-
Health Technology Assessment... Feb 2019Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended....
BACKGROUND
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH, but it is still debatable which drug or combination of drugs is the most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the most effective and cost-effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.
METHODS
The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015). In addition, reference lists of retrieved studies (updated October 2017) were searched for randomised trials evaluating uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH. The study estimated relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH, defined as blood loss of ≥ 500 ml and ≥ 1000 ml. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs and combinations thereof [ergometrine, misoprostol (Cytotec; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), misoprostol plus oxytocin (Syntocinon; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), carbetocin (Pabal; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), ergometrine plus oxytocin (Syntometrine; Alliance Pharma plc, Chippenham, UK), oxytocin, and a placebo or no treatment]. Primary outcomes were stratified according to the mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, health-care setting, drug dosage, regimen and route of drug administration. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to study quality and funding source, among others. A model-based economic evaluation compared the relative cost-effectiveness separately for vaginal births and caesareans with or without including side effects.
RESULTS
From 137 randomised trials and 87,466 women, ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were found to reduce the risk of PPH blood loss of ≥ 500 ml compared with the standard drug, oxytocin [ergometrine plus oxytocin: risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83; carbetocin: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9]. Each of these three strategies had 100% cumulative probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth, with an almost 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three. Similar rankings were noted for the reduction of PPH blood loss of ≥ 1000 ml (ergometrine plus oxytocin: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; carbetocin: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), and most secondary outcomes. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin had the poorest ranking for side effects. Carbetocin had a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, the analysis was restricted to high-quality studies, carbetocin lost its ranking and was comparable to oxytocin. The relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies is inconclusive, and the results are affected by both the uncertainty and inconsistency in the data reported on adverse events. For vaginal delivery, when assuming no adverse events, ergometrine plus oxytocin is less costly and more effective than all strategies except carbetocin. The strategy of carbetocin is both more effective and more costly than all other strategies. When taking adverse events into consideration, all prevention strategies, except oxytocin, are more costly and less effective than carbetocin. For delivery by caesarean section, with and without adverse events, the relative cost-effectiveness is different, again because of the uncertainty in the available data.
LIMITATIONS
There was considerable uncertainty in findings within the planned subgroup analyses, and subgroup effects cannot be ruled out.
CONCLUSIONS
Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are more effective uterotonic drug strategies for preventing PPH than the current standard, oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin cause significant side effects. Carbetocin has a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, most carbetocin trials are small and of poor quality. There is a need for a large high-quality trial comparing carbetocin with oxytocin; such a trial is currently being conducted by the WHO. The relative cost-effectiveness is inconclusive, and results are affected by uncertainty and inconsistency in adverse events data.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020005; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (substudy) reference number 0871; PROSPERO-Cochrane (substudy) reference number CRD42015026568; and sponsor reference number ERN_13-1414 (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK).
FUNDING
Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme in a research award to the University of Birmingham and supported by the UK charity Ammalife (UK-registered charity 1120236). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data synthesis, interpretation or writing of the report.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Delivery, Obstetric; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Ergonovine; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 30821683
DOI: 10.3310/hta23090 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Parturition; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Uterus
PubMed: 34155622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Obstetric Labor Complications; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prostaglandins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Term Birth; Time Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28050900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005302.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Postpartum 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... (Meta-Analysis)
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®.
Topics: Bias; Blood Transfusion; Confidence Intervals; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ergonovine; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33232518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012754.pub2 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Jun 2023In the post-Roe era, barriers to facility-based abortions may lead to an increased incidence of self-managed abortions. While misoprostol-based medication abortions have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the post-Roe era, barriers to facility-based abortions may lead to an increased incidence of self-managed abortions. While misoprostol-based medication abortions have significant literature supporting its safety profile, there is a knowledge deficit within the medical community regarding the toxicities of commonly used herbal abortifacients.
METHODS
This is a narrative review, based on a MEDLINE and HOLLIS database search, of self-managed abortion methods with herbal abortifacients and their associated toxicities.
RESULTS
Common herbal abortifacients with significant morbidity and mortality implications include pennyroyal, blue cohosh, rue, and quinine. Other commonly reported abortifacients considered to be less toxic also are discussed in brief. Special considerations for hepatic, cardiac, renal, and hematologic toxicities are important in patients with significant exposures to these herbal substances.
