Misoprostol for treating postpartum haemorrhage: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN72263357]

Access to oxytocin and misoprostol for management of postpartum haemorrhage in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia: a cross-sectional assessment of availability, prices and affordability

OBJECTIVE

To assess access (availability and affordability) to oxytocin and misoprostol at health facilities in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia to improve prevention and management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

DESIGN

The assessment was undertaken using data from Health Action International (HAI) research on sexual and reproductive health commodities based on a cross-sectional design adapted from the standardised WHO/HAI methodology.

SETTING

Data were collected from 376 health facilities in in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia in July and August 2017.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Availability was calculated as mean percentage of sampled medicine outlets where medicine was found on the day of data collection. Medicine prices were compared with international reference prices (IRP) and expressed as median price ratios. Affordability was calculated using number of days required to pay for a standard treatment based on the daily income of the lowest paid government worker.

RESULTS

Availability of either oxytocin or misoprostol at health facilities was high; 81% in Kenya, 82% in Uganda and 76% in Zambia. Oxytocin was more available than misoprostol, and it was most available in the public sector in the three countries. Availability of misoprostol was highest in the public sector in Uganda (88%). Oxytocin and misoprostol were purchased by patients at prices above IRP, but both medicines cost less than a day's wages and were therefore affordable. Availability of misoprostol was poor in rural settings where it would be more preferred due to lack of trained personnel and cold storage facilities required for oxytocin.

CONCLUSION

Availability and affordability of either oxytocin or misoprostol at health facilities met the WHO benchmark of 80%. However, countries with limited resources should explore mechanisms to optimise management of PPH by improving access to misoprostol especially in rural areas.

Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. There are several uterotonic agents for preventing PPH but there is still uncertainty about which agent is most effective with the least side effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in April 2018 and was updated to incorporate results from a recent large WHO trial.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the least side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 May 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included blood loss and related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, maternal well-being and satisfaction and side effects. Primary outcomes were also reported for pre-specified subgroups, stratifying by mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of administration. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents.

MAIN RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 196 trials (135,559 women) involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 53 countries (including high-, middle- and low-income countries). Most trials were performed in a hospital setting (187/196, 95.4%) with women undergoing a vaginal birth (71.5%, 140/196).Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. The three highest ranked uterotonic agents for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination and carbetocin. There is evidence that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84, moderate certainty), carbetocin (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, moderate certainty) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86, low certainty) may reduce PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin.All agents except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. High-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) make little or no difference in the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin meanwhile the evidence on carbetocin was of very low certainty. High-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol is less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with oxytocin (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42). Despite the comparable relative treatment effects between all uterotonics (except misoprostol) and oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combinations and carbetocin were the highest ranked agents for PPH ≥ 1000 mL.Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73, high certainty) and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70, moderate certainty) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were rare in the included randomised trials where they were reported.The two combination regimens were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.18, high certainty) and fever (RR 3.14, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.49, moderate certainty). Ergometrine plus oxytocin increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.93, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.13, moderate certainty) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however absolute effects varied considerably and the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome.Subgroup analyses did not reveal important subgroup differences by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal birth), setting (hospital versus community), risk of PPH (high versus low risk for PPH), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 mcg versus < 600 mcg) and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All agents were generally effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional desirable effects compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination regimens, however, are associated with significant side effects. Carbetocin may be more effective than oxytocin for some outcomes without an increase in side effects.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH but it is still debatable which drug is best.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled comparisons or cluster trials of effectiveness or side-effects of uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH.Quasi-randomised trials and cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs. We stratified our primary outcomes according to mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of drug administration, to detect subgroup effects.The absolute risks in the oxytocin are based on meta-analyses of proportions from the studies included in this review and the risks in the intervention groups were based on the assumed risk in the oxytocin group and the relative effects of the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

