Treatment of postpartum hemorrhage with misoprostol

A cluster-randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing use of misoprostol for universal prophylaxis vs. secondary prevention of postpartum hemorrhage among community level births in Egypt

Background

Previous community-based research shows that secondary prevention of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) with misoprostol only given to women with above-average measured blood loss produces similar clinical outcomes compared to routine administration of misoprostol for prevention of PPH. Given the difficulty of routinely measuring blood loss for all deliveries, more operational models of secondary prevention are needed.

Methods

This cluster-randomized, non-inferiority trial included women giving birth with nurse-midwives at home or in Primary Health Units (PHUs) in rural Egypt. Two PPH management approaches were compared: 1) 600mcg oral misoprostol given to all women after delivery (i.e. primary prevention, current standard of care); 2) 800mcg sublingual misoprostol given only to women with 350-500 ml postpartum blood loss estimated using an underpad (i.e. secondary prevention). The primary outcome was mean change in pre- and post-delivery hemoglobin. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin ≥2 g/dL and other PPH interventions.

Results

Misoprostol was administered after delivery to 100% (1555/1555) and 10.7% (117/1099) of women in primary and secondary prevention clusters, respectively. The mean drop in pre- to post-delivery hemoglobin was 0.37 (SD: 0.91) and 0.45 (SD: 0.76) among women in primary and secondary prevention clusters, respectively (difference adjusted for clustering = 0.01, one-sided 95% CI: < 0.27, p = 0.535). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes, including hemoglobin drop ≥2 g/dL, PPH diagnosis, transfer to higher level, or other interventions.

Conclusions

Misoprostol for secondary prevention of PPH is comparable to universal prophylaxis and can be implemented using local materials, such as underpads.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02226588, date of registration 27 August 2014.

Using misoprostol to treat postpartum hemorrhage in home deliveries attended by traditional birth attendants

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical and programmatic feasibility of using 800 μg of sublingual misoprostol to prevent and treat postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during home delivery.

METHODS

The present double-blind randomized controlled trial included women who underwent home deliveries in Chitral district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, after presenting at healthcare facilities during the third trimester of pregnancy between May 28, 2012, and November 27, 2014. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 μg of misoprostol or placebo sublingually if PPH was diagnosed, having previously received a prophylactic oral dose of 600 μg misoprostol. The primary outcome, hemoglobin decrease of 20 g/L or greater from pre- to post-delivery assessment, was compared on a modified intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

There were 49 patients allocated to receive misoprostol and 38 allocated to receive placebo; the incidence of a 20 g/L decrease in hemoglobin was similar between the groups (20/43 [47%] vs 19/33 [58%], respectively; P=0.335).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two trial arms. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01485562.

Efficacy of misoprostol for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: current knowledge and implications for health care planning

BACKGROUND

A myriad of interventions exist to treat postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), ranging from uterotonics and hemostatics to surgical and aortic compression devices. Nonetheless, PPH remains the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. The purpose of this article is to review the available evidence on the efficacy of misoprostol for the treatment of primary PPH and discuss implications for health care planning.

DATA AND METHODS

Using PubMed, Web of Science, and GoogleScholar, we reviewed the literature on randomized controlled trials of interventions to treat PPH with misoprostol and non-randomized field trials with controls. We discuss the current knowledge and implications for health care planning, especially in resource-poor settings.

RESULTS

The treatment of PPH with 800 μg of misoprostol is equivalent to 40 IU of intravenous oxytocin in women who have received oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. The same dose might be an option for the treatment of PPH in women who did not receive oxytocin for the prevention of PPH and do not have access to oxytocin for treatment. Adding misoprostol to standard uterotonics has no additional benefits to women being treated for PPH, but the beneficial adjunctive role of misoprostol to conventional uterotonics is important in reducing intra- and postoperative hemorrhage during cesarean section.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol is an effective uterotonic agent in the treatment of PPH. Clinical guidelines and treatment protocols should be updated to reflect the current knowledge on the efficacy of misoprostol for the treatment of PPH with 800 μg sublingually.

Postpartum misoprostol for preventing maternal mortality and morbidity

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment is to reduce maternal deaths. Misoprostol has the major public health advantage over injectable medication that it can more easily be distributed at community level. Because misoprostol might have adverse effects unrelated to blood loss which might impact on mortality or severe morbidity, it is important to continue surveillance of all relevant evidence from randomised trials. This is particularly important as misoprostol is being introduced on a large scale for PPH prevention in low-income countries, and is commonly used for PPH treatment in well-resourced settings as well.

OBJECTIVES

To review maternal deaths and severe morbidity in all randomised trials of misoprostol for prevention or treatment of PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials including pregnant women who received misoprostol in the postpartum period, versus placebo/no treatment or other uterotonics for prevention or treatment of PPH, and reporting on maternal death, severe morbidity or pyrexia.We planned to include cluster- and quasi-randomised trials in the analysis, as a very large number of women will be needed to obtain robust estimates of maternal mortality but we did not identify any for this version of the review. In future updates of this review we will include trials reported only as abstracts if sufficient information is available from the abstract or from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 studies (59,216 women) and excluded 34 studies.There was no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality for misoprostol compared with control groups overall (31 studies; 11/19,715 versus 4/20,076 deaths; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 5.28); or for the trials of misoprostol versus placebo: 10 studies, 6/4626 versus 1/4707 ; RR 2.70; 95% CI 0.72 to 10.11; or for misoprostol versus other uterotonics: 21 studies, 5/15,089 versus 3/15,369 (19/100,000); RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.40 to 5.92. All 11 deaths in the misoprostol arms occurred in studies of misoprostol ≥ 600 µg.There was a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome 'maternal death or severe morbidity' for the comparison of misoprostol versus placebo (12 studies; average RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.81; Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0%) but not for the comparison of misoprostol versus other uterotonics (17 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.52; Tau² = 1.81, I² = 69%). When we excluded hyperpyrexia from the composite outcome in exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in either of these comparisons.Pyrexia > 38°C was increased with misoprostol compared with controls (56 studies, 2776/25,647 (10.8%) versus 614/26,800 (2.3%); average RR 3.97, 95% CI 3.13 to 5.04; Tau² = 0.47, I² = 80%). The effect was greater for trials using misoprostol 600 µg or more (27 studies; 2197/17,864 (12.3%) versus 422/18,161 (2.3%); average RR 4.64; 95% CI 3.33 to 6.46; Tau² = 0.51, I² = 86%) than for those using misoprostol 400 µg or less (31 studies; 525/6751 (7.8%) versus 185/7668 (2.4%); average RR 3.07; 95% CI 2.25 to 4.18; Tau² = 0.29, I² = 58%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol does not appear to increase or reduce severe morbidity (excluding hyperpyrexia) when used to prevent or treat PPH. Misoprostol did not increase or decrease maternal mortality. However, misoprostol is associated with an increased risk of pyrexia, particularly in dosages of 600 µg or more. Given that misoprostol is used prophylactically in very large numbers of healthy women, the greatest emphasis should be placed on limiting adverse effects. In this context, the findings of this review support the use of the lowest effective dose. As for any new medication being used on a large scale, continued vigilance for adverse effects is essential and there is a need for large randomised trials to further elucidate both the relative effectiveness and the risks of various dosages of misoprostol.