CONCLUSION
There is an anticipated increase in the utility of herbal xenobiotics for self-managed abortions with post-Roe restrictions to standard mifepristone-misoprostol protocols. Frontline providers should be aware of the associated toxicities and have special considerations when treating a poisoned patient in this population.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Abortifacient Agents; Misoprostol; Mifepristone; Abortion, Induced
PubMed: 36924751
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.03.005 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Jan 2018
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Criminal; Abortion, Legal; Ethiopia; Female; Global Health; Health Policy; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Maternal Mortality; Misoprostol; Patient Safety; Pregnancy; Reproductive Rights; Tanzania; Zambia
PubMed: 29357663
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.17.0809 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023Misoprostol-alone regimens for abortion may be more effective than previously thought. (Observational Study)
Observational Study
IMPORTANCE
Misoprostol-alone regimens for abortion may be more effective than previously thought.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the effectiveness of medication abortion with misoprostol alone among individuals self-managing their abortion.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
For this prospective observational cohort study of callers to safe abortion hotlines and accompaniment groups in Argentina, Nigeria, and Southeast Asia, participants were recruited between July 31, 2019, and October 1, 2020, prior to starting their medication abortion. Eligible participants were 13 years or older, had no contraindications to medication abortion, and were not currently bleeding. Participants completed a baseline and 2 follow-up surveys. The analysis was restricted to participants who reported using misoprostol alone and was performed between January 6, 2022 and September 8, 2023.
EXPOSURE
Self-managed medication abortion using misoprostol alone.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was effectiveness, defined as participant self-report of complete abortion without procedural intervention, measured at 1 week and 3 weeks after taking misoprostol. Secondary outcomes included method safety, measured by self-report of experiencing warning signs (eg, heavy bleeding, pain, fever, discharge) indicative of a potential complication and by medical treatment (eg, blood transfusion, intravenous fluids, overnight hospital stay) indicative of a potential adverse event. Additional outcomes included length of bleeding and cramping, time to expulsion, and experience of adverse effects.
RESULTS
Among 1352 enrolled participants, 637 used misoprostol-alone regimens for abortion and were included in the analysis (591 [92.8%] from Nigeria, 45 [7.1%] from Southeast Asia, and 1 [0.2%] from Argentina; 384 [60.2%] aged 20-29 years; 317 [49.8%] with pregnancy durations <7 weeks and 205 [32.2%] with pregnancy durations between 7 and <9 weeks). At last follow-up after taking medication (median, 22 days; IQR, 21-26 days), 625 participants (98.1%; 95% CI, 96.7%-98.9%) had a complete abortion without procedural intervention. Potential adverse events were reported by 6 participants (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%). Most participants experienced bleeding for less than 1 week (median, 4 days; IQR, 3-6 days) and expelled their pregnancy within 24 hours of starting the abortion process (median, 12 hours; IQR, 9-15 hours). Common side effects included nausea (335 participants [52.6%]), fever (232 [36.4%]), and diarrhea (181 [28.4%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings suggest that misoprostol alone is a highly effective method of pregnancy termination. Future research should explore strategies to maximize the effectiveness of misoprostol alone in clinical and nonclinical settings.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Prospective Studies; Mifepristone; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous
PubMed: 37889485
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40042 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in the uterus ('evacuation of uterus'). However, medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe, and acceptable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of any medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (13 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery, or alternative methods of medical treatment. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (5577 women). There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). We did not identify any difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Further studies, including long-term follow-up, are clearly needed to confirm these findings. There is an urgent need for studies on women who miscarry at more than 13 weeks' gestation.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Incomplete; Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Misoprostol; Nausea; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28138973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007223.pub4 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jun 2018
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal; Abortion, Induced; Canada; Drug Therapy, Combination; Family Planning Services; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Insurance Coverage; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second
PubMed: 29866894
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.180047 -
Maedica Sep 2019Hysteroscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic modality, while cervical ripening before hysteroscopy is an issue of concern and different agents have been used for this...
Hysteroscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic modality, while cervical ripening before hysteroscopy is an issue of concern and different agents have been used for this purpose. The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of misoprostol and isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) for cervical ripening before hysteroscopy. In this randomized clinical trial, 56 women who were candidates for hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to misoprostol or isosorbide mononitrate groups. During the early follicular phase of the cycle, a gynecology expert performed the hysteroscopies. Cervical dilation was measured by insertion of Hegar dilators up to size 9 without force. Vaginal bleeding, headache, abdominal pain, nausea, and vital signs were recorded by a specialized nurse. There was no significant difference regarding age, systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the two groups. Heart rate was significantly higher in the IMN group. Bleeding rate was not significantly different between the two groups (25.8% in the misoprostol group and 24% in the isosorbide mononitrate group, p=0.8). Headache was significantly more frequent in the isosorbide group, while abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting were significantly prevalent in the misoprostol group. The mean Hegar number used in the misoprostol and IMN groups was 7.3±1.1 vs 6.7±0.8 (p=0.03) Isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) is more effective than misoprostol for cervical ripening before hysteroscopy and complications are more frequent in the misoprostol group.
PubMed: 31798742
DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2019.14.3.260