This network meta-analysis included 140 randomised trials with data from 88,947 women. There are two large ongoing studies. The trials were mostly carried out in hospital settings and recruited women who were predominantly more than 37 weeks of gestation having a vaginal birth. The majority of trials were assessed to have uncertain risk of bias due to poor reporting of study design. This primarily impacted on our confidence in comparisons involving carbetocin trials more than other uterotonics.The three most effective drugs for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination. These three options were more effective at preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin, the drug currently recommended by the WHO (ergometrine plus oxytocin risk ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83), moderate-quality evidence; carbetocin RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.00), very low-quality evidence; misoprostol plus oxytocin RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.90), moderate-quality evidence). Based on these results, about 10.5% women given oxytocin would experience a PPH of ≥ 500 mL compared with 7.2% given ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, 7.6% given carbetocin, and 7.7% given misoprostol plus oxytocin. Oxytocin was ranked fourth with close to 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three for PPH ≥ 500 mL.The outcomes and rankings for the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL were similar to those of PPH ≥ 500 mL. with the evidence for ergometrine plus oxytocin combination being more effective than oxytocin (RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95), high-quality evidence) being more certain than that for carbetocin (RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.28), low-quality evidence), or misoprostol plus oxytocin combination (RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), moderate-quality evidence)There were no meaningful differences between all drugs for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were so rare in the included randomised trials.Two combination regimens had the poorest rankings for side-effects. Specifically, the ergometrine plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for vomiting (RR 3.10 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.56), high-quality evidence; 1.9% versus 0.6%) and hypertension [RR 1.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 5.66), low-quality evidence; 1.2% versus 0.7%), while the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for fever (RR 3.18 (95% CI 2.22 to 4.55), moderate-quality evidence; 11.4% versus 3.6%) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin had similar risk for side-effects compared with oxytocin although the quality evidence was very low for vomiting and for fever, and was low for hypertension.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination were more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL than the current standard oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination was more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL than oxytocin. Misoprostol plus oxytocin combination evidence is less consistent and may relate to different routes and doses of misoprostol used in the studies. Carbetocin had the most favourable side-effect profile amongst the top three options; however, most carbetocin trials were small and at high risk of bias.Amongst the 11 ongoing studies listed in this review there are two key studies that will inform a future update of this review. The first is a WHO-led multi-centre study comparing the effectiveness of a room temperature stable carbetocin versus oxytocin (administered intramuscularly) for preventing PPH in women having a vaginal birth. The trial includes around 30,000 women from 10 countries. The other is a UK-based trial recruiting more than 6000 women to a three-arm trial comparing carbetocin, oxytocin and ergometrine plus oxytocin combination. Both trials are expected to report in 2018.Consultation with our consumer group demonstrated the need for more research into PPH outcomes identified as priorities for women and their families, such as women's views regarding the drugs used, clinical signs of excessive blood loss, neonatal unit admissions and breastfeeding at discharge. To date, trials have rarely investigated these outcomes. Consumers also considered the side-effects of uterotonic drugs to be important but these were often not reported. A forthcoming set of core outcomes relating to PPH will identify outcomes to prioritise in trial reporting and will inform futures updates of this review. We urge all trialists to consider measuring these outcomes for each drug in all future randomised trials. Lastly, future evidence synthesis research could compare the effects of different dosages and routes of administration for the most effective drugs.

Quality medicines in maternal health: results of oxytocin, misoprostol, magnesium sulfate and calcium gluconate quality audits

BACKGROUND

The high level of maternal mortality and morbidity as a result of complications due to childbirth is unacceptable. The impact of quality medicines in the management of these complications cannot be overemphasized. Most of those medicines are sensitive to environmental conditions and must be handled properly. In this study, the quality of oxytocin injection, misoprostol tablets, magnesium sulfate, and calcium gluconate injections was assessed across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

METHOD

Simple, stratified random sampling of health facilities in each of the political zones of Nigeria. Analysis for identification and content of active pharmaceutical ingredient was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography procedures of 159 samples of oxytocin injection and 166 samples of misoprostol tablets. Titrimetric methods were used to analyze 164 samples of magnesium sulfate and 148 samples of calcium gluconate injection. Other tests included sterility, pH measurement, and fill volume.

RESULTS

Samples of these commodities were procured mainly from wholesale and retail pharmacies, where these were readily available, while the federal medical centers reported low availability. Approximately, 74.2% of oxytocin injection samples failed the assay test, with the northeast and southeast zones registering the highest failure rates. Misoprostol tablets recorded a percentage failure of 33.7%. Magnesium sulfate and Calcium gluconate injection samples recorded a failure rate of 6.8% and 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of particularly of oxytocin and misoprostol commodities was of substandard quality. Strengthening the supply chain of these important medicines is paramount to ensuring their effectiveness in reducing maternal deaths in Nigeria.

