Some months ago, a fellow Asherman’s syndrome (AS) sufferer who writes the blog Alternative Asherman’s had a missed miscarriage after AS and wrote of her experience (Three steps backwards) using misoprostol, linking it to the blog about my own experience using misoprostol. I feel it is necessary to clarify certain points in her experience as they may be inadvertantly misleading and appear to implicate misoprostol in what apparently ensued. She has also since updated her blog to clarify her interpretation of her experience.
Misoprostol is a non-invasive uterotonic drug that expels the uterine contents in a way that is analogous to a natural miscarriage. Scarring and subsequent adhesions are the result of physical injury (or severe infection) to the basal endometrium. In fact management of miscarriage with misoprostol has been shown to prevent adhesion formation compared to blind D&C (Tam WH, Lau WC, Cheung LP, Yuen PM, Chung TK. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc.2002; 9 (2): 182–185.). Misoprostol can be used to expel the contents of the uterus for either pregnancy termination, after a missed or incomplete miscarriage has occured or for labour induction. It also dilates the cervix and is useful prior to hysteroscopic surgery. Unfortunately, misoprostol is often referred to as a 'pregnancy termination drug' despite its various uses.
With regards to misoprostol's efficacy it should be noted that she obtained Chinese herbs from her accupuncturist to help 'prepare her body for miscarriage'. (See her comment below). This is unnecessary. It is not advised to mix Chinese or any other alternative or over the counter drug/herb with the treatment prescribed by your qualified ObGyn. Any responsible qualified homeopath/alternative medicine practitioner (some are MDs) would not dispense drugs whose effects and interactions with drugs prescribed by another specialist is not known and has not been vigorously trialed. There is no regulation or standardization of alternative drugs (herbs, extracts, etc.) so their concentrations, compositions quality and therefore effects and interactions vary greatly. We don't know if using these herbs could have interfered with misoprostol's effect in some way (for example, reducing its efficacy by blocking the same receptors targeted by misoprostol).
She was told that she developed IUA after using misoprostol and prior to hysteroscopic surgery to remove retained products. Her hysteroscopic surgeon said that the RPOC from an incomplete evacuation led to fibrous scar tissue formation. While I have heard about this anecdotally, I have not seen any reports of women developing IUA from RPOC in the absence of severe infection. It is also difficult to reconcile the observation of dense scar tissue with products retained for just 5 weeks when scar tissue is not complete until about 8 weeks. Anecdotally, I personally had substantial retained products for 3 weeks after my second trimester miscarriage treated with misoprostol and did not develop IUA. RPOC and retained placenta can be managed conservatively (under medical supervision).
However, she does mention that she may have already had some recurrence of IUA before her pregnancy as her Obstetrician noticed what appeared to be synechiae on ultrasound. This appears to be an important clue.
She says that there were dense adhesions whereas she previously had had only mild adhesions at initial diagnosis.One possible way to explain the deterioration of her condition could lie in the initial treatment of her AS: she had a uterine cook balloon inserted following adhesiolysis. While I underwent the same procedure without any apparent complications like hundreds of others (a proportion of whom have gone on to have children), it is possible that if the stent was not removed properly, or if it somehow adhered to raw surfaces in the uterus, it could have caused damage on removal (the balloon is deflated and simply pulled out). This explanation would also be consistent with her ObGyn's observation of scar tissue during a prenatal scan. Note also that there is limited data from studies on the benefits of using the Foley catheter and IUDs after surgical lysis and no controlled or comparative trials on the Cook balloon. Some Asherman’s syndrome specialists even believe that stents can stunt endometrial regrowth.
A well researched and routinely used drug like misoprostol should not be treated with suspicion compared to many other medical and even pseudo medical treatments the same women undergo without questioning, from unproven and potentially harmful altnernative drugs to contraversial fertility therapies to treatments of Asherman’s syndrome on which there are comparatively less data and of a lower quality. This leads me to wonder whether it is the attitude of the treating doctor(s) which influences patients' perceptions of treatments. I agree that more doctors need to be trained in the use of misoprostol for miscarriage (and in particular among women with a history of AS) and that a followup hysteroscopy may be needed depending on clinical symptoms and gestational age at time of miscarriage to ensure there are no retained products of conception. Followup hysteroscopy may also be necessary in women with a history of AS if the miscarriage passed naturally as there is a possible tendency towards retained tissue from scarring. We already know that women with past AS are at an increased risk of abnormally invasive placentation such as placenta accreta. Retained tissue and placenta accreta may be different ends of a spectrum of abnormalities associated with placental invasion in a defective endometrium. Whether misoprostol is necessary to evacuate miscarriages that occur very early on in the pregnancy (prior to 7 weeks) is also questionable. These can be managed expectantly. It is especially risky to perform a blind D&C in women who already have suffered damage to their uterine lining. It is time for miscarriage management as a whole to be reviewed in light of advances in medical therapy and hysterosopic alternatives.
