1
|
Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022:10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9. [DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 11/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
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).
Collapse
|
2
|
Comparison Between Use of Oral Misoprostol Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour at Term. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2018; 68:88-92. [DOI: 10.1007/s13224-017-0978-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2016] [Accepted: 03/02/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
|
3
|
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, Jones LV, Gyte G, Caldwell DM. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-584. [PMID: 27587290 DOI: 10.3310/hta20650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zarko Alfirevic
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Edna Keeney
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Therese Dowswell
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nancy Medley
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sofia Dias
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Leanne V Jones
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gillian Gyte
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zarko Alfirevic
- The University of LiverpoolDepartment of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | - Nasreen Aflaifel
- The University of LiverpoolDepartment of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | - Andrew Weeks
- The University of LiverpoolDepartment of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Komala K, Reddy M, Quadri IJ, B S, V R. Comparative study of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour, maternal and foetal outcome. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7:2866-9. [PMID: 24551660 DOI: 10.7860/jcdr/2013/5825.3779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2013] [Accepted: 09/24/2013] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour .The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES To compare 50μg of oral misoprostol versus 25μg of intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term and maternal, foetal outcomes. METHODS Two hundred women who were at term, with indication for induction of labour and Bishop scores of ≤5 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol 50μg or 25μg intravaginal, every 4-6 hours, for a maximum of 5 doses. In either group, pregnant females with inadequate uterine contractions despite being given maximum 5 doses of misoprostol, were augmented using oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was time-interval from induction to vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours. RESULTS The median induction to vaginal delivery time in oral group (12.92h) and vaginal group (14.04 h) was not significant. Oral misoprostol resulted in more number of vaginal deliveries as compared to vaginal misoprostol (94% as compared to 86%), which was not significant. There was a significantly higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group, as compared to oral group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, caesarean section rate, analgesic requirement and neonatal outcome. CONCLUSION Oral misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol because of shorter induction delivery interval, lower caesarean section rates, and lower incidence of failed induction rates. Lower incidence of foetal distress and easy intake are observed if the drug is administered orally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kambhampati Komala
- Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
| | - Meherlatha Reddy
- Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
| | - Iqbal Jehan Quadri
- Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
| | - Suneetha B
- Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
| | - Ramya V
- Post Graduate, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 microgram intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA 2013; 35:408-416. [PMID: 23756271 DOI: 10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30931-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the efficacy and safety of 50 µg oral misoprostol and 25 µg intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. METHODS This non-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 228 pregnant women at term with obstetric or medical indications for induction of labour. Women either took 50 µg misoprostol orally (two 25 µg tablets) or had one 25 µg tablet of misoprostol inserted in the posterior vaginal fornix. In each group, misoprostol administration was repeated every four hours in the same dose until regular uterine contractions were established or to a maximum of five doses. Time to delivery and outcome data for each group were compared. RESULTS Of the 228 women, eight (3.5%) were excluded from the analysis as they withdrew their consent after randomization. Mean induction-to-delivery interval was similar in both groups (21.22 hours in the oral group vs. 20.15 hours in the vaginal group; P = 0.58). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the number of women who delivered within 24 hours or who required oxytocin augmentation of labour, the mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes (P > 0.05). Uterine hyperstimulation occurred in two women who received misoprostol vaginally, but not in any of the women in the oral misoprostol group. CONCLUSION Oral misoprostol in a dose of 50 µg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, has the potential to induce labour as safely and effectively as 25 µg misoprostol administered vaginally every four hours.