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.

Treatment for primary postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is one of the top five causes of maternal mortality in both developed and developing countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of any intervention used for the treatment of primary PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any interventions for the treatment of primary PPH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. We contacted authors of the included studies to request more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a total of 4052 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in this review.Four RCTs (1881 participants) compared misoprostol with placebo given in addition to conventional uterotonics. Adjunctive use of misoprostol (in the dose of 600 to 1000 mcg) with simultaneous administration of additional uterotonics did not provide additional benefit for our primary outcomes including maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 50.85), serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31), admission to intensive care (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11) or hysterectomy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.41).  Two RCTs (1787 participants) compared 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin infusion as primary PPH treatment; one trial included women who had received prophylactic uterotonics, and the other did not. Primary outcomes did not differ between the two groups, although women given sublingual misoprostol were more likely to have additional blood loss of at least 1000 mL (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.75). Misoprostol was associated with a significant increase in vomiting and shivering.Two trials attempted to test the effectiveness of estrogen and tranexamic acid, respectively, but were too small for any meaningful comparisons of pre-specified outcomes.One study compared lower segment compression but was too small to assess impact on primary outcomes.We did not identify any trials evaluating surgical techniques or radiological interventions for women with primary PPH unresponsive to uterotonics and/or haemostatics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials included in the current review were not adequately powered to assess impact on the primary outcome measures. Compared with misoprostol, oxytocin infusion is more effective and causes fewer side effects when used as first-line therapy for the treatment of primary PPH. When used after prophylactic uterotonics, misoprostol and oxytocin infusion worked similarly. The review suggests that among women who received oxytocin for the treatment of primary PPH, adjunctive use of misoprostol confers no added benefit.The role of tranexamic acid and compression methods requires further evaluation. Furthermore, future studies should focus on the best way to treat women who fail to respond to uterotonic therapy.

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.

Postpartum hemorrhage in the developed world: whither misoprostol?

We reviewed the literature to determine the optimal medical treatment of postpartum hemorrhage caused by uterine atony. Of the available uterotonics, only misoprostol and oxytocin have undergone rigorous comparative study. Of the 2, misoprostol is inferior: 2 recent well-done randomized trials with enrollment of more than 2200 patients demonstrated that, in situations in which prophylactic oxytocin has already been utilized, additional oxytocin is as effective as or better than misoprostol in terminating bleeding, while avoiding the high rate of fever (22-58%) associated with misoprostol. The second of these trials demonstrated that misoprostol does not augment the effect of oxytocin. We conclude that in settings in which oxytocin is available, oxytocin should remain the mainstay of both prophylaxis and first-line treatment of postpartum hemorrhage caused by uterine atony. In the developed world, the use of misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage should be infrequent.

Misoprostol for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review

Background: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal mortality especially in the developing world. Misoprostol, a highly effective drug is highly effective in inducing uterine contractions and has been proposed as a low-cost, easy-to-use intervention for PPH.Objective: This study assessed evidence of the effectiveness of misoprostol for the prevention and treatment of PPH.Method: Databases searched included MEDLINE, PUBMED, CINHAL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Reference lists and conference proceedings were also searched for more studies. Three studies included in the meta-analysis were limited to randomised controlled trials (RCT). Two reviewers independently screened all articles for methodological quality using a standardised instrument adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration website. Data were entered in Review Manager 5.1 software for analysis.Results: Three trials (n = 2346) compared misoprostol to a placebo. Misoprostol was shown not to be effective in reducing PPH (risk ratios [RR] 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–1.06). Only one trial reported on the need for a blood transfusion (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02–1.15). Shivering (RR 2.75; 95% CI 2.26–3.34) and pyrexia (RR 5.34; 95% CI 2.86–9.96) were significantly more common with misoprostol than with a placebo.Conclusion: The use of misoprostol was not associated with any significant reduction in the incidence of PPH. Therefore, in order to verify the efficacious use of misoprostol in the treatment of PPH, specialised investigations of its dose and routes of administration for clinically significant effects and acceptable side effects are warranted.

Dose and side effects of sublingual misoprostol for treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: what difference do they make?