Showing posts with label cytotec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cytotec. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Miscarriage Study: 400 vs 800 mcg misoprostol
Mater Mother’s Hospital in Queensland has been conducting a randomized controlled trial comparing two doses of misoprostol (800 mcg versus 400 mcg) for the medical management of miscarriage. More information can be found in the brochure for The Miscarriage Study on their website:
http://brochures.mater.org.au/Home/Brochures/Mater-Mothers--Hospitals/Miscarriage
Medical management is only available to women participating in the Miscarriage Study. Surgery or expectant management is offered as standard care options to women who choose not to participate.
The web brochure explains that the study is being carried out because currently there is no agreement on the most effective dose for misoprostol use in miscarriage. However it points out that 800mcg is the most common dose used in studies. While it is true that researchers have not determined a dosage/regimen which is as effective as D&C i.e. the ‘optimum’ protocol for medical management using misoprostol, preliminary guidelines based on hundreds of studies have been produced by the expert group convened by WHO in Bellagio in February 2007. They are published in a supplement to the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2007, vol. 99) and can be read here. According to these guidelines, 600-800 mcg misoprostol is the recommended dose for first trimester miscarriage. The guidelines for misoprostol use according to indication and gestational age are also available at: http://www.misoprostol.org/ This website also provides excellent resources to clinicians interested in information about misoprostol use and the misoprostol debate.
The researchers have chosen to study quite a low dosage of misoprostol to reduce side effects. However, it has already been established that even 600-800 mcg is not as effective for first trimester miscarriage as the standard care D&C (it remains questionable as to why it is imperative for medical management to be equally as effective as D&C for it to be used when medical management offers the advantages of being non-invasive, cheap, free of anesthetics and safer for future fertility than D&C).The drug is inexpensive, so cost is evidently not an issue. Furthermore, the optimum dose for use in termination up to 7 weeks is 800 mcg (in combination with mifepristone). A recent study found that this dose should not be lowered (link). Apparently misoprostol side effects for termination are not a concern for women. One would imagine the same for women who miscarry.
Misoprostol is listed in the Standard Drug List of Queensland Hospitals for use in miscarriage and is currently used in this hospital for the treatment of other pregnancy complications. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is the Australian equivalent of the FDA in the US, has not approved of its use in pregnancy in Australia.
However, the Queensland Health and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists support its use in the treatment of miscarriage. Despite this, misoprostol use for first trimester miscarriage remains uncommon in Australia. The drug is quite commonly used for miscarriage management in European countries. In contrast, a combined misoprostol/mifepristone regimen is offered by most if not all services in Australia specializing in pregnancy termination. It has also become common practice for labour induction despite the fact that there is not more evidence to support its use for this indication than for miscarriage. Interestingly, expectant management is considered acceptable although it is not more effective than for miscarriage management in clinical trials. Health professionals excuse the restricted access to misoprostol for miscarriage management with the pretext that misoprostol is not TGA approved, yet misoprostol use in ALL obstetric/gynecologic indications is not approved (misoprostol was developed for the treatment and prevention of ulcers). The unlicensed use of misoprostol for terminations is cunningly circumvented by a legal loophole which allows its use in combination with mifepristone which is only TGA approved for use in pregnancy termination. Unlicensed use of misoprostol in labour induction, curiously, does not seem to hinder clinicians from using it for labour induction even though substantially less is known about the short and long term effects it may have on infants exposed to it. Misoprostol is also used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and marketed under the name Arthrotec. Curiously, there is no debate over the unlicensed use of misoprostol for arthritis. Yet none of the above has lead to questioning the objective validity behind the selective use of misoprostol for some unlicensed obstetric (or other) indications but not for miscarriage management. Why is it that the only people who seem to be prevented from using misoprostol are women who miscarry?
