Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial

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).

Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various methods are used for cervical ripening during the induction of labor. Mechanical and pharmacological methods are commonly used for cervical ripening. A double-balloon catheter was specifically developed to ripen the cervix and induce labor; however, the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter in cervical ripening compared to other methods is unknown.

METHODS

We searched five databases and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Six interventions (double-balloon catheter, Foley catheter, oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, dinoprostone, and double-balloon catheter combined with oral misoprostol) were included in the search. The primary outcomes were cesarean delivery rate and time from intervention-to-birth. The secondary outcomes were as follows: Bishop score increment; achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 h; uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes; need for oxytocin augmentation; instrumental delivery; meconium staining; chorioamnionitis; postpartum hemorrhage; low Apgar score; neonatal intensive care unit admission; and arterial pH.

RESULTS

Forty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 11,482 pregnant women were identified. The cesarean delivery rates of the cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and vaginal misoprostol were significantly lower than cervical ripening with a Foley catheter (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23-0.96; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; and OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, respectively; all P < 0.05). The time from intervention-to-birth of vaginal misoprostol was significantly shorter than the other five cervical ripening methods. Vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol increased the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter. A double-balloon catheter with or without oral misoprostol had similar outcomes, including uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter.

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon catheter did not show superiority when compared with other single method in primary and secondary outcomes of labor induction. The combination of double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol was significantly reduced the rate of cesarean section compared to Foley catheter without increased risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, which was shown in oral or vaginal misoprostol.

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.

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.

Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 microgram intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial

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.

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).

Oral misoprostol reduces vaginal bleeding following surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of misoprostol to reduce the amount and duration of vaginal bleeding following surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients who underwent surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion between 8 and 12 weeks of pregnancy were randomized into 2 groups to receive either 200 microg of oral misoprostol immediately after evacuation followed every 6 hours for 48 hours or no misoprostol. Pain scores, duration and amount of bleeding, and endometrial thickness were assessed over 10 days.

RESULTS

Women who received misoprostol had significantly fewer bleeding days after evacuation (4.11+/-2.69 vs 5.89+/-3.06; P<0.001), fewer patients reported vaginal bleeding lasting 10 days or more (3.8% vs 15.0%; P=0.014), and endometrial thickness 10 days after evacuation was less (6.25+/-2.38 vs 7.23+/-1.94; P=0.05). Pain scores were comparable in both groups (1.54+/-0.65 vs 1.63+/-0.83; P=0.40) after 10 days.

CONCLUSION

Oral misoprostol is effective in reducing the prevalence and amount of vaginal bleeding after surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion.

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.

Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different administration routes of misoprostol for induction of labor.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE searches were carried out using the keywords oral, vaginal, sublingual, buccal, misoprostol, labor induction, identifying randomized case-controlled trials comparing different routes for giving misoprostol to induce labor, published in English between 1994 and 2004.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (3549 participants) were included. Compared to vaginal administration, oral misoprostol was associated with higher failure rates for achieving vaginal delivery within 24 h (odds ratio (OR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.10), higher rates of uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.12-4.34) and lower cesarean section rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.97). A lower dose of oral misoprostol (50 microg) compared to the 25-50 microg administered vaginally was associated with a higher rate of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 h (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.10-6.18), more need for oxytocin augmentation (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.65-2.92), less uterine hyperstimulation both without FHR changes (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.80) and with FHR changes (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67) and fewer cesarean sections (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.91). Compared to vaginal administration, buccal misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of failure to achieve vaginal delivery after 24 h, more frequent uterine hyperstimulation and lower rates of cesarean section, but these differences were not significant. When 50 mug of misoprostol used sublingually was compared to oral administration, the sublingual misoprostol was associated with less failure to achieve vaginal delivery after 24 h, less oxytocin augmentation and reduced cesarean section, but none of the differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal misoprostol appears more effective than the equivalent dosage administered orally. However, the vaginal route appears to be associated with a higher risk of uterine hyperstimulation. Sublingual misoprostol seems an effective route of administration, but a lack of data necessitates more clinical trials to establish the effectiveness and safety of the buccal/sublingual route.