Collapse
|
7
|
Vogel JP, West HM, Dowswell T. Titrated oral misoprostol for augmenting labour to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD010648. [PMID: 24058051 PMCID: PMC9634341 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010648.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Labour dystocia is associated with a number of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Augmentation of labour is a commonly used intervention in cases of labour dystocia. Misoprostol is an inexpensive and stable prostaglandin E1 analogue that can be administered orally, vaginally, sublingually or rectally. Misoprostol has proven to be effective at stimulating uterine contractions although it can have serious, and even life-threatening side-effects. Titration refers to the process of adjusting the dose, frequency, or both, of a medication on the basis of frequent review to achieve optimal outcomes. Studies have reported on a range of misoprostol titration regimens used for labour induction and titrated misoprostol may potentially be effective and safe for augmentation of labour. OBJECTIVES To examine the effects and safety of titrated oral misoprostol compared with placebo, oxytocin, other interventions, or no active treatment, in women with labour dystocia. SEARCH METHODS The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register; date of search: 29 May 2013. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials (including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials) comparing titrated oral misoprostol with placebo, other interventions (e.g. oxytocin, other prostaglandins), or no treatment in women requiring augmentation of labour were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Data were entered by one author and checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS We included two randomised trials with a total of 581 women each comparing different regimens of titrated oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. One study compared 20 mcg doses of misoprostol dissolved in water (repeated every hour up to four hours, after which the dose was increased to 40 mcg per hour up to a maximum total dose of 1600 mcg), while the second study gave women 75 mcg doses (repeated after four hours provided there were no adverse effects observed).Neither trial reported maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, or fetal/neonatal mortality outcomes, and only a few fetal/neonatal morbidity outcomes were considered, none of which were significantly different between groups. For several outcomes (such as maternal side-effects, instrumental birth, maternal blood transfusion for hypovolaemia and epidural analgesia), the number of events was generally too low for sufficient statistical power to be achieved. Maternal satisfaction was not reported in either trial. One trial reported a slight reduction in the median duration of labour from the start of augmentation to vaginal delivery in the oxytocin group.Neither trial reported significantly higher rates of caesarean section (CS) in the oral misoprostol group. Rates of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours of commencing augmentation were not significantly different in the trial using a 20 mcg misoprostol dose. Neither trial had significantly higher rates of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes in the titrated oral misoprostol group. However, the rates of this outcome varied so greatly between the two studies as to suggest that other factors were at play. The only significant differences between groups related to uterine hyperstimulation (without fetal heart rate changes), and results were not consistent in the two trials. In the trial examining the higher dose of misoprostol, more women in the misoprostol group experienced hyperstimulation of labour measured over a 10-minute period compared with those receiving oxytocin (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.35, 350 women). In the study examining the lower titrated dose of misoprostol, there was a lower incidence of tachysystole when labour was augmented with titrated oral misoprostol than with oxytocin (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.91, 231 women) with no occurrences of hypertonus in either group of women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Important uncertainties still exist on the safety and acceptability of titrated oral misoprostol compared with intravenous oxytocin regimens in women with dystocia following spontaneous onset of labour. Although in facilities where electronic oxytocin infusion is not available, low-dose titrated misoprostol may offer a better alternative to an uncontrolled oxytocin infusion to avoid hyperstimulation. Further research is needed in both high- and low-resource settings More trials should be conducted to evaluate the effect of a standard titration oral misoprostol regimen, both following spontaneous labour and labour induction. Comparisons with other augmentation methods are also warranted, as are any effects on women's birth experiences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua P Vogel
- World Health OrganizationUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/Word Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and ResearchAvenue Appia 20GenevaSwitzerlandCH‐1211
- University of Western AustraliaSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences35 Stirling HighwayCrawleyPerthWestern AustraliaAustralia6009
| | - Helen M West
- The University of LiverpoolCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | - Therese Dowswell
- The University of LiverpoolCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z Alfirevic
- University of Liverpool, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
das Neves J, Bahia MF. Gels as vaginal drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm 2006; 318:1-14. [PMID: 16621366 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 145] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2005] [Revised: 03/10/2006] [Accepted: 03/10/2006] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
The vagina has been used as a mucosal drug delivery route for a long time. Its single characteristics can be either limitative or advantageous when drug delivery is considered. Gels are semi-solid, three-dimensional, polymeric matrices comprising small amounts of solid, dispersed in relatively large amounts of liquid, yet possessing more solid-like character. These systems have been used and are receiving a great deal of interest as vaginal drug delivery systems. Gels are versatile and have been used as delivery systems for microbicides, contraceptives, labour inducers, and other substances. Although somewhat neglected in clinical studies, pharmaceutical characterization of vaginal gels is an important step in order to optimize safety, efficacy and acceptability. Indeed, the simple formulation of a gel can lead to different performances of systems containing the same amount of active substances. Therefore, this paper discusses and summarizes current use and research of vaginal drug delivery systems based in gels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J das Neves
- Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Rua Aníbal Cunha, 164, 4050-030 Porto, Portugal.
| | | |
Collapse
|