Background

Shivering and fever are common side effects of misoprostol. An unexpectedly high rate of fever above 40°C was documented among Ecuadorian women given treatment with 800mcg of sublingual misoprostol to manage postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) (36%). Much lower rates have been reported elsewhere (0-9%).

Methods

From February to July 2010, an open-label pilot study was conducted in Quito, Ecuador to determine whether a lower dose--600mcg sublingual misoprostol--would result in a lower incidence of high fever (≥40°C). Rates of shivering and fever with 600mcg sublingual regimen were compared to previously documented rates in Ecuador following PPH treatment with 800mcg sublingual misoprostol.

Results

The 600mcg dose resulted in a 55% lower rate of high fever compared with the 800mcg regimen (8/50; 16% vs. 58/163; 36%; relative risk 0.45 95% CI 0.23-0.88). Only one woman had severe shivering following the 600mcg dose compared with 19 women in the 800mcg cohort (2% vs. 12%; relative risk 0.17 (0.02-1.25)). No cases of delirium/altered sensorium were reported with the 600mcg dose and women’s assessment of severity/tolerability of shivering and fever was better with the lower dose.

Conclusions

600mcg sublingual misoprostol was found to decrease the occurrence of high fever among Ecuadorian women when given to treat PPH. This study however was not powered to examine the efficacy of this treatment regimen and cannot be recommended at this time. Future research is needed to confirm whether other populations, outside of Quito, Ecuador, experience unusually high rates of elevated body temperature following sublingual administration of misoprostol for treatment of PPH. If indeed similar trends are found elsewhere, larger trials to confirm the efficacy of lower dosages may be justified.

Trial Registration

Clinical trials.gov, Registry No. NCT01080846

Misoprostol for the prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Uterotonic drugs are recommended for the prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and oxytocin is considered the gold standard for both indications due to its established efficacy and safety. Unfortunately, access to oxytocin is still limited in many low-resource settings due to the need for cool storage, sterile equipment and administration by skilled personnel. Misoprostol , an E1 prostaglandin analog, has therefore been explored as an alternative for such settings due to its proven ability to induce uterine contractions, low cost, stability at room temperature and ease of administration.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers evidence from 51 randomized controlled trials for both prevention and treatment of PPH. It discusses efficacy and side effects in the context of the various doses that have been studied using oral, sublingual or rectal routes of administration for both indications.

EXPERT OPINION

There is now a solid body of evidence to justify the use of misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage indications in many settings. The evidence supports use of 600 μg orally for the prevention of PPH and 800 μg sublingually for the treatment of PPH. There is no evidence to support the adjunct use of misoprostol following administration of conventional uterotonics for prevention or treatment purposes.

A Study to Compare the Efficacy of Misoprostol, Oxytocin, Methyl-ergometrine and Ergometrine-Oxytocin in Reducing Blood Loss in Active Management of 3rd Stage of Labor

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of misoprostol 400 μg per rectally, injection oxytocin 10 IU intramuscular, injection methylergometrine 0.2 mg intravenously and injection (0.5 mg ergometrine + 5 IU oxytocin) intramuscular on reducing blood loss in third stage of labor, duration of third stage of labor, effect on haemoglobin of the patient, need of additional oxytocics or blood transfusion and associated side effects and complications.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective non-randomized uncontrolled study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SSG Hospital and Medical College, Baroda enrolling 200 women and dividing them into four groups. Active management of 3rd stage of labor was done using one of the 4 uterotonics as per the group of the patient. The main outcome measures were the amount of blood loss, the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage and a drop in hemoglobin concentration from before delivery to 24 h after delivery.

RESULTS

Methylergometrine was found to be superior to rest of the drugs in the study with lowest duration of third stage of labor (P = 0.000096), lowest amount of blood loss (P = 0.000017) and lowest incidence of PPH (P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the pre-delivery and the post-delivery hemoglobin concentration amongst the four groups with P = 0.061. The need of additional oxytocics and blood transfusion was highest with misoprostol as compared to all other drugs used in the study with P = 0.037 and 0.009, respectively. As regards side effects, misoprostol was associated with shivering and pyrexia in significantly high number of patients as compared to the other drugs used in the study while nausea, vomiting and headache were more associated with methylergometrine and ergometrine-oxytocin. However all the side effects were acceptable and preferable to the excessive blood loss.

