Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weeks AD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5638087 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour.
Weeks A D AD Navaratnam K K Alfirevic Z Z
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 20170515 11
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8218159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess if off-label oral solution of misoprostol compared with licensed oral tablet of misoprostol approved for induction of labour (IOL) is as efficient in resulting in vaginal delivery within 24 h, using a non-inferiority design.DesignProspective, randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, blinded endpoint trial.SettingTwo tertiary level hospitals, Stockholm, Sweden, January 2022 to May 2023.PopulationIn all, 874 women, without previous caesarean section, with an unripe cervix and a singleton, cephalic foetus at 37 + 0 to 42 + 0 gestational weeks, with a normal cardiotocography, planned for IOL were included.MethodsWomen were randomised 1:1 to intervention (25 μg oral solution of misoprostol) or control (25 μg oral tablet of misoprostol) two-hourly for a maximum of eight doses. Subsequent methods of induction followed clinical practice.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 h tested using non-inferiority testing procedures at a non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points. Secondary efficacy outcomes were tested for superiority of either treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat.ResultsThere were 207 (47.4%) vaginal deliveries within 24 h for women receiving oral solution and 192 (43.9%) vaginal deliveries within 24 h for women receiving oral tablet, establishing non-inferiority with an absolute risk difference of 3.4% (95% CI -3.2% to 10.0%). Women receiving oral solution required fewer doses to reach active labour than women receiving oral tablet (5.7 vs. 6.1, p = 0.007). There were no significant differences for other secondary or safety outcomes.ConclusionsOff-label oral solution of misoprostol was non-inferior to the licensed oral tablet regarding efficacy of IOL defined as vaginal delivery within 24 h.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05424445.
| S-EPMC11704078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvery year approximately 30,000 women die from hypertensive disease in pregnancy. Magnesium sulphate and anti-hypertensives reduce morbidity, but delivery is the only cure. Low dose oral misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue, is a highly effective method for labour induction. Usually, once active labour has commenced, the misoprostol is replaced with an intravenous oxytocin infusion if ongoing stimulation is required. However, some studies have shown that oral misoprostol can be continued into active labour, a simpler and potentially more acceptable protocol for women. To date, these two protocols have never been directly compared.MethodsThis pragmatic, open-label, randomised trial will compare a misoprostol alone labour induction protocol with the standard misoprostol plus oxytocin protocol in three Indian hospitals. The study will recruit 520 pregnant women being induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and requiring augmentation after membrane rupture. Participants will be randomised to receive either further oral misoprostol 25mcg every 2 h, or titrated intravenous oxytocin. The primary outcome will be caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes will assess the efficacy of the induction process, maternal and fetal/neonatal complications and patient acceptability. This protocol (version 1.04) adheres to the SPIRIT checklist. A cost-effectiveness analysis, situational analysis and formal qualitative assessment of women's experience are also planned.DiscussionAvoiding oxytocin and continuing low dose misoprostol into active labour may have a number of benefits for both women and the health care system. Misoprostol is heat stable, oral medication and thus easy to store, transport and administer; qualities particularly desirable in low resource settings. An oral medication protocol requires less equipment (e.g. electronic infusion pumps) and may free up health care providers to assist with other aspects of the woman's care. The simplicity of the protocol may also help to reduce human errors associated with the delivery of intravenous infusions. Finally, women may prefer to be mobile during labour and not restricted by an intravenous infusion. There is a need, therefore, to assess whether augmentation using oral misoprostol is superior clinically and economically to the standard protocol of intravenous oxytocin.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov, NCT03749902 , registered on 21st Nov 2018.