Most women who miscarry have no choice but to undergo a costly D&C, potentially leading to long term adverse effects on fertility (Asherman’s syndrome) and a host of possible future obstetric complications (placenta accreta, percreta, previa, IUGR, pre eclampsia, preterm birth, cervical insufficiency leading to second trimester loss, and uterine rupture). It is ironic that the very women who desire a pregnancy most are also those who are exposed to iatrogenic infertility and/or pregnancy complications arising from surgical management. Disappointing overall reproductive outcomes (40%) and associated healthcare costs (not to mention patient discontent) do not make the approach of relying on treatment of Asherman’s syndrome a paradigm. The restriction of a safe, inexpensive and non-invasive alternative such as misoprostol for miscarriage management can be considered unethical and perhaps even discriminatory as it is available to other populations of women for unlicensed obstetric/gynecological indications.
The Mater Mother’s Hospital webpage mentions potential complications from surgical management (D&C) without specifically naming Asherman’s syndrome (intrauterine adhesions and/or fibrosis) or cervical insufficiency (from cervical dilation). It also quotes the risk of complications from D&C as 1:200-500 surgeries, a greatly underestimated frequency (see Frequency of intrauterine adhesions after curettage).
It is encouraging to see local studies on misoprostol for miscarriage management. Even if 400 ug will turn out to have a significantly lower success rate than 800 ug, exposure to women and clinicians could help promote awareness about it and increase its demand/use. Perhaps it is a sign that Australia is finally ready to implement medical management as a routine care option.
http://brochures.mater.org.au/Home/Brochures/Mater-Mothers--Hospitals/Miscarriage
Medical management is only available to women participating in the Miscarriage Study. Surgery or expectant management is offered as standard care options to women who choose not to participate.
The web brochure explains that the study is being carried out because currently there is no agreement on the most effective dose for misoprostol use in miscarriage. However it points out that 800mcg is the most common dose used in studies. While it is true that researchers have not determined a dosage/regimen which is as effective as D&C i.e. the ‘optimum’ protocol for medical management using misoprostol, preliminary guidelines based on hundreds of studies have been produced by the expert group convened by WHO in Bellagio in February 2007. They are published in a supplement to the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2007, vol. 99) and can be read here. According to these guidelines, 600-800 mcg misoprostol is the recommended dose for first trimester miscarriage. The guidelines for misoprostol use according to indication and gestational age are also available at: http://www.misoprostol.org/ This website also provides excellent resources to clinicians interested in information about misoprostol use and the misoprostol debate.
The researchers have chosen to study quite a low dosage of misoprostol to reduce side effects. However, it has already been established that even 600-800 mcg is not as effective for first trimester miscarriage as the standard care D&C (it remains questionable as to why it is imperative for medical management to be equally as effective as D&C for it to be used when medical management offers the advantages of being non-invasive, cheap, free of anesthetics and safer for future fertility than D&C).The drug is inexpensive, so cost is evidently not an issue. Furthermore, the optimum dose for use in termination up to 7 weeks is 800 mcg (in combination with mifepristone). A recent study found that this dose should not be lowered (link). Apparently misoprostol side effects for termination are not a concern for women. One would imagine the same for women who miscarry.
Misoprostol is listed in the Standard Drug List of Queensland Hospitals for use in miscarriage and is currently used in this hospital for the treatment of other pregnancy complications. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is the Australian equivalent of the FDA in the US, has not approved of its use in pregnancy in Australia.
However, the Queensland Health and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists support its use in the treatment of miscarriage. Despite this, misoprostol use for first trimester miscarriage remains uncommon in Australia. The drug is quite commonly used for miscarriage management in European countries. In contrast, a combined misoprostol/mifepristone regimen is offered by most if not all services in Australia specializing in pregnancy termination. It has also become common practice for labour induction despite the fact that there is not more evidence to support its use for this indication than for miscarriage. Interestingly, expectant management is considered acceptable although it is not more effective than for miscarriage management in clinical trials. Health professionals excuse the restricted access to misoprostol for miscarriage management with the pretext that misoprostol is not TGA approved, yet misoprostol use in ALL obstetric/gynecologic indications is not approved (misoprostol was developed for the treatment and prevention of ulcers). The unlicensed use of misoprostol for terminations is cunningly circumvented by a legal loophole which allows its use in combination with mifepristone which is only TGA approved for use in pregnancy termination. Unlicensed use of misoprostol in labour induction, curiously, does not seem to hinder clinicians from using it for labour induction even though substantially less is known about the short and long term effects it may have on infants exposed to it. Misoprostol is also used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and marketed under the name Arthrotec. Curiously, there is no debate over the unlicensed use of misoprostol for arthritis. Yet none of the above has lead to questioning the objective validity behind the selective use of misoprostol for some unlicensed obstetric (or other) indications but not for miscarriage management. Why is it that the only people who seem to be prevented from using misoprostol are women who miscarry?
