Dose variation that is associated with approximated one-quarter tablet doses of misoprostol

[Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol 25μg vs. vaginal dinoprostone in induction of labor at term]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol 25μg compared to vaginal dinoprostone in the induction of labor at term.

METHODS

Analytic, retrospective study of patients induced at term by prostaglandins with an unfavorable cervix, over two consecutive periods from 01/01/2019 to 19/02/2020 and from 20/02/2020 to 07/04/2021, within a regional level III university hospital center. We compared the safety and the efficacy between the oral misoprostol Angusta® used since 20/02/2020 and the vaginal dinoprostone previously used in gel or diffuser. The primary endpoint was the rate of vaginal deliveries within 24h. Secondary endpoints were cesarean section rate, indications for cesarean section, uterine contractility abnormalities and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Our study found no difference in terms of efficacy with similar rates of vaginal deliveries within 24h (51.88% vs. 51.25%; P=0.87) and caesarean sections (misoprostol group: 19.42% vs. dinoprostone group: 16.62%; P=0.33). However, the tolerance criteria revealed in the dinoprostone group an increase in tachysystole (misoprostol group: 9.28% vs. dinoprostone group: 16.90%; P=0.003) and acidosis (arterial pH<7.10, misoprostol group: 3.83% vs. dinoprostone group: 9.29%; P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

No difference in efficacy was found between the two induction techniques. Oral misoprostol 25μg seems to be better tolerated from a maternal and fetal point of view.

Manipulation of oral medication for children by parents and nurses occurs frequently and is often not supported by instructions

AIM

Due to a lack of age-appropriate formulations, administration of drugs to children remains a challenge. This study aimed to identify the problems experienced in both the outpatient setting and the clinical setting.

METHODS

Between June 2017 and January 2018, we performed a cross-sectional, prospective study at the Sophia Children's Hospital, The Netherlands. The study comprised of a structured interview on drug manipulations with parents visiting the outpatient clinic, and an observational study of drug manipulations by nurses at the wards.

RESULTS

A total of 201 questionnaires were collected, accounting for 571 drugs and 169 manipulations (30%). Drug substances that were most often mentioned as manipulated were macrogol (n = 23), esomeprazole (n = 15), paracetamol (n = 8), methylphenidate (n = 7) and melatonin (n = 7). Of all manipulated medicines, 93/169 (55%) were manipulated according to the instructions or recommendations of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) or patient information leaflet. During the observational study, manipulation was performed by 21/35 of observed nurses (60%), of whom 11 deviated from the hospital protocol for manipulation or SmPC (52%).

CONCLUSION

Manipulation was a widely used method to administer drugs to children. Validated information regarding manipulation of drugs for both parents and nursing staff is needed.

Clinical Insights for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction Using Prostaglandins

Cervical ripening is often the first component of labor induction and is used to facilitate the softening and thinning of the cervix in preparation for labor. Common methods used for cervical ripening include both mechanical (e.g., Foley or Cook catheters) and pharmacologic (e.g., prostaglandins) methods. The choice of method(s) for ripening should take into account the patient's medical and obstetric history, clinical characteristics, and risk of adverse effects if uterine tachysystole were to occur. In this narrative review, we highlight the differences between the prostaglandins dinoprostone and misoprostol with respect to pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and potential safety concerns. Practical guidance on choosing an appropriate prostaglandin agent for cervical ripening and labor induction is provided via the use of clinical vignettes. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of each preparation allows clinicians to individualize treatment, depending on the indications for induction and unique characteristics of each patient.

Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective

Background

In view of the increasing pressure on the UK’s maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term.

Methods

The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model’s sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses.

Results

Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9 %) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121 % and 52 % in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2 % reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4 % increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI.

