists
Ann Intern Med, April 20, 2004; 140(8): 620 - 626.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.