Most women who miscarry have no choice but to undergo a costly D&C, potentially leading to long term adverse effects on fertility (Asherman’s syndrome) and a host of possible future obstetric complications (placenta accreta, percreta, previa, IUGR, pre eclampsia, preterm birth, cervical insufficiency leading to second trimester loss, and uterine rupture). It is ironic that the very women who desire a pregnancy most are also those who are exposed to iatrogenic infertility and/or pregnancy complications arising from surgical management. Disappointing overall reproductive outcomes (40%) and associated healthcare costs (not to mention patient discontent) do not make the approach of relying on treatment of Asherman’s syndrome a paradigm. The restriction of a safe, inexpensive and non-invasive alternative such as misoprostol for miscarriage management can be considered unethical and perhaps even discriminatory as it is available to other populations of women for unlicensed obstetric/gynecological indications.
The Mater Mother’s Hospital webpage mentions potential complications from surgical management (D&C) without specifically naming Asherman’s syndrome (intrauterine adhesions and/or fibrosis) or cervical insufficiency (from cervical dilation). It also quotes the risk of complications from D&C as 1:200-500 surgeries, a greatly underestimated frequency (see Frequency of intrauterine adhesions after curettage).
It is encouraging to see local studies on misoprostol for miscarriage management. Even if 400 ug will turn out to have a significantly lower success rate than 800 ug, exposure to women and clinicians could help promote awareness about it and increase its demand/use. Perhaps it is a sign that Australia is finally ready to implement medical management as a routine care option.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Misoprostol for miscarriage management: the facts and the fiction
This is my latest Youtube video presentation. It explains the truth behind often repeated misinformation about misoprostol.
Misoprostol for miscarriage management is underused despite evidence of its efficacy and safety. It is an ideal alternative to D&C. It can also prevent Asherman's syndrome which mainly occurs from D&C, a blind surgery. This clip clarifies concerns about misoprostol which may be hindering its use by clinicians and patients alike.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Cochrane review: Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)
This systematic review was published in January. I'm adding a link to it in the RELEVANT LINKS section to the right. Or click here to have access to the complete article (then click on a link in the left window).
"Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice." (from the abstract)
"Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice." (from the abstract)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Failed medical management or a failure to comply with accepted guidelines?
Only 4 months after an in utero fetal demise at 14 weeks, I had a first trimester miscarriage at 8 weeks. I had conceived (naturally again) after only a month of trying and the pregnancy was suspected by chance at a follow up for my previous miscarriage only a few days after implantation. I’d had my next ultrasounds at 5 weeks, just under 8 weeks-where a heart rate of 151 bpm was detected- and then at 9 weeks, where there was no longer any cardiac activity.
As if this was not bad enough, I was again faced with how to cope with the physical side of this loss without incurring damage to my previously scarred uterus. Misoprostol was of course my method of choice. I learned that I would have to be admitted as an in-patient according to this hospital’s treatment protocol, although I know that in other countries misoprostol management of first trimester miscarriage (and abortion) are routinely done on an out-patient basis. This of course would increase the cost of the procedure. Once I was admitted, I learned that I would be given the same protocol as for second trimester terminations. This is because the hospital only has protocols in place using misoprostol for late abortions.
I should clarify that in Australia, misoprostol is rarely used for first trimester miscarriage. This was an exception for them and I am relieved that I was not forced into having a D&C which caused this whole debacle to begin with.
What worried me was that the accepted dosage for second trimester terminations (400 mcg every 3 hours up to 5 times) is lower per administration than that recommended for first trimester miscarriage. According to guidelines published in a supplement to the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2007, vol. 99) a woman with a first trimester miscarriage should be given 2 doses of 800 mcg of misoprostol (vaginally) 3 hours apart. This is because early in a pregnancy, there are fewer prostaglandin receptors to which misoprostol binds than later in pregnancy.