Conclusions

Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol compared with dinoprostone (PGE2), vaginal misoprostol, and oxytocin for labor induction in women with a viable fetus.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted electronic database searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published before January 2008 using the keywords misoprostol, labor, induction, randomized controlled trials, dinoprostone, oxytocin, pregnancy, and maternal and fetal side effects.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials comparing 20-25 micrograms oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol, dinoprostone or oxytocin given to women at 32-42 weeks of gestation for labor induction. From 401 citations identified, results from nine studies were finally analyzed using the Review Manager software. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed and random-effects models.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Nine articles with 2,937 women met the inclusion criteria. The five trials comparing oral misoprostol and dinoprostone showed significantly fewer women requiring cesarean delivery in the misoprostol group (20% compared with 26%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in risks of uterine hyperstimulation or need for oxytocin augmentation. Two trials compared oral with vaginal low-dose misoprostol. Women using oral misoprostol were significantly less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (2% compared with 13%; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.46), but there were no significant differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose oral misoprostol solution (20 micrograms) administered every 2 hours seems at least as effective as both vaginal dinoprostone and vaginal misoprostol, with lower rates of cesarean delivery and uterine hyperstimulation, respectively.

Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review*

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is a commonly used prostaglandin to induce labour. A potential risk of induction, however, is caesarean delivery, especially in women with an unfavourable cervix.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of misoprostol, compared with prostaglandin E2 (PgE2), for labour induction in women at term with an unfavourable cervix and intact membranes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published in any language from January 1987 to December 2005, using the keywords 'misoprostol', 'labour/labor' and 'induction'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified randomised trials of women at term (> or =37 weeks of gestation) with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix, undergoing labour induction with misoprostol, orally, vaginally, sublingually or buccally, compared with PgE2 vaginally or intracervically.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Caesarean delivery was the primary outcome, with tachysystole and hyperstimulation as secondary outcomes. The primary analysis compared any misoprostol with any PgE2 for all women, with a subgroup analysis for nulliparous women. Secondary analyses compared different routes and doses of misoprostol (oral or vaginal and 25 microgram or >25 microgram) and PgE2 (intracervical or vaginal). Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effects models. Main results Fourteen of 611 articles identified met the criteria for systematic review, with three providing information for nulliparous women. There was no difference in the risk of caesarean delivery between misoprostol and PgE2 groups (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.83-1.17). Any misoprostol was associated with higher risks of tachysystole and hyperstimulation compared with any PgE2 (RR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.01-3.43 and RR = 3.71, 95% CI = 2.00-6.88, respectively). There was a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 hours among all vaginal deliveries with any misoprostol compared with any PgE2 (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.00-1.31), and among all deliveries, a lower rate of oxytocin use (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.60-0.85) but a trend towards increased meconium staining was observed (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.96-1.55). The use of misoprostol at starting dosages >25 microgram had similar findings to the primary analysis. Studies of lower misoprostol dosing (starting dose of 25 microgram) did not show any differences in the outcomes of interest, but the sample size of this secondary analysis was small (304 women, 155 receiving misoprostol).

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS

Although misoprostol in women at term with an unfavourable cervix and intact membranes was more effective than PgE2 in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours, misoprostol does not reduce the rate of caesarean delivery either in all women or in the subgroup of nulliparous women, and it increases the rates of tachysystole and hyperstimulation. Further studies of misoprostol using a starting dose of 25 microgram may be warranted.

Pharmacokinetics of a controlled-release misoprostol vaginal insert at term

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this investigation was to report the pharmacokinetic properties of misoprostol administered intravaginally to women at term via a controlled-release hydrogel polymer insert.

METHODS

This open-label, dose escalation trial consisted of 31 nulliparous women at term who were treated intravaginally in cohorts of six with inserts containing reservoirs from 25 through 300 microg (7 at 200 microg) of misoprostol. Inserts remained intravaginally until the patient went into labor, developed adverse events, or completed 24 hours of treatment. Complete data about residual drug in the inserts and plasma concentrations of misoprostol acid were gathered for 27 and 25 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Misoprostol was released at a constant rate (5.1% total dose per hour) with the amount absorbed being directly proportional to the dose reservoir. For the 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 300-microg reservoir doses, the maximum median plasma concentrations were 6.4, 11.3, 21.7, 40.8, and 74.2 pg/mL, respectively, and the area under the curve until drug removal was 39, 117, 223, 269, and 477 pg x h/mL. Regardless of dose, the peak plasma concentration occurred at approximately 7 hours after insertion and the elimination half-life of the misoprostol acid was 0.55 hours (95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 1.32 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol is released from the vaginal insert in a controlled manner and is eliminated rapidly after removal. Pharmacokinetic parameters are proportional to the reservoir dose.

