Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol

The efficacy and safety of 25 μg or 50 μg oral misoprostol versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is widely used for cervical ripening and labour induction as it is heat-stable and inexpensive. Oral misoprostol 25 μg given 2-hourly is recommended over vaginal misoprostol 25 μg given 6-hourly, but the need for 2-hourly fetal monitoring makes oral misoprostol impractical for routine use in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol initiated at 25 or 50 μg versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- to 6-hourly intervals for labor induction in women at or beyond term (≥ 37 weeks) with a single viable fetus and an unscarred uterus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified eligible randomized, parallel-group, labor-induction trials from recent systematic reviews. We additionally searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and clinical trials registries from February 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 without language restrictions. Database-specific keywords for cervical priming, labor induction, and misoprostol were used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We excluded labor-induction trials exclusively in women with ruptured membranes, in the third trimester, and those that initiated misoprostol at doses not specified in the review's objectives. The primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 h, cesarean section, perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, and maternal morbidity. The secondary outcomes were uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, and oxytocin augmentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived pooled weighted risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the dose and frequency of misoprostol regimens. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty (confidence) in the effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials, from Canada, India, Iran, and the US, randomizing 2941 women at ≥37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), met the eligibility criteria. Five misoprostol regimens were compared: 25 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (three trials); 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (five trials); 50 μg followed by 100 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (two trials); 50 μg oral, 4-hourly versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (one trial); and 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (two trials). The overall certainty in the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, due to high risk of bias in 11/13 trials (affecting all outcomes), unexplained heterogeneity (1/7 outcomes), indirectness (1/7 outcomes), and imprecision (4/7 outcomes). Vaginal misoprostol probably increased vaginal deliveries within 24 h compared with oral misoprostol (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; 11 trials, 2721 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence); this was more likely with 4-hourly than with 6-hourly vaginal regimens. The risk of cesarean sections did not appreciably differ (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; very low-certainty evidence), although oral misoprostol 25 μg 4-hourly probably increased this risk compared with 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21-2.36; three trials, 515 mothers). The risk of perinatal mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11-3.90; one trial, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence), neonatal morbidity (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.06; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; low-certainty evidence), and maternal morbidity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48-1.44; 6 trials; 1945 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence) did not differ appreciably. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes may be lower with oral misoprostol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95; 10 trials, 2565 mothers; low-certainty evidence). Oxytocin augmentation was probably more frequent with oral compared with vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10-1.51; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol regimens probably result in more vaginal births within 24 h and less frequent oxytocin use compared with low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly, oral misoprostol regimens. Vaginal misoprostol may increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes compared with oral misoprostol, without increasing the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, or maternal morbidity. Indirect evidence indicates that 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly may be more effective and as safe as the recommended 6-hourly vaginal regimen. This evidence could inform clinical decisions in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.

Vaginal Compared With Oral Misoprostol Induction at Term: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy in achieving vaginal delivery with a standardized vaginal compared with oral misoprostol regimen for labor induction at term.

METHODS

In this single-center, cluster randomized trial, we randomized induction method by week among individuals with gestational age of 37 weeks or more, cervical dilation of 2 cm or less, intact membranes, and indication for delivery to either oral (100 micrograms every 4 hours for up to two doses), or vaginal (25 micrograms every 3 hours for up to five doses) misoprostol regimens, followed by a standardized oxytocin protocol. Individuals with an antepartum stillbirth, major fetal anomalies, malpresentation, ruptured membranes, nonreassuring fetal status, or contraindication to prostaglandin were excluded. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery at first induction attempt. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery, need for oxytocin, chorioamnionitis, and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Outcomes were recorded at the individual level and adjusted for clustering, with analysis by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Between May 24, 2021, to September 19, 2022, 1,322 women were randomized to vaginal misoprostol in 33 clusters and 1,224 to oral misoprostol in 37 clusters. Demographic characteristics or initial cervical dilation did not differ between groups. The primary outcome did not differ between induction regimens and occurred in 1,032 (78.1%) of the vaginal misoprostol arm and 945 (77.2%) of the oral misoprostol arm (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.01, 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). Tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes occurred less frequently with vaginal compared with oral misoprostol (3.5% vs 5.9%, adjusted RR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.40-0.87). Time to delivery did not differ between groups. Oxytocin was less frequently required before delivery in the vaginal misoprostol group (68.8% vs 78.4%, adjusted RR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.84-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Induction of labor with vaginal compared with oral misoprostol protocols did not increase the frequency of vaginal delivery at term but did reduce the need for oxytocin use before delivery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04755218.

Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE1 analogue that is used for induction of labour. Current guidelines support the use of doses that do not exceed 25 mcg in order to limit maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The present meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of oral compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol in terms of induction of labor and adverse peripartum outcomes.

Methods

We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception till April 2022. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of oral misoprostol (per os or sublingual) compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol. Effect sizes were calculated in R. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of small study effects, p-hacking. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis according to the dose of misoprostol was also investigated. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the risk of bias 2 tool. Quality of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, ranging from very low to high.

Results

Overall, 57 studies were included that involved 10,975 parturient. Their risk of bias ranged between low-moderate. There were no differences among the routes of intake in terms of successful vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80) and cesarean section rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82, 1.04). Sublingual misoprostol was superior compared to vaginal misoprostol in reducing the interval from induction to delivery (MD – 1.11 h, 95% CI – 2.06, – 0.17). On the other hand, per os misoprostol was inferior compared to vaginal misoprostol in terms of this outcome (MD 3.45 h, 95% CI 1.85, 5.06). Maternal and neonatal morbidity was not affected by the route or dose of misoprostol.

Conclusion

The findings of our study suggest that oral misoprostol intake is equally safe to vaginal misoprostol in terms of inducing labor at term. Sublingual intake seems to outperform the per os and vaginal routes without increasing the accompanying morbidity. Increasing the dose of misoprostol does not seem to increase its efficacy.

Clinical trial registration

Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V9JHF).

Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate women's choice in the method of labour induction between oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and the Foley catheter. To compare women's satisfaction according to their choice and to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative, prospective cohort study of 520 women who chose their preferred method for labour induction, in a French tertiary hospital, from July 2019 to October 2020. Before and after the delivery, they were asked to argue their choice and to evaluate their satisfaction through the use of questionnaires. The primary outcome was global level of satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of the 520 women included, 67.5% of women chose oral misoprostol compared to 21% PGE2 pessary and 11.5% Foley catheter. Regarding global satisfaction, we found no significant difference between the three groups: 78.4%, 68.8% and 71.2% (p = 0.107) for, respectively, oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and Foley catheter. Factors that seem to improve women's satisfaction were nulliparity (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.19-3.53]), delivery within 24 h after the start of induction (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI [2.02-6.14]) and adequate information (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI [1.869.64]). Factors associated with lower satisfaction rates were postpartum haemorrhage (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.30-0.88]) and caesarean section (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.17-0.54]).

CONCLUSION

Women satisfaction rates were not different between the three methods, when chosen by the patients themselves. These finding should encourage caregivers to promote shared decision making when possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was approved by the French ethics committee for research in obstetrics and gynaecology (CEROG, reference number 2019-OBS-0602) on 1st June 2019.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov,  the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.

Implementation of Evidence-Based Cervical Ripening Protocol: Outcomes and Next Steps

Objective  A prominent randomized controlled trial demonstrated that low-dose misoprostol with the concurrent cervical Foley shortened the median time to delivery when compared with either method alone. Our study aims to address implementation of this protocol and evaluate its impact on time to delivery. Study Design  This was a retrospective before-and-after study of nulliparous women who delivered nonanomalous, term, singletons at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) in two separate 2-year periods before and after changes in UCSF's cervical ripening protocol. The primary outcome was time from first misoprostol dose to delivery. Results  A total of 1,496 women met inclusion criteria, with 698 in the preimplementation group and 798 in the postimplementation group. There were no statistically significant differences in time to delivery (29 vs. 30 hours, p  = 0.69), rate of cesarean delivery (30 vs. 26%, p  = 0.09), or cesarean delivery for fetal indications (11 vs. 8%, p  = 0.15) between the groups. Conclusion  Implementing evidence-based low-dose misoprostol with the concurrent cervical Foley did not change the time to delivery, time to vaginal-delivery, or likelihood of vaginal delivery in our population. This may be due to differences in labor management practices and incomplete fidelity to the protocol. Real-world effectiveness of these interventions will vary and should be considered when choosing an induction method.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