While I received the same protocol for my previous second trimester miscarriage as for second trimester abortion, the accepted protocols for these two indications are much more similar and was thus it was more effective. However, this dosage is not considered effective for first trimester pregnancy failure and with good reason, as I subsequently found out: it simply does not work. On the first day I received 5 doses but none of them produced contractions that were strong enough to evacuate the uterus. There seemed to be less uterine contractions and bleeding after the first few administrations as though the effects were wearing off. I was given a 12 hour break before starting again. I requested that the drug be given orally instead this time. I had even less of a reaction, not even nausea or diarrhea which are commonly reported side effects of oral misoprostol. The following day, I agreed to hysteroscopic removal with my Asherman’s syndrome specialist.
According to this specialist, my cervix was slightly dilated but not enough for the gestational sac to pass through. The gestational sac had implanted slightly low in the uterine cavity (future placenta previa?), and in the anterior wall, in a region where I’d had scarring from my D&C and adhesions. Tissue obtained during the hysteroscopy did not grow in culture so I was unable to find out the karyotype of the embryo, or subsequently, the gender. It is possible that I miscarried because by chance the embryo implanted in a region where I’d had previous scarring and possible fibrosis, and the blood supply was not sufficient to maintain the pregnancy. If so, this is much more upsetting than if the baby was chromosomally abnormal and would not have survived anyway. I will never know for sure what caused this miscarriage, but an Asherman’s related cause cannot be either confirmed or ruled out.
It is quite possible that I would have required hysteroscopy to remove retained products, as I had previous uterine scarring from Asherman's syndrome, and the embryo also implanted in the area of the previous scarring. However, had I been given the correct dosage, I may not have needed to wait another day to respond to a drug which was given in too low a quantity to be effective anyway.
I noticed that on my hysteroscopic surgery report written under ‘reason for hysteroscopy’ was ‘failed medical management of miscarriage.’ This made me wonder if doctors and nurses would look at my file and incorrectly conclude that misoprostol was an ineffective drug for miscarriage, rather than realizing that the dose I had been given was inappropriate and not officially recommended for my stage of pregnancy. I wonder how many other women who claim their miscarriage management with misoprostol was a ‘failure’ were also given a dose not suited to their gestational age. From a patient perspective, I wonder why it is not possible for my hospital to provide treatment according to published recommendations for that indication (rather than according to a protocol used for another indication ie. second trimester abortion)? What is the logic in applying a protocol which goes against evidence-based medicine? I hope that instead of discouraging doctors, my experience will go towards persuading this hospital to broaden the current protocol so that women with first trimester miscarriage will benefit from misoprostol. For misoprostol to be effective and safe, it needs to be used according to established guidelines which take into account factors such as gestational age and indication.
As if this was not bad enough, I was again faced with how to cope with the physical side of this loss without incurring damage to my previously scarred uterus. Misoprostol was of course my method of choice. I learned that I would have to be admitted as an in-patient according to this hospital’s treatment protocol, although I know that in other countries misoprostol management of first trimester miscarriage (and abortion) are routinely done on an out-patient basis. This of course would increase the cost of the procedure. Once I was admitted, I learned that I would be given the same protocol as for second trimester terminations. This is because the hospital only has protocols in place using misoprostol for late abortions.
I should clarify that in Australia, misoprostol is rarely used for first trimester miscarriage. This was an exception for them and I am relieved that I was not forced into having a D&C which caused this whole debacle to begin with.
What worried me was that the accepted dosage for second trimester terminations (400 mcg every 3 hours up to 5 times) is lower per administration than that recommended for first trimester miscarriage. According to guidelines published in a supplement to the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2007, vol. 99) a woman with a first trimester miscarriage should be given 2 doses of 800 mcg of misoprostol (vaginally) 3 hours apart. This is because early in a pregnancy, there are fewer prostaglandin receptors to which misoprostol binds than later in pregnancy.
While I received the same protocol for my previous second trimester miscarriage as for second trimester abortion, the accepted protocols for these two indications are much more similar and was thus it was more effective. However, this dosage is not considered effective for first trimester pregnancy failure and with good reason, as I subsequently found out: it simply does not work. On the first day I received 5 doses but none of them produced contractions that were strong enough to evacuate the uterus. There seemed to be less uterine contractions and bleeding after the first few administrations as though the effects were wearing off. I was given a 12 hour break before starting again. I requested that the drug be given orally instead this time. I had even less of a reaction, not even nausea or diarrhea which are commonly reported side effects of oral misoprostol. The following day, I agreed to hysteroscopic removal with my Asherman’s syndrome specialist.
