Contraception 92 (2015) 206 – 211

Review article

Continuing pregnancy after mifepristone and “reversal” of first-trimester
medical abortion: a systematic review☆
Daniel Grossman a, b,⁎, Kari White c , Lisa Harris d, e , Matthew Reeves f, g , Paul D. Blumenthal h ,
Beverly Winikoff i , David A. Grimes j
b

a
Ibis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco,
San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
c
Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA
d
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
e
Department of Women's Studies, Program in Sexual Rights and Reproductive Justice, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
f
National Abortion Federation, Washington, DC 20036, USA
g
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
h
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
i
Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY 10010, USA
j
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA
Received 4 May 2015; revised 27 May 2015; accepted 2 June 2015

Abstract
Objective: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical abortion “reversal” treatment. Since the usual
care for women seeking to continue pregnancies after ingesting mifepristone is expectant management with fetal surveillance, we also
performed a systematic review of continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone.
Study design: We searched PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus and the Cochrane
Library for articles published through March 2015 reporting the proportion of pregnancies continuing after treatment with either mifepristone
alone or after an additional treatment following mifepristone aimed at reversing its effect.
Results: From 1115 articles retrieved, 1 study met inclusion criteria for abortion reversal, and 13 studies met criteria for continuing
pregnancy after mifepristone alone. The one report of abortion reversal was a case series of 7 patients receiving varying doses of progesterone
in oil intramuscularly or micronized progesterone orally or vaginally; 1 patient was lost to follow-up. The study was of poor quality and
lacked clear information on patient selection. Four of six women continued the pregnancy to term [67%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 30–
90%]. Assuming the lost patient aborted resulted in a continuing pregnancy proportion of 57% (95% CI 25–84%). The proportion of
pregnancies continuing 1–2 weeks after mifepristone alone varied from 8% (95% CI 3–22%) to 46% (95% CI 37–56%). Continuing
pregnancy was more common with lower mifepristone doses and advanced gestational age.
Conclusions: In the rare case that a woman changes her mind after starting medical abortion, evidence is insufficient to determine whether
treatment with progesterone after mifepristone results in a higher proportion of continuing pregnancies compared to expectant management.
Implications: Legislation requiring physicians to inform patients about abortion reversal transforms an unproven therapy into law and
represents legislative interference in the patient–physician relationship.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Medical abortion; Mifepristone; Reversal; Progesterone; Continuing pregnancy

☆

Conflicts of interest: none.
⁎ Corresponding author. Ibis Reproductive Health, 1330 Broadway,
Ste 1100, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. Tel.: + 1-510-986-8941;
fax: + 1-510-986-8960.
E-mail address: DGrossman@ibisreproductivehealth.org
(D. Grossman).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.001
0010-7824/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
First-trimester medical abortion involves the use of
mifepristone followed by misoprostol, generally up to a
gestational age of 63 days from last menstrual period [1,2].
Many women prefer medical abortion to surgical abortion

