Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Summary Background The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Methods MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m 2 vs ≥35 kg/m 2 ), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. Findings Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54–0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. Interpretation Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in t...

This study designed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to assess whether adequate visibility can be achieved with lower uterine filling pressures using normal saline for diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy and whether patient discomfort can be reduced. A total of 234 patients were randomized to 40 mmHg (77 patients), 70 mmHg (78 patients) or 100 mmHg (79 patients) of uterine filling pressures. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of procedures where adequate visibility was achieved during diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy. The secondary outcome was the level of pain experienced by the patient as assessed using a visual analogue scale. There was adequate visibility in 87.0% of cases in 40 mmHg group, 94.9% in 70 mmHg group and 97.5% in 100 mmHg group. Visibility was lower with 40 mmHg compared with 70 and 100 mmHg (P < 0.05). The mean pain score in each group was not significantly different. In conclusion, this study showed that there was a higher trend towards inadequate visibility with lower filling pressures. Pressures of 70 and 100 mmHg may be equivalent to each other but not to a pressure level of 40 mmHg. Pain scores do not differ significantly with the pressure options used.