According to this specialist, my cervix was slightly dilated but not enough for the gestational sac to pass through. The gestational sac had implanted slightly low in the uterine cavity (future placenta previa?), and in the anterior wall, in a region where I’d had scarring from my D&C and adhesions. Tissue obtained during the hysteroscopy did not grow in culture so I was unable to find out the karyotype of the embryo, or subsequently, the gender. It is possible that I miscarried because by chance the embryo implanted in a region where I’d had previous scarring and possible fibrosis, and the blood supply was not sufficient to maintain the pregnancy. If so, this is much more upsetting than if the baby was chromosomally abnormal and would not have survived anyway. I will never know for sure what caused this miscarriage, but an Asherman’s related cause cannot be either confirmed or ruled out.
It is quite possible that I would have required hysteroscopy to remove retained products, as I had previous uterine scarring from Asherman's syndrome, and the embryo also implanted in the area of the previous scarring. However, had I been given the correct dosage, I may not have needed to wait another day to respond to a drug which was given in too low a quantity to be effective anyway.
I noticed that on my hysteroscopic surgery report written under ‘reason for hysteroscopy’ was ‘failed medical management of miscarriage.’ This made me wonder if doctors and nurses would look at my file and incorrectly conclude that misoprostol was an ineffective drug for miscarriage, rather than realizing that the dose I had been given was inappropriate and not officially recommended for my stage of pregnancy. I wonder how many other women who claim their miscarriage management with misoprostol was a ‘failure’ were also given a dose not suited to their gestational age. From a patient perspective, I wonder why it is not possible for my hospital to provide treatment according to published recommendations for that indication (rather than according to a protocol used for another indication ie. second trimester abortion)? What is the logic in applying a protocol which goes against evidence-based medicine? I hope that instead of discouraging doctors, my experience will go towards persuading this hospital to broaden the current protocol so that women with first trimester miscarriage will benefit from misoprostol. For misoprostol to be effective and safe, it needs to be used according to established guidelines which take into account factors such as gestational age and indication.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Database of ObGyns who offer misoprostol for treatment of miscarriage
As I've mentioned before, in some countries there are not many ObGyns who offer misoprostol (Cytotec) for treating missed or incomplete miscarriages. This is unfortunate because it is known to be effective and does not carry the risks and potential complications such as infertility that standard care D&C does.
All women should be given a choice in the treatment of their own bodies, provided that their decision does not put their own life at risk.
Therefore I'm putting together a database of Obgyns from all over the world who do offer women the choice of medical management (eg. misoprostol/cytotec, mifepristone) so that women will have a resource if they find themselves in need.
If you are either a patient who has been treated with drugs for managing miscarriage, or a doctor who believes in a patient's right to choose and are experienced in the use of medical management of miscarriage, please contact me on:
ashermansprevention@gmail.com
Thank you.
Note to Doctors: Let me know if you have any concerns about having your names made public. I can always keep the database private and offer the names of doctors in specific areas confidentially to those who request it.
All women should be given a choice in the treatment of their own bodies, provided that their decision does not put their own life at risk.
Therefore I'm putting together a database of Obgyns from all over the world who do offer women the choice of medical management (eg. misoprostol/cytotec, mifepristone) so that women will have a resource if they find themselves in need.
If you are either a patient who has been treated with drugs for managing miscarriage, or a doctor who believes in a patient's right to choose and are experienced in the use of medical management of miscarriage, please contact me on:
ashermansprevention@gmail.com
Thank you.
Note to Doctors: Let me know if you have any concerns about having your names made public. I can always keep the database private and offer the names of doctors in specific areas confidentially to those who request it.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Misprostol for miscarriage management to prevent Asherman's syndrome
Misoprostol (also known as Cytotec produced by Pfizer) is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analogue which causes uterine contractions that empty the uterus. Initially developed for the treatment of gastric ulcers, misoprostol was found to have numerous gynecological indications including treatment of missed or incomplete miscarriage (or termination), or retained placenta following full term delivery, postpartum hemorrhaging (PPH) and labour induction. The advantage of using misoprostol for miscarriage/retained placenta management is the avoidance of the invasive, costly and potentially damaging D&C procedure (eg. Asherman's syndrome).