 D. Grossman et al. / Contraception 92 (2015) 206–211

because they perceive it as less invasive and more private [3].
The proportion of all nonhospital abortions in the United
States that were early medical abortions increased from 17%
in 2008 to 23% in 2011 [4].
In early 2015, legislatures in Arizona and Arkansas
passed laws requiring physicians providing abortion to
inform women that if they choose to have a medical abortion
and then decide not to complete the abortion, the effect of
mifepristone may be reversed with specific treatment [5].
Treatment to reverse the effects of mifepristone is not
considered an established practice by the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) [6] and was not
described in a recent practice bulletin on first-trimester
medical abortion issued by ACOG and the Society of Family
Planning (SFP) [1].
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic
review of the literature on reversal of medical abortion that
documented the proportion of pregnancies continuing after
treatment. Since the usual care for women seeking to
continue pregnancies after ingesting mifepristone is expectant management with fetal surveillance, we also performed
a systematic review of continuing pregnancy after treatment
with mifepristone alone.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Systematic review of medical abortion reversal
In this review, we searched for reports of pharmacological
methods (e.g., intramuscular injection of progesterone) to
reverse the effects of mifepristone prior to administration of
misoprostol (or any other prostaglandin) for first-trimester
medical abortion. We anticipated few, if any, randomized
controlled trials and therefore broadened our search to
include cohort studies and case studies or case series; we
excluded review articles, editorials and commentaries. The
primary outcome was the proportion of women who carried
their pregnancies to term after receiving treatment to reverse
the effect of mifepristone.
We searched for studies published through March 31,
2015, using databases for PubMed, the CINAHL
(Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature),
Scopus and the Cochrane Library. We combined the
following search terms as Medical Subject Headings
(MeSH) and text words: induced abortion, steroidal
abortifacient agents; mifepristone; Mifeprex; Mifegyne;
RU-486; reverse; antidote; progesterone; progestin; firsttrimester pregnancy (see Box).
After initial title and abstract screening, two reviewers
(DG and KW) independently evaluated full-text articles to
determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. For
relevant studies, we recorded the number of women enrolled
in the study (or included in the case series) and the number of
continuing pregnancies. We then calculated the percentage
of continuing pregnancies and 95% Wilson Score confidence
intervals (CIs) for women receiving reversal therapy.

207

Box
List of PubMed search terms used in a systematic review of
studies on the efficacy of medical abortion reversal

Search
(1)

(2)
(3)

(4)

“Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal”[mesh] or “Mifepristone”
[mesh] or mifepristone or mifegyne or mifeprex or “r 38486”
or r38486 or r-38486 or “ru 38486” or “ru 486” or ru486 or
ru-486 or ru38486 or “zk 98296” or zk98296 or zk-98296
“Abortion, Induced”[mesh] or abort* or terminat*
(“Pregnancy”[mesh] or pregnan* and (“first trimester”)
or (week*)) or “Pregnancy Trimester, First”[mesh] or
“early pregnancy”
revers* or antidote or “Progesterone”[mesh] or
progesterone or “progestins”[mesh] or progestin*
#1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4
AND ((“0001/01/01”[PDAT]: “2015/03/31”[PDAT])
AND “humans”[MeSH Terms])

2.2. Systematic review of continuing pregnancies following the
use of mifepristone alone for first-trimester medical abortion
We reviewed cohort studies and randomized controlled
trials that used mifepristone alone during the first trimester of
pregnancy to induce abortion, which we identified through a
search of the same four databases and using the same search
strategy, excluding the reversal terms. We also searched the
reference lists of relevant publications for additional studies.
We excluded studies that only reported medical abortion
failure after mifepristone alone and did not specify the
number of continuing pregnancies. We calculated the
proportion of pregnancies continuing at the time of the
follow-up visit after treatment with mifepristone alone and
95% Wilson Score CIs. Because the mifepristone regimens
were not uniform, metaanalysis could not be performed.

3. Results
3.1. Systematic review of medical abortion reversal
Of the 319 unduplicated titles identified in our search, one
article met our inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). This article was a
case series by Delgado and Davenport [7] of seven women
who received progesterone treatment after taking mifepristone for medical abortion at 7–11 weeks gestation. The
mifepristone dosage was not noted. One patient was lost to
follow-up. Of the six patients with follow-up data, four
continued the pregnancy and delivered at term with no
apparent congenital malformations; two patients aborted the
pregnancy within 3 days of taking mifepristone. The
progesterone regimen varied from progesterone in oil
200 mg intramuscularly daily to twice per week, sometimes
followed by oral micronized progesterone, to micronized

 208

D. Grossman et al. / Contraception 92 (2015) 206–211

Citations identified in search
(n=367)
Duplicates excluded (n=48)
Studies excluded based on title screening (n=315)

Potentially relevant studies identified
and abstract screened for retrieval
(n=4)
Studies excluded, not relevant (n=3)

Full-text articles retrieved for
detailed evaluation
(n=1)

Studies included in review
(n=1)
Fig. 1. Summary of study selection process for medical abortion reversal.

