RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.06.20244921
DO 10.1101/2020.12.06.20244921
A1 Aiken, Abigail
A1 Lohr, Patricia A
A1 Lord, Jonathan
A1 Ghosh, Nabanita
A1 Starling, Jennifer
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/07/2020.12.06.20244921.abstract
AB Objectives To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion before and after the introduction of no-test telemedicine abortion care.Design Cohort study to assess whether a no-test telemedicine-hybrid care model (telemedicine with in-person provision only when indicated) was non-inferior to the traditional service model (blanket in-person provision including ultrasound scan).Setting The three main abortion providers in England and Wales.Participants All patients having an early medical abortion in the two months before and after the service model change. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the cohorts to adjust for any systematic differences in the two groups.Access waiting time, gestation at abortionEffectiveness the proportion of successful medical abortionsSafety significant adverse events defined as: haemorrhage requiring transfusion, significant infection requiring hospital admission, major surgery, death. We also examined the incidence of ectopic pregnancy and late gestation.Acceptability Patient-reported outcomes of satisfaction, future preference, and privacy of consultationResults The study sample included 52,142 medical abortions; 22,158 in the traditional cohort and 29,984 in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort, of which 61% were provided using no-test telemedicine. The cohorts accounted for 85% of all medical abortions provided in England and Wales during the study period. Mean waiting times were 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine-hybrid cohort, and 40% were provided at ≤6 weeks’ gestation compared to 25% in the traditional cohort (p<0.001). There was no difference in success rates between the two groups (98.2% vs. 98.8%, p=1.0), nor in the prevalence of serious adverse events (0.04% vs. 0.02%, p=0.557). The incidence of ectopic pregnancy was equivalent in both cohorts (0.2%, p=0.796), with no significant difference in the proportions being treated after abortion (0.01% vs 0.03%, p=0.123). In 0.04% of cases the abortion appeared to have been provided at over 10 weeks’ gestation; these abortions were all completed at home without additional medical complications. In the telemedicine-hybrid group, the effectiveness for abortions conducted using telemedicine (n=18,435) was higher than for those conducted in-person (n=11,549), 99.2% vs. 98.1%, p<0.001. Acceptability was high (96% satisfied), 80% reported a future preference for telemedicine and none reported that they were unable to consult in private using teleconsultation.Conclusions Medical abortion provided through a hybrid model that includes no-test telemedicine without routine ultrasound is effective, safe, acceptable, and improves access to care.What is already known on this topic The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) conducted a systematic review and recommended using telemedicine to improve access to medical abortion care.Several models for using telemedicine to facilitate medical abortion have been described, but most existing trials are small, and many required attendances to have medicines administered or for an ultrasound scan or blood tests.What this study adds This study (n=52,142) is the first to assess a real-world no-test telemedicine abortion care pathway in a national population. The new national model demonstrates how a permissive framework for medical abortion can deliver significant quality improvements to those needing to access abortion care. There was no difference in effectiveness (p=1.0) or safety (p=0.6) when compared to a traditional in-person model, but the no-test telemedicine pathway improved access to care, was highly acceptable to patients and is likely to be especially beneficial for vulnerable groups and in resource-poor settings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/coronavirus-abortion/ https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/2020-06-04-decision-aid-for-early-medical-abortion-without-ultrasound.pdf Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Texas at Austin and a determination was made that the research did not meet the criteria for human subjects research as defined in the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) or FDA Regulations (21 CFR 56).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe collated datasets, which include participant data with anonymised identifiers, are held by AA at the University of Texas. Consideration will be given to sharing this with bone fide researchers on application. The original data resides with the co-authors' own institutions. Although the data is de-identified, some relate to very rare events and could therefore result in identification. Therefore data on complications, and data arising from clinical incident reports, will be subject to the same access restrictions as those of the organisation supplying it.