Misoprostol is on the WHO essential medicine list for abortion induction (in combination with mifepristone) and labour induction. Earlier this year the ACOG published a committee opinion supporting the worldwide availability of misoprostol for postabortion care (both spontaneous and induced), acknowledging its ability to prevent needless deaths in developing nations (1). It has been approved in more than 85 countries since 1985. Yet in all but 4 countries (France, Brazil, Taiwan and Egypt) it has only been approved for use in gastric ulcers. It seems that the major obstacle to the US’s FDA approval of misoprostol for gynecological indications is the original manufacturer's refusal to permit the drug to be used for pregnancy-related applications for moral rather than medical reasons: misoprostol can also be used for terminations (2). As long as those with other agendas can proclaim that misoprostol is 'not FDA (or TGA in Australia) approved' and is being used ‘off-label’, they can continue to at least imply that the reasons for this are safety-related, creating fear or uncertainty in patients and doctors alike. In fact, misoprostol is one of the most widely studied prostaglandins and has undergone hundreds of clinical trials for over 20 years. In comparison, by today's high safety and medical ethics standards, there is little doubt that the century-old blind, invasive D&C would fail to gain approval for routine use. Off label use of medication is not only legal, it is also safe when backed by years of clinical trials assessing safety. Unbeknownst to many, off label use of other Obstetric drugs is commonplace.
Could there be another underlying conflict in the D&C versus misoprostol/medical management- a hidden competition between doctors who perfom surgery and the pharmaceutical industry which produces the drug over financial gain from miscarriages/terminations? From the publications of some doctors at least it would appear that the pharmaceutical industry bowing to anti-abortion lobbyists (2) is the main obstacle rather than the collective rejection of doctors to use misoprostol. Having said this, some doctors remain ignorant about its use and hesitant to learn more. More needs to be done to educate doctors on the use of misoprostol for medical management of miscarriage, beginning in medical school where they are instead trained to peform D&Cs for just about every gynecological condition encountered.
To date there is one randomized control trial comparing the use of misoprostol to D&C for treatment of miscarriage with regards to intrauterine adhesion outcomes. Not surprisingly, this study suggests misoprostol would reduce the incidence of intrauterine adhesions (3). Although these results seem intuitive, in medicine (and science) studies are always needed as evidence, especially when a ‘standard’ treatment is to be usurped by a newer method which some doctors seem inexplicably reluctant to embrace. More such studies would also be helpful in putting to rest the ‘subclinical’ infection myth or other unsubstantiated hypotheses on the etiology of Asherman’s syndrome which somehow shift blame away from instrumentation to a yet unproven and uncharacterized patient factor (eg. patient constitution or a ‘naturally’ occurring physiological phenomenon in the absence of surgery).
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons Gynecological/Obstetric practice has been slow to keep up with research with regards to the use of medical management for miscarriage. Although there are thankfully some doctors who have incorporated misoprostol management of miscarriage into their arsenal of treatments, my experience is that they are far too few and far between at least in some countries. This is inexcusable given the risks of infertility and future obstetric complications in women who have undergone D&C, still regarded as the 'standard care' for treating missed or incomplete miscarriages. Not only is misoprostol effective, it can be used in both first and second trimester pregnancy losses.
The misoprostol.org website provides a useful table summarizing guidelines for using misoprostol for different obstetric indications and at different stages of pregnancy. Like any drug, it must be used according to guidelines and under medical supervision.
I also came across a very helpful website where women shared their experiences with using misoprostol for miscarriage.
I am adding the site to the links to the right of this blog in the hope that it will help enlighten women to the existence of medical management and what to expect. It is a longer process to use misoprostol (and more painful particularly if used for second trimester losses), however these disadvantages pale significantly against the potential complications of D&C. The more women who become aware about Asherman's syndrome and future high risk pregnancies, the more will request misoprostol treatment, hopefully forcing changes in practice and policies of standard treatment for miscarriage.
REFERENCES
1. ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 427: Misoprostol for postabortion care.
Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(2 Pt 1):465-8.
2. Misoprostol and the debate over off-label drug use (Commentary): BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
March 2005, Vol. 112, pp. 269–272. Link to full pdf
3. Tam, WH, Lau, WC, Cheung, LP, Yuen, PM, and Chung, TK. Intrauterine
adhesions after conservative and surgical management of spontaneous abortion. J
Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002;9(2):182-5.