progesterone administered vaginally. Therapy was continued
for up to 5 months. The publication provides limited details,
but it appears that, in at least five cases, a living embryo was
documented prior to initiating progesterone treatment. The
authors did not report how many women presented seeking
medical abortion reversal after taking mifepristone and were
found to have already aborted and therefore excluded from
treatment. The dates during which cases were collected are
not specified, and it is unclear if all women treated were
included in the case series. Based on the four continuing
pregnancies and excluding the patient lost to follow-up, the
proportion of pregnancies continuing after this therapy was
67% (95% CI 30–90%). If we assume that the patient lost to
follow-up had an abortion, the continuing pregnancy
proportion was 57% (95% CI 25–84%).
3.2. Systematic review of continuing pregnancies following
the use of mifepristone alone for first-trimester medical
abortion
Our search retrieved 1115 unduplicated articles, and 13
studies in 11 publications met our inclusion criteria (one
publication was an English-language article that included
two relevant studies performed in China, and one publication
provided complete information on two relevant mifepristone
dosages) (Fig. 2) [8–18]. Women were generally assessed
1–2 weeks after mifepristone and those with a continuing
pregnancy at that time underwent surgical abortion. Table 1
shows for each study the mifepristone regimen used, the
gestational age limit, when the follow-up visit occurred, the
proportion of pregnancies that had a complete abortion after

mifepristone alone and the proportion of pregnancies that
were continuing at the follow-up visit. The continuing
pregnancy proportions ranged from 8% to 46% with the
different regimens.

4. Discussion
We found only one small case series that evaluated a
treatment aimed at reversing the effects of mifepristone. The
proportion of pregnancies that continued after this treatment
was 57–67%, but the 95% CI of this estimate was wide,
ranging from 25% to 90% [7]. The study was of poor quality
with few details.
Due to the limited information in the article [7], one
cannot directly compare the results of this single small series
to the continuing pregnancy rate after mifepristone alone,
which was as high as 46% in one of the clinical trials [15]. In
the report by Delgado and Davenport [7], women presented
7–48 h after mifepristone ingestion, and, except for two
cases, the patient had a live embryo at the time of treatment.
In order to calculate the proportion of women with a
continuing pregnancy seeking this treatment, which would
be comparable to the proportion of continuing pregnancies
after mifepristone alone, one must know how many women
requested treatment and were found to already have an
embryonic demise or incomplete abortion. It is reasonable to
suppose that women who have an ongoing pregnancy 1–2
days after mifepristone are more likely to have pregnancies
that continue to term with no further treatment. It is also
possible that some of the continuing pregnancies noted 1–2

 D. Grossman et al. / Contraception 92 (2015) 206–211

209

Citations identified in search
(n=1,349)
Duplicates excluded (n=234)
Studies excluded based on title screening (n=996)

Potentially relevant studies identified
and abstract screened for retrieval
(n=119)
Studies excluded, not relevant (n=98)
Additional studies identified (n=1)

Full-text articles retrieved for
detailed evaluation
(n=22)
Studies excluded (n=11)
Continuing pregnancy not reported separately (n=6)
Regimen included prostaglandins (n=5)

Articles included in review
(n=11)
Fig. 2. Summary of study selection process for continuing pregnancy following administration of mifepristone alone for medical abortion.

weeks after treatment in the studies of mifepristone alone
may have aborted if the period of follow-up were longer.
Although the dose of mifepristone was not noted in the
report by Delgado and Davenport [7], women likely received
200 mg, which is the dosage recommended by ACOG and
SFP and most often used by providers in the US [1,19]. Most
of the studies of mifepristone alone used a higher dose, and
the one study that compared 600 mg to 200 mg found a
higher proportion of continuing pregnancies with 200 mg

[18]. In addition, none of the studies of mifepristone alone
included women pregnant beyond 56 days, while the report
by Delgado and Davenport [7] included women up to 11
weeks gestation. In the first trimester, the risk of continuing
pregnancy after medical abortion increases as gestational age
advances [15,20].
Progesterone is used for other indications during
pregnancy. Injections of 17a-hydroxyprogesterone caproate
or administration of vaginal progesterone suppositories or

