Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion.

Lauren J Ralph, C Finley Baba, M Antonia Biggs, Colleen McNicholas, Amy Hagstrom Miller, Daniel Grossman
{"title":"Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person Medication Abortion.","authors":"Lauren J Ralph, C Finley Baba, M Antonia Biggs, Colleen McNicholas, Amy Hagstrom Miller, Daniel Grossman","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.10680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":17196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11197442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.10680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: In the US, access to medication abortion using history-based (no-test) eligibility assessment, including through telehealth and mailing of mifepristone, has grown rapidly. Additional evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these models is needed.

Objective: To evaluate whether medication abortion with no-test eligibility assessment and mailing of medications is as effective as in-person care with ultrasonography and safe overall.

Design, setting, and participants: Prospective, observational study with noninferiority analysis. Sites included 4 abortion-providing organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington from May 2021 to March 2023. Eligible patients were seeking medication abortion up to and including 70 days' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, and were aged 15 years or older.

Exposure: Study groups reflected the model of care selected by the patient and clinicians and included: (1) no-test (telehealth) eligibility assessment and mailing of medications (no-test + mail) (n = 228); (2) no-test eligibility assessment and pickup of medications (no-test + pickup) (n = 119); or (3) in-person with ultrasonography (n = 238).

Main outcomes and measures: Effectiveness, defined as a complete abortion without the need for repeating the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen or a follow-up procedure, and safety, defined as an abortion-related serious adverse event, including overnight hospital admission, surgery, or blood transfusion. Outcomes were derived from patient surveys and medical records. Primary analysis focused on the comparison of the no-test + mail group with the in-person with ultrasonography group.

Results: The mean age of the participants (N = 585) was 27.3 years; most identified as non-Hispanic White (48.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.1%). Median (IQR) gestational duration was 45 days (39-53) and comparable between study groups (P = .30). Outcome data were available for 91.8% of participants. Overall effectiveness was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.2%) in the no-test + mail group and 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-98.2%) in the in-person with ultrasonography group in adjusted models (adjusted risk difference, 1.2 [95% CI, -4.1 to 6.4]), meeting the prespecified 5% noninferiority margin. Serious adverse events included overnight hospitalization (n = 4), blood transfusion (n = 2), and emergency surgery (n = 1) and were reported by 1.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%) of participants, with 3 in the no-test + mail group, 3 in the in-person with ultrasonography group, and none in the no-test + pickup group.

Conclusions and relevance: This prospective, observational study found that medication abortion obtained following no-test telehealth screening and mailing of medications was associated with similar rates of complete abortion compared with in-person care with ultrasonography and met prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with a low prevalence of adverse events.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
免测试远程保健与亲自药物流产的比较。
重要性:在美国,通过基于病史(免测试)的资格评估(包括通过远程医疗和邮寄米非司酮)获得药物流产的机会增长迅速。我们需要更多有关这些模式的有效性和安全性的证据:目的:评估采用免测试资格评估和邮寄药物的药物流产是否与采用超声波检查的现场护理一样有效,且总体上安全:前瞻性观察研究,采用非劣效性分析。研究地点包括科罗拉多州、伊利诺伊州、马里兰州、明尼苏达州、弗吉尼亚州和华盛顿州的 4 家人工流产提供机构,时间为 2021 年 5 月至 2023 年 3 月。符合条件的患者在妊娠 70 天以内(含 70 天)寻求药物流产,讲英语或西班牙语,年龄在 15 岁或以上:(暴露:研究组反映了由患者和临床医生选择的护理模式,包括:(1)免测试(远程医疗)资格评估和邮寄药物(免测试+邮寄)(n = 228);(2)免测试资格评估和取药(免测试+取药)(n = 119);或(3)当面超声检查(n = 238):主要结果和测量指标:有效性,即完全流产,无需重复米非司酮和米索前列醇方案或后续手术;安全性,即与流产相关的严重不良事件,包括入院过夜、手术或输血。结果来自患者调查和医疗记录。主要分析集中于不做检查+邮寄组与当面做超声波检查组的比较:参与者(N = 585)的平均年龄为 27.3 岁,大多数为非西班牙裔白人(48.6%)或非西班牙裔黑人(28.1%)。妊娠期中位数(IQR)为 45 天(39-53),各研究组之间具有可比性(P = .30)。91.8%的参与者获得了结果数据。在调整后的模型中,无检测+邮寄组的总体有效率为94.4%(95% CI,90.7%-99.2%),而当面超声检查组的总体有效率为93.3%(95% CI,88.3%-98.2%)(调整后的风险差异为1.2 [95% CI,-4.1-6.4]),达到了预设的5%非劣效边际。严重不良事件包括过夜住院(4 例)、输血(2 例)和急诊手术(1 例),有 1.1%(95% CI,0.4%-2.4%)的参与者报告了这些不良事件,其中无检测+邮寄组有 3 例,当面超声检查组有 3 例,无检测+取件组无:这项前瞻性观察研究发现,与使用超声波造影术的当面护理相比,通过免测试远程保健筛查和邮寄药物进行药物流产的完全流产率相似,且符合预设的非劣效性标准,不良事件发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
45.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA, published continuously since 1883, is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications.
期刊最新文献
Bringing Eye Transplant Into the Light. Coding Error in Study of Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates. Combined Whole Eye and Face Transplant: Microsurgical Strategy and 1-Year Clinical Course. Ending Unequal Treatment and Achieving Optimal Health for All. Error in Study of Risk Score in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1