Gc. Penney et al., A RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING INFECTIVE COMPLICATIONS OF INDUCED-ABORTION, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 105(6), 1998, pp. 599-604
Objectives To determine lower genital tract carriage rates of C. trach
omatis, N. gonorrhoeae and bacterial vaginosis among women seeking ter
mination of pregnancy. To compare two clinical management strategies f
or minimising the risks of infective morbidity after induced abortion.
Design Prevalence of infections was assessed by screening women under
going abortion. Clinical management strategies were compared by a rand
omised trial. Setting The gynaecology departments of four hospitals in
Scotland. Participants 1672 women undergoing induced abortion, Interv
entions Women randomised to prophylaxis received metronidazole 1 g rec
tally before abortion plus doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for seven da
ys. Women randomised to screen-and-treat received appropriate antibiot
ics only if screening proved positive for one or more infection. Main
outcome measures Prevalences of infections; morbidity in the eight wee
ks following abortion as assessed by reported symptoms, general practi
tioner consultation and prescription rates and hospital re-attendances
; costs to the NHS of alternative managements. Results Prevalence rate
s: C. trachomatis 5.6%; N; gonorrhoeae 0.19%; bacterial vaginosis 17.5
%. Overall, women allocated to receive prophylaxis had lower rates of
measures of short term infective morbidity than those allocated to scr
een-and-treat. These differences only reached statistical significance
for women who were reported negative on screening. The direct costs t
o the NHS of prophylaxis and screen-and-treat were calculated to be po
und 8.17 and pound 18.34 per woman, respectively. Conclusions Prevalen
ces of lower genital tract infections which have been implicated in in
creased rates of infective morbidity after abortion are similar to tho
se reported elsewhere. Universal antibiotic prophylaxis is at least as
effective as a policy of screen-and-treat in minimising the risk of s
hort term infective morbidity and is far more cost efficient.