Table 1
Studies reporting the proportion of women with continuing pregnancies following administration of mifepristone alone for medical abortion
Study

Mifepristone oral dose

N

Gestational age limit Follow-up visit (number
Complete Continuing pregnancy at
of days after mifepristone) abortion follow-up visit (%, 95% CI)

Birgerson 1988 [9]
Cameron 1986 [8]
Carol 1989 [17]
Grimes 1988 [10]
Kovacs 1984 [11]
Maria 1988a [16]
Maria 1988b [18]
Maria 1988b [18]
Somell 1990 [12]
Swahn 1989 [13]
Ylikorkala 1989 [14]
Zheng 1989 [15]
Zheng 1989 [15]

10, 25 or 50 mg twice daily for 7 days
150 mg daily for 4 days
600 mg (single dose)
600 mg (single dose)
25–100 mg twice daily for 4 days
600 mg (single dose)
600 mg (single dose)
200 mg (single dose)
600 mg (single dose)
25 mg twice daily for 4 days
600 mg (single dose)
600 mg (single dose)
600 mg (single dose)

153
20
50
50
36 a
149 a
174
30
70
14
47 b
204
95

49 days
56 days
39 days
49 days
42 days
42 days
49 days
49 days
42 days
49 days
43 days
42 days
49 days

8–10 days
14 days
NS
14 days
14 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
14 days
14 days
7 days
7 days

NS, not specified.
a
One additional participant was later found to have an ectopic and is excluded from the total here.
b
Three additional participants had a missed abortion at time of treatment and are excluded from the total here.

67%
60%
80%
88%
61%
88%
84%
63%
80%
57%
70%
65%
53%

27% (20–34%)
25% (11–47%)
12% (6–24%)
10% (4–21%)
8% (3–22%)
9% (6–15%)
11% (8–17%)
23% (12–41%)
17% (10–28%)
36% (16–61%)
11% (5–23%)
31% (25–38%)
46% (37–56%)

 210

D. Grossman et al. / Contraception 92 (2015) 206–211

gel may be used for prevention of preterm birth among
women at high risk of early delivery, generally weekly from
16 weeks to 36 weeks gestation [21]. Progesterone
supplementation is also used with assisted reproductive
technologies that involve treatment with a gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) analog, agonist or antagonist,
which may interrupt the normal functioning of the corpus
luteum [22]. Progesterone in oil injections or vaginal
suppositories or gel may be used for this purpose, but
treatment is generally stopped after 9–12 weeks gestation, by
which time the trophoblast is the primary source of
progesterone. Progesterone is not associated with an
increased risk of congenital anomalies, including genital
abnormalities. Adverse events associated with progesterone
injections include injection site swelling or irritation [23], as
well as the potential of allergies to the yam, soy or peanut
used in manufacturing or compounding the medication [21].
However, the evidence supporting the use of progesterone
early in pregnancy after GnRH treatment or to prevent
preterm birth is not directly applicable to the situation after
mifepristone treatment. Mifepristone blocks the progesterone receptor with a higher affinity than progesterone itself
[24]. Women treated with mifepristone for abortion have
normal pregnancies with high progesterone levels, and it is
not clear that adding more progesterone would counteract the
effect of the receptor blockade. A recent randomized
controlled trial found that insertion of an etonogestrel
contraceptive implant, a very potent progestin, immediately
after ingestion of mifepristone did not reduce the effectiveness of the medical abortion regimen compared to delayed
insertion after abortion completion [25], confirming the
findings of a previous pilot study [26]. In addition, the
duration of treatment that women received in the report by
Delgado and Davenport [7] was more consistent with
preterm labor prevention (albeit with an unproven regimen).
It also far exceeded the expected duration of action of
mifepristone since the drug is undetectable in humans 10
days after ingestion of a 200-mg dose [27].
The evidence to date does not suggest an elevated risk of
congenital malformations after mifepristone administration
alone. A recent prospective study from France reported on 46
pregnancies exposed to mifepristone only [28]. Two major
malformations occurred among 38 continuing pregnancies
(5.3%), which, based on these small numbers, does not
appear to be significantly elevated above the expected
proportion of about 3%. While more prospective data are
needed, information about the low risk of congenital
malformations after mifepristone exposure should be given
to women who decide to continue a pregnancy after taking
the drug.
The clinical use and new state laws concerning abortion
“reversal” raise serious ethical concerns. The limited data on
mifepristone reversal grew out of the anecdotal experiences
of physicians who performed experimental treatment on
pregnant women, without usual research safeguards.
Delgado and Davenport [7] do not report that their study