Misoprostol dose selection in a controlled-release vaginal insert for induction of labor in nulliparous women

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify the maximum tolerable dose and to determine the efficacy of different misoprostol dose reservoirs in an intravaginal controlled-release hydrogel polymer.

STUDY DESIGN

Nulliparous women at > or = 37 weeks' gestation requiring cervical ripening and induction of labor were treated with misoprostol in a controlled-release, retrievable hydrogel polymer vaginal insert. Sequential cohorts of 6 patients were to be treated with escalating dose reservoirs of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 300 mug. The insert was to be removed upon onset of active labor, at 24 hours, or earlier if treatment-related adverse events occurred. The safety end point was determination of the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) based on occurrence of hyperstimulation syndrome. Our primary efficacy end point was time to vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

Increasing reservoir doses of misoprostol up to 100 microg produced more rapid increases in modified Bishop scores, less need for oxytocin, and a shorter time to vaginal delivery. Doses above 100 microg did not further enhance cervical ripening or shorten time to vaginal delivery. The median time to vaginal delivery was 14.2 hours using the 100 microg dose. Uterine hyperstimulation and adverse fetal heart rate effects occurred with the 200 and 300 microg inserts.

CONCLUSION

The 100 microg vaginal insert resulted in successful cervical ripening and rapid vaginal delivery with an acceptable safety profile for future randomized clinical trials.

Oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor

OBJECTIVES

To compare oral misoprostol with dinoprostone for induction of labor and their effects on the fetal heart rate patterns.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial, 200 patients received either misoprostol 50 mug orally for every 4 h, or dinoprostone 0.5 mg intracervically for every 6 h. Cardiotocographic recordings, in 10-min windows 30, 60, and 80 min after prostaglandin administration during induction and continuously during labor, were compared between the two groups. Primary outcome for effectiveness and safety was assessed in terms of the number of vaginal deliveries within 24 h and fetal heart rate abnormalities during induction and labor respectively.

RESULTS

Data from 96 patients in the misoprostol group and 95 in the dinoprostone group were analyzed. There were no significant differences in respect of the number of vaginal deliveries within 24 h (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.88-1.42). The frequency of suspicious and pathological fetal heart rate patterns did not differ significantly but significantly more cardiotocographs in the dinoprostone group had non-reassuring baseline variability 60 min after dose administration (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14-0.77). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Oral misoprostol is as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor with no difference in the frequency of fetal heart rate abnormalities.

Oral misoprostol (100 μg) versus vaginal misoprostol (25 μg) in term labor induction: a randomized comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol (25 microg) to oral misoprostol (100 microg) in labor induction at term.

METHODS

One hundred and one women at term, with indications for labor induction and cervical Bishop's scores of less than 8, were randomly assigned to receive 100 microg of oral misoprostol or 25 microg vaginal misoprostol after random allocation. This could be repeated every 4 h to a maximum of five doses. The number delivering vaginally within 24 h of the induction was the main outcome measure.

RESULTS

Of those who delivered vaginally (74.5% in the oral group vs. 72% in the vaginal group), significantly fewer women delivered within 24 h of induction in the oral group (42.1% vs. 72.2%, RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9), with more women receiving more than one dose (45.7% vs. 16.7%, RR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.0). More women in the oral group received oxytocin (68.6% vs. 44%, RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), and the induction to delivery interval was shorter in the vaginal group, although this was not statistically significant [28.9 h (SD 20.2) vs. 20.6 h (SD 16.1), mean difference - 8.3 h, 95% CI - 16.8 to 0.2]. There were no differences in the modes of delivery, uterine hyperstimulation rates or in the neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal misoprostol in its currently recommended dose of 25 microg seems to be more efficacious than the 100 microg oral dose.