Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Methodology

How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion

Authors: Armando H. Seuc, Iqbal H. Shah, Moazzam Ali, Claudia Diaz-Olavarrieta, Marleen Temmerman

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The assessment of treatment success in clinical trials when multiple (repeated) doses (courses) are involved is quite common, for example, in the case of infertility treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART), and medical abortion using misoprostol alone or in combination with mifepristone. Under these or similar circumstances, most researchers assess success using binomial proportions after a certain number of consecutive doses, and some have used survival analysis. In this paper we discuss the main problems in using binomial proportions to summarize (the overall) efficacy after two or more consecutive doses of the relevant treatment, particularly for the case of misoprostol in medical abortion studies. We later discuss why the survival analysis is best suited under these circumstances, and illustrate this by using simulated data.

Methods

The formulas required for the binomial proportion and survival analysis (without and with competing risks) approaches are summarized and analytically compared. Additionally, numerical results are computed and compared between the two approaches, for several theoretical scenarios.

Results

The main conceptual limitations of the binomial proportion approach are identified and discussed, caused mainly by the presence of censoring and competing risks, and it is demonstrated how survival analysis can solve these problems. In general, the binomial proportion approach tends to underestimate the “real” success rate, and tends to overestimate the corresponding standard error.

Conclusions

Depending on the rates of censored observations or competing events between repeated doses of the treatment, the bias of the binomial proportion approach as compared to the survival analysis approaches varies; however, the use of the binomial approach is unjustified as the survival analysis options are well known and available in multiple statistical packages. Our conclusions also apply to other situations where success is estimated after multiple (repeated) doses (courses) of the treatment.
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.
2.
Al-Bdour A, Akasheh H, Al-Jayousi T. Missed abortion: termination using single-dose versus two doses of vaginal misoprostol tablets. Pak J Med Sci. 2007;23(6):920–3.
3.
Coyaji K, Krishna U, Ambardekar S, Bracken H, Raote V, Mandlekar A, et al. Are two doses of misoprostol after mifepristone for early abortion better than one? BJOG. 2007;114(3):271–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jain JK, Dutton C, Harwood B, Meckstroth KR, Mishell DR. A prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol to vaginal misoprostol alone for elective termination of early pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(6):1477–82.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ngo TD, Park MH, Xiao Y. Comparing the World Health Organization-versus China-recommended protocol for first-trimester medical abortion: a retrospective analysis. Int J Womens Health. 2012;4:123–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Singh K, Fong YF, Dong F. A viable alternative to surgical vacuum aspiration: repeated doses of intravaginal misoprostol over 9 hours for medical termination of pregnancies up to eight weeks. BJOG. 2003;110(2):175–80.CrossRefPubMed
7.
von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Huong NTM, Arustamyan K, Cabezas E, Gomez M, et al. Efficacy of two intervals and two routes of administration of misoprostol for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9577):1938–46.CrossRef
8.
Zikopoulos KA, Papanikolaou EG, Kalantaridou SN, Tsanadis GD, Plachouras NI, Dalkalitsis NA, et al. Early pregnancy termination with vaginal misoprostol before and after 42 days gestation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3079–83.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gallo MF, Cahill S, Castleman L, Mitchell EMH. A systematic review of more than one dose of misoprostol after mifepristone for abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation. Contraception. 2006;74(1):36–41.CrossRefPubMed
10.
von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Wojdyla D, Nguyen TMH, Marions L, Okoev G, et al. Comparison of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion: randomized controlled equivalence trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(1):106–12.CrossRef
11.
Ashok PW, Templeton A, Wagaarachchi PT, Flett GMM. Factors affecting the outcome of early medical abortion: a review of 4132 consecutive cases. BJOG. 2002;109(11):1281–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews J. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford, Blackwell Science; 2002.CrossRef
14.
Peto R, Pike M, Armitage P, Breslow N, Cox D, Howard S, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Br J Cancer. 1977;35(1):1–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Collet D. Modelling survival data in medical research. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.CrossRef
16.
Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1229–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Compton CC, Byrd DR, Garcia-Aguilar SH, Kurtzman A, Olawaiye MK. (eds.), “AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas,” in AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas: A Companion to the Seventh Editions of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and Handbook, doi:10.​1007/​978-1-4614-2080-4_​2, © 2012 American Joint Committee on Cancer.
19.
Coviello V, Boggess M. Cumulative incidence estimation in the presence of competing risks. STATA J. 2004;4(2):103–12.
20.
Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007;26:2389–430.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Braun TM, Yuan Z. Comparing the small sample performance of several variance estimators under competing risks. Stat Med. 2007;26:1170–80.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Scrucca L, Santucci A, Aversa F. Competing risk analysis using R: an easy guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;40(4):381–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Stolwijk AM, Wetzels AMM, Braat DDM. Cumulative probability of achieving an ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection according to a woman’s age, subfertility diagnosis and primary or secondary subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(1):203–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Luke B, Brown M, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2483–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion
Authors
Armando H. Seuc
Iqbal H. Shah
Moazzam Ali
Claudia Diaz-Olavarrieta
Marleen Temmerman
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1035-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

The renin-angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in clinical trials versus routine practice: insights from the prospective EARLY registry

Study protocol

Pit excision with phenolisation of the sinus tract versus radical excision in sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: study protocol for a single centre randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Effect of a high-dose target-controlled naloxone infusion on pain and hyperalgesia in patients following groin hernia repair: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

RandomizEd controlled trial for pre-operAtive dose-escaLation BOOST in locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL BOOST study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Effectiveness of three oral hygiene regimens on oral malodor reduction: a randomized clinical trial

Research

Similarities and differences between patients included and excluded from a randomized clinical trial of vitamin d supplementation for improving glucose tolerance in prediabetes: interpreting broader applicability