CONCLUSION

Methylergometrine has the best uterotonic drug profile amongst the drugs used, strongly favouring its routine use as oxytocic for active management of third stage of labor. Misoprostol was found to cause a higher blood loss compared to other drugs and hence should be used only in low resource setting where other drugs are not available. The role of misoprostol in third stage of labor needs larger studies to be proved.

Misoprostol as an adjunct to standard uterotonics for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage: a multicentre, double-blind randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Post-partum haemorrhage is a leading cause of global maternal morbidity and mortality. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin analogue with uterotonic activity, is an attractive option for treatment because it is stable, active orally, and inexpensive. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of misoprostol as an adjunct to standard uterotonics compared with standard uterotonics alone for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage.

METHODS

Women delivering vaginally who had clinically diagnosed post-partum haemorrhage due to uterine atony were enrolled from participating hospitals in Argentina, Egypt, South Africa, Thailand, and Vietnam between July, 2005, and August, 2008. Computer-generated randomisation was used to assign women to receive 600 microg misoprostol or matching placebo sublingually; both groups were also given routine injectable uterotonics. Allocation was concealed by distribution of sealed and sequentially numbered treatment packs in the order that women were enrolled. Providers and women were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was blood loss of 500 mL or more within 60 min after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN34455240.

FINDINGS

1422 women were assigned to receive misoprostol (n=705) or placebo (n=717). The proportion of women with blood loss of 500 mL or more within 60 min was similar between the misoprostol group (100 [14%]) and the placebo group (100 [14%]; relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.79-1.32). In the first 60 min, an increased proportion of women on misoprostol versus placebo, had shivering (455/704 [65%] vs 230/717 [32%]; 2.01, 1.79-2.27) and body temperature of 38 degrees C or higher (303/704 [43%] vs 107/717 [15%]; 2.88, 2.37-2.50).

INTERPRETATION

Findings from this study do not support clinical use of 600 microg sublingual misoprostol in addition to standard injectable uterotonics for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.

High fever following postpartum administration of sublingual misoprostol

Objective

To explore what triggers an elevated body temperature of ≥40.0°C in some women given misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue, for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

Design

Post hoc analysis.

Setting

One tertiary-level hospital in Quito, Ecuador.

Population

A cohort of 58 women with a fever of above 40°C following treatment with sublingual misoprostol (800 micrograms) for PPH.

Methods

Side effects were documented for 163 Ecuadorian women given sublingual misoprostol to treat their PPH. Women’s body temperatures were measured, and if they had a fever of ≥40.0°C, measurements were taken hourly until the fever subsided. Temperature trends were analysed, and the possible physiological mechanisms by which postpartum misoprostol produces a high fever were explored.

Main outcome measures

The onset, duration, peak temperatures, and treatments administered for cases with a high fever.

Results

Fifty-eight of 163 women (35.6%) treated with misoprostol experienced a fever of ≥40.0°C. High fevers followed a predictable pattern, often preceded by moderate/severe shivering within 20 minutes of treatment. Body temperatures peaked 1–2 hours post-treatment, and gradually declined over 3 hours. Fevers were transient and did not lead to any hospitalisation. Baseline characteristics were comparable among women who did and did not develop a high fever, except for known previous PPH and time to placental expulsion.

Conclusions

An unexpectedly high rate of elevated body temperature of ≥40.0°C was documented in Ecuador following sublingually administered misoprostol. It is unclear why temperatures ≥40.0°C occurred with a greater frequency in Ecuador than in other study populations using similar treatment regimens for PPH. Pharmacogenetic studies may shed further light on variations in individuals’ responses to misoprostol.

Treatment of post-partum haemorrhage with sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin in women receiving prophylactic oxytocin: a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Oxytocin, the gold-standard treatment for post-partum haemorrhage, needs refrigeration, intravenous infusion, and skilled providers for optimum use. Misoprostol, a potential alternative, is increasingly used ad hoc for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage; however, evidence is insufficient to lend support to recommendations for its use. This trial established whether sublingual misoprostol is non-inferior to intravenous oxytocin for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage in women receiving prophylactic oxytocin.