| S-EPMC8320158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBetween 40,000 and 80,000 pregnant women die annually from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Although magnesium sulphate and anti-hypertensive therapies can reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with pre-eclampsia, the only cure comes with delivery. Prompt delivery of the baby, preferably by vaginal route, is vital in order to achieve good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Induction of labour is therefore a critical intervention in order to prevent morbidity to both mother and baby. Two low cost interventions - oral misoprostol tablets and transcervical Foley catheterization - are already used by some in low resource settings, but their relative risks and benefits are not known. The trial will compare the risks, benefits, and trade-offs in efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost of misoprostol and Foley catheter for induction in women with preeclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension.Methods/designA total of 602 women with an ongoing pregnancy with a live fetus requiring delivery because of pre-eclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension will be randomly assigned to labor induction with a transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol 25 micrograms. Women will be recruited at two hospitals in Nagpur, India. The misoprostol group will receive oral misoprostol 25 microgram every 2 hours for a maximum of 12 doses or until active labor commences. The Foley group will undergo induction using a Foley catheter (silicone, size 18 F with 30 ml balloon) which will remain until active labor starts, the Foley catheter falls out, or 12 hours have elapsed. The primary outcome will be the attainment of vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Providers administering the treatment and those assessing the outcomes will not be blinded to group assignment.Trial registrationNCT01801410 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
| S-EPMC4261642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Misoprostol in oral or vaginal form is an established method of labour induction worldwide. Its use after previous caesarean section is associated with a high rate of uterine rupture; according to international guidelines it is therefore contraindicated in this setting. However the evidence base for this recommendation comprises case reports, one randomised trial that was discontinued prematurely, and numerous low quality retrospective data analyses published between 1997 and 2004. New insights into e.g. resorption kinetics, dosage and application intervals, dose dependant uterine hyperstimulation rates, as well as increasing clinical experience with misoprostol have lead to a critical reappraisal of these "historical" studies. Accordingly the evidence supporting a ban on vaginal and particularly oral misoprostol for labour induction in the context of a scarred uterus is currently insufficient for a convincing guideline recommendation. In view of the clear advantages of misoprostol over prostaglandin E2 (cheaper, more effective) a retrospective review of registry data should be conducted to determine the incidence of uterine rupture following misoprostol and the circumstances in which it occurs. A prospective, randomised trial could then be conducted on the basis of these findings (e.g. oral misoprostol vs. vaginal prostaglandin E2); known risk factors for uterine rupture including the type of uterine scar would need to be taken into account when selecting patients for vaginal delivery. Until new data from well-designed studies are available, misoprostol will continue to be contraindicated in clinical guidelines for use in labour induction after previous caesarean section.
| S-EPMC4678051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesInduction of labour (IOL), or starting labour artificially, can be a lifesaving intervention for pregnant women and their babies, and rates are rising significantly globally. As rates increase, it becomes increasingly important to fully evaluate all available data, especially that from low income settings where the potential benefits and harms are greater. The goal of this paper is to describe the datasets collected as part of the Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study, a randomised trial comparing two of the recommended methods of cervical ripening for labour induction, oral misoprostol and Foley catheter, in women being induced for hypertension in pregnancy, at two sites in India during 2013-15.Data descriptionThis dataset includes comprehensive data on 602 women who underwent IOL for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to cervical ripening with oral misoprostol or a transcervical Foley catheter in two government hospitals in India. The main dataset has 367 variables including monitoring during the induction of labour, medications administered, timing and mode of delivery, measures of neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, maternal satisfaction and health economic data. The dataset is anonymised and available on ReShare.
| S-EPMC8434713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAmong the various methods available, the administration of prostaglandins is the most effective for inducing labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recent studies have compared treatment with various titrated doses of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone, indicating that the use of an escalating dose of an oral misoprostol solution is associated with a lower rate of caesarean sections and a better safety profile. The objective of this study is to assess which of these three therapeutic options (oral or vaginal misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone) achieves the highest rate of vaginal delivery within the first 24 h of drug administration.MethodsAn open-label randomised controlled trial will be conducted in Araba University Hospital (Spain). Women at ≥41 weeks of pregnancy requiring elective induction of labour who meet the selection criteria will be randomly allocated to one of three groups: 1) vaginal dinoprostone (delivered via a controlled-release vaginal insert containing 10 mg of dinoprostone, for up to 24 h); 2) vaginal misoprostol (25 μg of vaginal misoprostol every 4 h up to a maximum of 24 h); and 3) oral misoprostol (titrated doses of 20 to 60 μg of misoprostol following a 3 h on + 1 h off regimen up to a maximum of 24 h). Both intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis will be performed.DiscussionThe proposed study seeks to gather evidence on which of these three therapeutic options achieves the highest rate of vaginal delivery with the best safety profile, to enable obstetricians to use the most effective and safe option for their patients.Trial registrationNCT02902653 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02902653 (7th September 2016).