Misoprostol is on the WHO essential medicine list for abortion induction (in combination with mifepristone) and labour induction. Earlier this year the ACOG published a committee opinion supporting the worldwide availability of misoprostol for postabortion care (both spontaneous and induced), acknowledging its ability to prevent needless deaths in developing nations (1). It has been approved in more than 85 countries since 1985. Yet in all but 4 countries (France, Brazil, Taiwan and Egypt) it has only been approved for use in gastric ulcers. It seems that the major obstacle to the US’s FDA approval of misoprostol for gynecological indications is the original manufacturer's refusal to permit the drug to be used for pregnancy-related applications for moral rather than medical reasons: misoprostol can also be used for terminations (2). As long as those with other agendas can proclaim that misoprostol is 'not FDA (or TGA in Australia) approved' and is being used ‘off-label’, they can continue to at least imply that the reasons for this are safety-related, creating fear or uncertainty in patients and doctors alike. In fact, misoprostol is one of the most widely studied prostaglandins and has undergone hundreds of clinical trials for over 20 years. In comparison, by today's high safety and medical ethics standards, there is little doubt that the century-old blind, invasive D&C would fail to gain approval for routine use. Off label use of medication is not only legal, it is also safe when backed by years of clinical trials assessing safety. Unbeknownst to many, off label use of other Obstetric drugs is commonplace.
Could there be another underlying conflict in the D&C versus misoprostol/medical management- a hidden competition between doctors who perfom surgery and the pharmaceutical industry which produces the drug over financial gain from miscarriages/terminations? From the publications of some doctors at least it would appear that the pharmaceutical industry bowing to anti-abortion lobbyists (2) is the main obstacle rather than the collective rejection of doctors to use misoprostol. Having said this, some doctors remain ignorant about its use and hesitant to learn more. More needs to be done to educate doctors on the use of misoprostol for medical management of miscarriage, beginning in medical school where they are instead trained to peform D&Cs for just about every gynecological condition encountered.
To date there is one randomized control trial comparing the use of misoprostol to D&C for treatment of miscarriage with regards to intrauterine adhesion outcomes. Not surprisingly, this study suggests misoprostol would reduce the incidence of intrauterine adhesions (3). Although these results seem intuitive, in medicine (and science) studies are always needed as evidence, especially when a ‘standard’ treatment is to be usurped by a newer method which some doctors seem inexplicably reluctant to embrace. More such studies would also be helpful in putting to rest the ‘subclinical’ infection myth or other unsubstantiated hypotheses on the etiology of Asherman’s syndrome which somehow shift blame away from instrumentation to a yet unproven and uncharacterized patient factor (eg. patient constitution or a ‘naturally’ occurring physiological phenomenon in the absence of surgery).
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons Gynecological/Obstetric practice has been slow to keep up with research with regards to the use of medical management for miscarriage. Although there are thankfully some doctors who have incorporated misoprostol management of miscarriage into their arsenal of treatments, my experience is that they are far too few and far between at least in some countries. This is inexcusable given the risks of infertility and future obstetric complications in women who have undergone D&C, still regarded as the 'standard care' for treating missed or incomplete miscarriages. Not only is misoprostol effective, it can be used in both first and second trimester pregnancy losses.
The misoprostol.org website provides a useful table summarizing guidelines for using misoprostol for different obstetric indications and at different stages of pregnancy. Like any drug, it must be used according to guidelines and under medical supervision.
I also came across a very helpful website where women shared their experiences with using misoprostol for miscarriage.
I am adding the site to the links to the right of this blog in the hope that it will help enlighten women to the existence of medical management and what to expect. It is a longer process to use misoprostol (and more painful particularly if used for second trimester losses), however these disadvantages pale significantly against the potential complications of D&C. The more women who become aware about Asherman's syndrome and future high risk pregnancies, the more will request misoprostol treatment, hopefully forcing changes in practice and policies of standard treatment for miscarriage.
REFERENCES
1. ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 427: Misoprostol for postabortion care.
Obstet Gynecol 2009;113(2 Pt 1):465-8.
2. Misoprostol and the debate over off-label drug use (Commentary): BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
March 2005, Vol. 112, pp. 269–272. Link to full pdf
3. Tam, WH, Lau, WC, Cheung, LP, Yuen, PM, and Chung, TK. Intrauterine
adhesions after conservative and surgical management of spontaneous abortion. J
Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002;9(2):182-5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)