Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis
Jay Ghosh, Argyro Papadopoulou, Adam J Devall, Hannah C Jeffery, Leanne E Beeson, Vivian Do, Malcolm J Price, Aurelio Tobias, Özge Tunçalp, Antonella Lavelanet, Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu, Arri Coomarasamy, Ioannis D Gallos, Jay Ghosh, Argyro Papadopoulou, Adam J Devall, Hannah C Jeffery, Leanne E Beeson, Vivian Do, Malcolm J Price, Aurelio Tobias, Özge Tunçalp, Antonella Lavelanet, Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu, Arri Coomarasamy, Ioannis D Gallos
Abstract
Background: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.
Objectives: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.
Data collection and analysis: At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.
Main results: Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00190294 NCT03148314 NCT00835731 NCT01844024 NCT00784797 NCT02480543 NCT02201732 NCT02669420 NCT00141895 NCT00466999 NCT01539408.
Conflict of interest statement
Jay Ghosh: Grants and contracts ‐ this work is supported by Tommy's Charity who fund the Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, which is held by Prof Arri Coomarasamy. Work related to the topic of the review as health professional ‐ O&G Medical Doctor.
Argyro Papadopoulou: I am currently a PhD student at the University of Birmingham, UK. My tuition fees are paid by Tommy's charity.
Adam J Devall: co‐investigator for the MifeMiso trial now published in the Lancet, which was funded by the NIHR HTA programme. AJD did not participate in any decisions regarding this trial (i.e. assessment for inclusion/exclusion, trial quality, data extraction) for the purposes of this review or future updates, these tasks have been carried out by other members of the team who were not directly involved in the trial.
Hannah C Jeffery: none known.
Leanne E Beeson: co‐investigator for the MifeMiso trial now published in the Lancet, which was funded by the NIHR HTA programme. LEB did not participate in any decisions regarding this trial (i.e. assessment for inclusion/exclusion, trial quality, data extraction) for the purposes of this review or future updates, these tasks have been carried out by other members of the team who were not directly involved in the trial.
Vivian Do: none known.
Malcolm J Price:none known.
Aurelio Tobias: none known.
Özge Tunçalp: none known.
Antonella Lavelanet: I published work as a freelance writer. I am a board certified OBGYN, but I am currently not practicing and have not practiced for the last 4 years.
Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu: none known.
Arri Coomarasamy: chief‐investigator for the MifeMiso trial now published in the Lancet, which was funded by the NIHR HTA programme. AC did not participate in any decisions regarding this trial (i.e. assessment for inclusion/exclusion, trial quality, data extraction) for the purposes of this review or future updates, these tasks have been carried out by other members of the team who were not directly involved in the trial.
Ioannis D Gallos: co‐investigator for the MifeMiso trial now published in the Lancet, which was funded by the NIHR HTA programme. IDG did not participate in any decisions regarding this trial (i.e. assessment for inclusion/exclusion, trial quality, data extraction) for the purposes of this review or future updates, these tasks have been carried out by other members of the team who were not directly involved in the trial.
Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figures
Source: PubMed