METHODS

In this double-blind, non-inferiority trial, 31 055 women exposed to prophylactic oxytocin had blood loss measured after vaginal delivery at five hospitals in Burkina Faso, Egypt, Turkey, and Vietnam (two secondary-level and three tertiary-level facilities). 809 (3%) women were diagnosed with post-partum haemorrhage and were randomly assigned to receive 800 mug misoprostol (n=407) or 40 IU intravenous oxytocin (n=402). Providers and women were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were cessation of active bleeding within 20 min and additional blood loss of 300 mL or more after treatment. Clinical equivalence of misoprostol would be accepted if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI fell below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 6%. All outcomes were assessed from the time of initial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00116350.

FINDINGS

All randomly assigned participants were analysed. Active bleeding was controlled within 20 min after initial treatment for 363 (89%) women given misoprostol and 360 (90%) given oxytocin (relative risk [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.04; crude difference 0.4%, 95% CI -3.9 to 4.6). Additional blood loss of 300 mL or greater after treatment occurred for 139 (34%) women receiving misoprostol and 123 (31%) receiving oxytocin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37). Shivering (152 [37%] vs 59 [15%]; RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.95-3.32) and fever (88 [22%] vs 59 [15%]; 1.47, 1.09-1.99) were significantly more common with misoprostol than with oxytocin. Six women had hysterectomies and two women died.

INTERPRETATION

Misoprostol is clinically equivalent to oxytocin when used to stop excessive post-partum bleeding suspected to be due to uterine atony in women who have received oxytocin prophylactically during the third stage of labour.

Misoprostol to prevent and treat postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal deaths and dose-related effects

OBJECTIVE

To review maternal deaths and the dose-related effects of misoprostol on blood loss and pyrexia in randomized trials of misoprostol use for the prevention or treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Pubmed, without language restrictions, for '(misoprostol AND postpartum) OR (misoprostol AND haemorrhage) OR (misoprostol AND hemorrhage)', and we evaluated reports identified through the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group search strategy. Randomized trials comparing misoprostol with either placebo or another uterotonic to prevent or treat postpartum haemorrhage were checked for eligibility. Data were extracted, tabulated and analysed with Reviewer Manager (RevMan) 4.3 software.

FINDINGS

We included 46 trials with more than 40,000 participants in the final analysis. Of 11 deaths reported in 5 trials, 8 occurred in women receiving >or= 600 microg of misoprostol (Peto odds ratio, OR: 2.49; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.76-8.13). Severe morbidity, defined as the need for major surgery, admission to intensive care, organ failure or body temperature >or= 40 degrees C, was relatively infrequent. In prevention trials, severe morbidity was experienced by 16 of 10,281 women on misoprostol and by 16 of 10,292 women on conventional uterotonics; in treatment trials, it was experienced by 1 of 32 women on misoprostol and by 1 of 32 women on conventional uterotonics. Misoprostol recipients experienced more adverse events than placebo recipients: 8 of 2070 versus 5 of 2032, respectively, in prevention trials, and 5 of 196 versus 2 of 202, respectively, in treatment trials. Meta-analysis of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of the results of randomized trials showed no evidence that 600 microg are more effective than 400 microg for preventing blood loss > 1000 ml (relative risk, RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.71-1.48). Pyrexia was more than twice as common among women who received > 600 microg rather than 400 microg of misoprostol (RR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.78-3.60).

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to more accurately assess the potential beneficial and harmful effects of misoprostol and to determine the smallest dose that is effective and safe. In this review, 400 microg of misoprostol were found to be safer than > 600 microg and just as effective.

Randomized double masked trial of Zhi Byed 11, a Tibetan traditional medicine, versus misoprostol to prevent postpartum hemorrhage in Lhasa, Tibet

The objective of this study was to compare a Tibetan traditional medicine (the uterotonic Zhi Byed 11 [ZB11]) to oral misoprostol for prophylaxis of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial at three hospitals in Lhasa, Tibet, People's Republic of China. Women (N = 967) were randomized to either ZB11 or misoprostol groups. Postpartum blood loss was measured in a calibrated blood collection drape. The primary combined outcome was incidence of PPH, defined as measured blood loss (MBL) > or = 500 mL, administration of open label uterotonics, or maternal death. We found that the rate of the combined outcome was lower among the misoprostol group (16.1% versus 21.8% for ZB11; P = .02). Frequency of PPH was lower with misoprostol (12.4% versus 17.4%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in MBL > 1000 mL or mean or median MBL. Fever was significantly more common in the misoprostol group (P = .03). The rate of combined outcome was significantly lower among women receiving misoprostol. However, other indices of obstetric hemorrhage were not significantly different.