had an ethics board or institutional review board (IRB)
approval. Case reports involving retrospective analysis of
three or fewer cases do not generally require IRB oversight,
although institutions or journals may require IRB review to
determine that the report is exempt. While Delgado and
Davenport [7] published their findings as a “case report,”
their study is clearly “research” as defined in federal policy.
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic
investigation, including research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge [29].” The report clearly extends into the
realm of research, whether measured by its prospective
nature, the number of patients on which it reports, its attempt
to assess a specific new treatment regimen or the suggestion
that the data produced be used to guide treatment of other
women. In recognition of the report's limitations, Delgado
and Davenport [7] themselves called for further clinical trials
before routine use of their protocol. The new laws in Arizona
and Arkansas have now bypassed the research process, in
effect making all women who undergo this treatment
subjects in an uncontrolled, unmonitored experiment.
Providing evidence-based care is part of how physicians
meet their beneficence-based obligations to patients, and
therefore, it is a moral as well as a clinical mandate to base
care on accepted scientific fact. The new laws compel
physicians to say things that may contradict their clinical
knowledge and judgment. Some physicians will not be able
to do so in good conscience; they may feel that suggesting
unproven treatment or suggesting that a woman can begin an
abortion with uncertainty about her decision contradicts their
duty to do no harm.
Women rarely change their minds after beginning a
medical abortion. According to reports that physicians are
required to submit to the drug's manufacturer, between 2000
and 2012, less than 0.004% of women taking mifepristone in
the US later chose to continue the pregnancy (personal
communication, Danco Laboratories). In such a case, a
woman should be counseled that there is a reasonable chance
(10–45%) that the pregnancy will continue. We found no
credible evidence that using medication after ingestion of
mifepristone is better than expectant management in assuring
a continuing pregnancy; suggesting otherwise is scientifically untenable. Legislative interference in the patient–
physician relationship is unwarranted and dangerous [30]. In
the case of recent Arizona and Arkansas laws, this
interference transforms an unproven therapy into law,
bases law on methodologically flawed research and in effect
turns unethical experimentation on pregnant women into
legislative mandate. These features of mifepristone reversal
represent an affront to responsible research conduct and to
the ethical practice of medicine.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation and an anonymous foundation.