What is the optimal duration of oral misoprostol treatment for cervical ripening?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the number of misoprostol tablets needed to obtain a Bishop score (BS) ≥ 6 or a significant cervical change (≥2 points in BS) during cervical ripening.

METHODS

Retrospective study of women with term singleton pregnancies and a BS < 6 taking oral misoprostol (20 μg first 2 doses followed by 40 μg every 2 h) for cervical ripening.

RESULTS

We included 400 women, 72% nulliparous, mean age of 31.3 ± 5.9 years and 70% with a baseline BS ≤ 2. During cervical ripening, 61 (15.3%) achieved a BS ≥ 6 and 205 (51.3%) a significant change in BS. The incremental risk to achieve a BS ≥ 6 after 4 tablets was low (+3.25%) with an incremental probability of +12.75% for painful uterine contractions and +0.5% for abnormal fetal tracing (AFT). The incremental probability to achieve a significant change in BS after 7 tablets was low (+2.0%). 24.3% women delivered by cesarean section which likelihood significantly increased with maternal age <35 years, BMI ≥ 30, nulliparity, AFT, and baseline BS ≤ 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The marginal benefit of giving more than 7 misoprostol tablets (14 h) during cervical ripening is very low.

A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing stepwise oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour

A comparison of induction of labour (IOL) using three doses of 25 µg vaginal misoprostol inserted at intervals of 4 h or more with a stepwise oral regime starting with 50 µg followed by two doses of 100 µg was studied in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial in a tertiary centre in South India. Primary outcome was vaginal delivery in 24 h. Significantly more women in the first group required oxytocin augmentation and a third dose of the drug than women in the second group. Uterine tachysystole and other maternal and neonatal complications were similar. Thus it is concluded that women induced with oral, as compared to vaginal misoprostol are more likely to labour without oxytocin.

Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor in Enugu, Nigeria: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed at comparing the effectiveness and maternal satisfaction of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of 140 term pregnant women at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Enugu, Nigeria, was conducted from April 2011 to May 2012. The women were equally randomized into two groups (A and B) to receive oral and vaginal misoprostol, respectively.

RESULTS

The vaginal route reduced the mean induction-vaginal delivery interval by four-and-half hours (20.7 ± 12.1 vs. 16.2 ± 10.4; mean difference: 4.50, 95% CI 0.63-0.82; p = 0.02). Furthermore, the mean dose of misoprostol required to achieve induction of labor and the mean duration of oxytocin augmentation when indicated were significantly less in the vaginal group than in the oral group (2.5 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1; mean difference: 0.50, 95% CI 0.10-0.90; p = 0.02 and 4.6 ± 3.2 vs. 3.4 ± 3.1; mean difference: 1.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.23; p = 0.03 respectively). However, neonatal complications and maternal satisfaction were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Both routes of administration are effective in the induction of labor at term and have comparable maternal satisfaction. However, the vaginal route has the added advantage of shorter induction-delivery interval among others, and thus should be highly considered when induction of labor is indicated at term.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.

Induction of labour

OBJECTIVE

To review the most current literature in order to provide evidence-based recommendations to obstetrical care providers on induction of labour.

OPTIONS

Intervention in a pregnancy with induction of labour.

OUTCOMES

Appropriate timing and method of induction, appropriate mode of delivery, and optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library in 2010 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., labour, induced, labour induction, cervical ripening) and key words (e.g., induce, induction, augmentation). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. There were no date or language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to the end of 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALUES

The evidence in this document was rated using criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (Table 1). SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Prostaglandins E(2) (cervical and vaginal) are effective agents of cervical ripening and induction of labour for an unfavourable cervix. (I) 2. Intravaginal prostaglandins E(2) are preferred to intracervical prostaglandins E(2) because they results in more timely vaginal deliveries. (I).

Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

Admissions for labor induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P<0.0001) and were more likely to deliver vaginally in <24 h (47% vs 64%, P=0.001). There was no increase in the rate of cesarean delivery or adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Labor induction with oral misoprostol resulted in shorter time to vaginal delivery without increased adverse outcomes in nulliparous women.

Randomized clinical trial between hourly titrated oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of hourly titrated oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone insert.

STUDY DESIGN

Subjects were randomized into hourly titrated oral misoprostol or dinoprostone 10 mg vaginal insert. Misoprostol was given as 20 μg hourly for 2 doses. In the absence of regular uterine contractions, the dose was increased to 30 μg hourly for 3 doses and then 40 μg for 1 dose, 50 μg for 1 dose, and 60 μg hourly for 4 doses. Before the 40 and 50 μg doses, 1 more hour of observation was given. The primary outcome variable was vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Safety assessments included the incidence of maternal morbidity and adverse neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 160 women was enrolled in the study. The groups were similar for demographic and clinical factors. Vaginal delivery was achieved within 24 hours in 100 women (62.5%): 44 in the dinoprostone group (55.0%) and 56 in the misoprostol group (70.0%) (P = .05). The proportion of women who achieved vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly greater for nulliparous women in the misoprostol group (24 of 51, 58.5%) compared with the dinoprostone group (12 of 36, 33.3%; P = .0270). Significantly more women with baseline Bishop score of 3 or less in the misoprostol group had successful induction (43 of 59, 72.9%) compared with the dinoprostone group (27 of 60, 45.0%; P = .002). Frequencies of maternal adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Hourly titrated oral misoprostol can provide an efficacious and safe substitute for the expensive dinoprostone vaginal insert.

Oral misoprostol and vaginal isosorbide mononitrate for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether vaginal isosorbide mononitrate, added to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction, shortens time to vaginal delivery.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized trial was conducted. Women scheduled for labor induction between 32 and 42 weeks and with unfavorable cervices (modified Bishop score 6 or lower) were randomized to receive oral misoprostol every 4 hours, up to four doses, with or without isosorbide mononitrate every 6 hours, up to two doses. A strict protocol was used, including timing of oxytocin use and amniotomy. Side effects were assessed 6 hours after study initiation. One hundred forty-two patients were required to detect a change in time to vaginal delivery of 4 hours (alpha=.05 and beta=.20). Data were analyzed by intent to treat. Student's t, chi square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney tests were used where appropriate with P< or =.05 deemed significant.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six women were randomized; three were excluded after randomization. Seventy-eight women received misoprostol, and 78 received misoprostol with isosorbide mononitrate. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The time to vaginal delivery was not reduced when isosorbide mononitrate was added to misoprostol. Cesarean delivery rates and contraction and fetal heart rate abnormalities were similar between groups. Side effects were also similar between groups, except that women given isosorbide mononitrate experienced headaches more often. Neonatal outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of vaginal isosorbide mononitrate to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction did not reduce time to vaginal delivery and was associated with a greater incidence of headache.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00374621.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

A prospective double blind study using oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction

This prospective double blind study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of oral vs vaginal misoprostol in equivalent doses (50 microg) for induction of labour. A total of 128 term pregnancies with indication for induction of labour were allocated to two groups to receive 50 microg misoprostol orally or vaginally, every 4 h until adequate contractions were achieved or a maximum of 200 microg dose. Induction to delivery interval was significantly shorter in the vaginal group compared with the oral group (14.6 h vs 22.5 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to mode of delivery, neonatal outcome and maternal side-effects. However, the incidence of abnormal contractility pattern was more common in the vaginal group (10/68, 14.6%) as compared with the oral group (4/60, 6.6%) (p = 0.146).

Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol and vaginal misoprostol for labor induction.