Misoprostol in addition to routine treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: a hospital-based randomized-controlled trial in Karachi, Pakistan

BACKGROUND

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains a major killer of women worldwide. Standard uterotonic treatments used to control postpartum bleeding do not always work and are not always available. Misoprostol's potential as a treatment option for PPH is increasingly known, but its use remains ad hoc and available evidence does not support the safety or efficacy of one particular regimen. This study aimed to determine the adjunct benefit of misoprostol when combined with standard oxytocics for PPH treatment.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in four Karachi hospitals from December 2005 - April 2007 to assess the benefit of a 600 mcg dose of misoprostol given sublingually in addition to standard oxytocics for postpartum hemorrhage treatment. Consenting women had their blood loss measured after normal vaginal delivery and were enrolled in the study after losing more than 500 ml of blood. Women were randomly assigned to receive either 600 mcg sublingual misoprostol or matching placebo in addition to standard PPH treatment with injectable oxytocics. Both women and providers were blinded to the treatment assignment. Blood loss was collected until active bleeding stopped and for a minimum of one hour after PPH diagnosis. Total blood loss, hemoglobin measures, and treatment outcomes were recorded for all participants.

RESULTS

Due to a much lower rate of PPH than expected (1.2%), only sixty-one patients were diagnosed and treated for their PPH in this study, and we were therefore unable to measure statistical significance in any of the primary endpoints. The addition of 600 mcg sublingual misoprostol to standard PPH treatments does, however, suggest a trend in reduced postpartum blood loss, a smaller drop in postpartum hemoglobin, and need for fewer additional interventions. Women who bled less overall had a significantly smaller drop in hemoglobin and received fewer additional interventions. There were no hysterectomies or maternal deaths among study participants. The rate of transient shivering and fever was significantly higher among women receiving misoprostol

CONCLUSION

A 600 mcg dose of misoprostol given sublingually shows promise as an adjunct treatment for PPH and its use should continue to be explored for its life-saving potential in the care of women experiencing PPH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov, Registry No. NCT00116480.

[Misoprostol for treating postpartum hemorrhages]

Postpartum hemorrhage is defined by bleeding > 500 mL through the vagina. It is one of the obstetrical complications that obstetricians fear most. It is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the world, especially in developing countries. The reference treatments in France are parenteral oxytocin and sulprostone. Sulprostone involves sometimes fatal side effects, and must be administered only in appropriate health care facilities. It also has the major disadvantage of requiring refrigeration. Misoprostol has uterotonic properties that have led to its occasional off-label use in the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage, by rectal or sublingual administration, as an alternative to sulprostone. A careful review of the literature on this particular use of misoprostol is essential.

Treatment for primary postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is one of the top five causes of maternal mortality in both developed and developing countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological, surgical and radiological interventions used for the treatment of primary PPH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological, surgical techniques and radiological interventions for the treatment of PPH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and extracted data, independently. We contacted authors of the included studies for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (462 participants) were included. Two placebo-controlled randomised trials compared misoprostol (dose 600 to 1000 mcg) with placebo and showed that misoprostol use was not associated with any significant reduction of maternal mortality (two trials, 398 women; relative risk (RR) 7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 138.6), hysterectomy (two trials, 398 women; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 40.78), the additional use of uterotonics (two trials, 398 women; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24), blood transfusion (two trials, 394 women; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.18), or evacuation of retained products (one trial, 238 women; RR 5.17, 95% CI 0.25 to 107). Misoprostol use was associated with a significant increase of maternal pyrexia (two trials, 392 women; RR 6.40, 95% CI 1.71 to 23.96) and shivering (two trials, 394 women; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.18). One unblinded trial showed better clinical response to rectal misoprostol compared with a combination of syntometrine and oxytocin. We did not identify any trial dealing with surgical techniques, radiological interventions or haemostatic drugs for women with primary PPH unresponsive to uterotonics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show that the addition of misoprostol is superior to the combination of oxytocin and ergometrine alone for the treatment of primary PPH. Large multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials are required to identify the best drug combinations, route, and dose of uterotonics for the treatment of primary PPH. Further work is required to assess the best way of managing women who fail to respond to uterotonics therapy.