 D. Grossman et al. / Contraception 92 (2015) 206–211

References
[1] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice
Bulletin No 143: Medical management of first-trimester abortion.
Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:676–92.
[2] World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy
guidance for health systems. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
[3] Ho PC. Women's perceptions on medical abortion. Contraception
2006;74:11–5.
[4] Jones RK, Jerman J. Abortion incidence and service availability in the
United States, 2011. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014;46:3–4.
[5] Arizona Senate Bill 1318. Available at, https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/
SB1318/2015 [Accessed 25 April 2015].
[6] American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Medication
Abortion Reversal. Available at , http://www.acog.org/-/media/
Departments/State-Legislative-Activities/2015AZFactSheetMedication
AbortionReversalfinal.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150425T1907218559 [Accessed
25 April 2015].
[7] Delgado G, Davenport ML. Progesterone use to reverse the effects of
mifepristone. Ann Pharmacother 2012;46:e36.
[8] Cameron IT, Michie AF, Baird DT. Therapeutic abortion in early
pregnancy with antiprogestogen RU486 alone or in combination
with prostaglandin analogue (gemeprost). Contraception
1986;34:459–68.
[9] Birgerson L, Odlind V. The antiprogestational agent RU 486 as an
abortifacient in early human pregnancy: a comparison of three dose
regimens. Contraception 1988;38:391–400.
[10] Grimes DA, Mishell DR, Shoupe D, Lacarra M. Early abortion with a
single dose of the antiprogestin RU-486. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1988;158:1307–12.
[11] Kovacs L, Sas M, Resch BA, Ugocsai G, Swahn ML, Bygdeman M, et al.
Termination of very early pregnancy by RU 486 — an antiprogestational
compound. Contraception 1984;29:399–410.
[12] Somell C, Olund A. Induction of abortion in early pregnancy with
mifepristone. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1990;29:13–5.
[13] Swahn ML, Ugocsai G, Bygdeman M, Kovacs L, Belsey EM,
Van Look PF. Effect of oral prostaglandin E2 on uterine
contractility and outcome of treatment in women receiving RU
486 (mifepristone) for termination of early pregnancy. Hum
Reprod 1989;4:21–8.
[14] Ylikorkala O, Alfthan H, Kääriäinen M, Rapeli T, Lähteenmäki P.
Outpatient therapeutic abortion with mifepristone. Obstet Gynecol
1989;74:653–7.
[15] Zheng SR. RU 486 (mifepristone): clinical trials in China. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand Suppl 1989;149:19–23.

211

[16] Maria B, Stampf F, Goepp A, Ulmann A. Termination of early
pregnancy by a single dose of mifepristone (RU 486), a progesterone
antagonist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988;28:249–55.
[17] Carol W, Klinger G. Experiences with the antigestagen mifepristone
(RU 486) in the interruption of early pregnancy. Zentralbl Gynakol
1989;111:1325–8.
[18] Maria B, Chaneac M, Stampf F, Ulmann A. Early pregnancy
interruption using an antiprogesterone steroid: mifepristone (RU
486). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1988;17:1089–94.
[19] Wiegerinck MM, Jones HE, O'Connell K, Lichtenberg ES, Paul M,
Westhoff CL. Medical abortion practices: a survey of National Abortion
Federation members in the United States. Contraception 2008;78:486–91.
[20] Spitz IM, Bardin CW, Benton L, Robbins A. Early pregnancy
termination with mifepristone and misoprostol in the United States. N
Engl J Med 1998;338:1241–7.
[21] Iams JD. Identification of candidates for progesterone: why, who, how,
and when? Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1317–26.
[22] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and
in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational
bulletin. Fertil Steril 2008;89:789–92.
[23] Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E, Dombrowski MP, Sibai B, Moawad AH,
et al. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2379–85.
[24] Heikinheimo O, Kontula K, Croxatto H, Spitz I, Luukkainen T,
Lähteenmäki P. Plasma concentrations and receptor binding of RU 486
and its metabolites in humans. J Steroid Biochem 1987;26:279–84.
[25] Raymond EG, Weaver MA, Tan YL, Louie KS, Bousiéguez M, Sanhueza P,
et al. Medical abortion outcomes following quickstart of contraceptive
implants. Contraception 2015;91:429.
[26] Sonalkar S, Hou MY, Borgatta L. Administration of the etonogestrel
contraceptive implant on the day of mifepristone for medical abortion:
a pilot study. Contraception 2013;88:671–3.
[27] Sitruk-Ware R, Spitz IM. Pharmacological properties of mifepristone:
toxicology and safety in animal and human studies. Contraception
2003;68:409–20.
[28] Bernard N, Elefant E, Carlier P, Tebacher M, Barjhoux CE,
Bos-Thompson MA, et al. Continuation of pregnancy after first-trimester
exposure to mifepristone: an observational prospective study. BJOG
2013;120:568–74.
[29] Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal
Regulations, 45 CFR 46.102 (d); 2009.
[30] Weinberger SE, Lawrence HC, Henley DE, Alden ER, Hoyt DB.
Legislative interference with the patient–physician relationship. N
Engl J Med 2012;367:1557–9.