METHODS

Women between 34 and 42 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score less than or equal to 6) and an indication for labor induction were randomLy assigned to receive titrated oral or vaginal misoprostol. The titrated oral misoprostol group received a basal unit of 20 mL misoprostol solution (1 mcg/mL) every 1 hour for four doses and then were titrated against individual uterine response. The vaginal group received 25 mcg every 4 hours until attaining a more favorable cervix. Vaginal delivery within 12 hours was the primary outcome. The data were analyzed by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Titrated oral misoprostol was given to 101 (48.8%) women and vaginal misoprostol to 106 (51.2%) women. Completed vaginal delivery occurred within 12 hours in 75 (74.3%) women in the titrated oral group and 27 (25.5%) women in the vaginal group (relative risk [RR] 8.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.52-15.76). The incidence of hyperstimulation was 0.0% in the titrated oral group compared with 11.3% in the vaginal group (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.61). Although more women experienced nausea (10.9%) in the titrated oral group (RR 27.07, 95% CI 1.57-465.70), fewer infants had Apgar scores of less than 7 at 1 minute in the titrated oral group than in the vaginal group (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.76).

CONCLUSION

Titrated oral misoprostol is associated with a lower incidence of uterine hyperstimulation and a lower cesarean delivery rate than vaginal misoprostol for labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervix.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00529295

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Induction of labor with oral misoprostol in nulliparous mothers of twins

The efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol for labor induction of twins is unknown. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to evaluate the use of oral misoprostol in near term (> or =35 weeks) twin pregnancies in nulliparas. Eligible cases were given 100 mcg oral misoprostol, which was repeated after 6 h if labor did not start. Either a third dose or diluted oxytocin infusion were given in intractable cases. Diluted oxytocin infusion was used for augmentation. Controls were nulliparas delivered at > or =35 weeks by elective cesarean section. The two groups were comparable in most aspects, except for fetal malpresentation, which was the major reason for avoiding induction. Of the 69 patients in whom labor was induced, 53 (76.8%) had a vaginal birth, 3 (4.3%) had a combined twin delivery, and 13 (18.8%) had a cesarean during labor. The mean length of stay of the neonates was significantly shorter among study cases, without significant difference in the frequency of delayed discharges as an overall proxy for neonatal complications. Labor induction with oral misoprostol could be offered to patients in whom near term vaginal twin delivery is unequivocally permitted and wish to deliver by the vaginal route.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that can be given orally or vaginally. In most countries misoprostol has not been licensed for use in pregnancy, but its unlicensed use is common because misoprostol is cheap, stable at room temperature and effective in causing uterine contractions. Oral use of misoprostol may be convenient, but high doses could cause uterine hyperstimulation and uterine rupture which may be life-threatening for both mother and fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol used for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (January 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus other methods, placebo or no treatment, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials (8606 participants) were included. In four trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (474 participants), women using oral misoprostol were less likely to have long labours (relative risk (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49), needed less oxytocin (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43) and had a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (2627 participants), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section, but this reduction reached statistical significance only in the subgroup with intact membranes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94). Uterine hyperstimulation was more common after oral misoprostol (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.44) although this was not associated with any adverse fetal events. Seven trials (1017 participants) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The only difference between the groups was an increase in meconium-stained liquor in women with ruptured membranes following administration of oral misoprostol (RR 1.72, 95% 1.08 to 2.74). Sixteen trials (3645 participants) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no difference in the primary outcomes. There was less uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes in those given oral misoprostol (RR 0.37, 95% 0.23 to 0.59). Oral misoprsotol was associated with increased need for oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.28, 95% 1.11 to 1.48) and more meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.27, 1.01 to 1.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol appears to be more effective than placebo and at least as effective as vaginal dinoprostone. However, there remain questions about its safety because of a relatively high rate of uterine hyperstimulation and the lack of appropriate dose ranging studies. In countries where misoprostol remains unlicenced for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer the legal protection of using a licenced product like dinoprostone. There is no evidence that misoprostol given orally is inferior to the vaginal route and has lower rates of hyperstimulation. If misoprostol is used orally, the dose should not exceed 50 mcg.