| S-EPMC6325751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with α2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births. RESULTS:Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, χ2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH<7.0 (P = 0.04, Fisher Exact). CONCLUSION:There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.
| S-EPMC6953875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study was undertaken with the objective of comparing efficacy and safety for two different regimens using misoprostol for induction of labour. METHODS:The study was set in two different hospitals in the region of Zeeland, Denmark, and designed as a prospective cohort study. Nulliparous women with unripe cervix, eligible for vaginal delivery and medical induction of labour were included. Exclusion criteria were a previous uterine scar, suspicion of growth restriction of the fetus and prelabour rupture of membranes. One department used 25 mcg oral misoprostol tablets and the other department used 200 mcg slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert, for induction of labour. Primary outcomes were predefined as frequency of cesarean section, tachysystole and delivery within 24 h. Secondary outcomes were: time from induction to delivery, use of additional methods for induction, postpartum hemorrhage, anal sphincter rupture, epidural, pyrexia (rectal temperature > 38.5 °C), prolonged rupture of membranes, and use of tocolysis. RESULTS:No significant differences in women achieving vaginal delivery was found. However, a significantly increased risk of tachysystole for the vaginal administration route was observed; 28.4% compared with 2.3%. There were no events of serious neonatal asphyxia. Half of the women induced with vaginal insert delivered within 24 h, compared with 16.8% of the women induced with oral misoprostol. CONCLUSIONS:Induction with vaginal slow-release misoprostol leads to quicker delivery with an increased risk of tachysystole but with similar perinatal outcomes and rates of cesarean sections. Low-dose oral misoprostol appears to be safe, however it leads to an increased use of secondary methods and a tendency of more intrapartum pyrexia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02693587 on February 262,016. EudraCT number 2020-000366-42 on 23 January 2020, retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7006088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether cervical ripening with oral misoprostol increases cesarean delivery risk and prolongs time to vaginal delivery compared with vaginal misoprostol in a predominantly overweight population.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care academic medical center and compared labor induction outcomes with vaginal misoprostol to outcomes with oral misoprostol after a complete institutional shift to oral misoprostol. Labor induction using 25 micrograms vaginal misoprostol in 2013-2014 was compared with 50 micrograms oral misoprostol in 2014-2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery, uterine tachysystole, maternal hemorrhage, and composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Multivariable regression models accounting for potential confounders were created for the primary and secondary outcomes with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) as the measures of effect.ResultsThere were 138 women in the oral and 138 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. In the overall cohort, the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 31.7 (28.2-36.8) and most women (72%) were of either black or Hispanic race or ethnicity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was higher in the oral than the vaginal misoprostol group (32% vs 21%; P=.04). The adjusted odds of cesarean was higher with oral misoprostol (aOR 2.01; 95% CI 1.07-3.76). Among nulliparous women, the frequency of cesarean delivery was 41% in the oral and 28% in the vaginal misoprostol groups (aOR 2.79; 95% CI 1.26-6.19). Women had a longer time to vaginal delivery in the oral compared with vaginal misoprostol group (41 vs 31 hours respectively, P=.01). Tachysystole occurred more frequently with vaginal misoprostol (20% vs 11%; P=.04).ConclusionCompared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol may be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and longer time to vaginal delivery.
| S-EPMC9234943 | biostudies-literature