-
American Family Physician Apr 2021Medication regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective for outpatient treatment of early pregnancy loss for up to 84 days' gestation and for...
Medication regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective for outpatient treatment of early pregnancy loss for up to 84 days' gestation and for medication abortion up to 77 days' gestation. Gestational age is determined using ultrasonography or menstrual history. Ultrasonography is needed when gestational dating cannot be confirmed using clinical data alone or when there are risk factors for ectopic pregnancy. The most effective regimens for medication management of early pregnancy loss and medication abortion include 200 mg of oral mifepristone (a progesterone receptor antagonist) followed by 800 mcg of misoprostol (a prostaglandin E1 analogue) administered buccally or vaginally. Cramping and bleeding are expected effects of the medications, with bleeding lasting an average of nine to 16 days. The adverse effects of misoprostol (e.g., low-grade fever, gastrointestinal symptoms) can be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiemetics. Ongoing pregnancy, infection, hemorrhage, undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, and the need for unplanned uterine aspiration are rare complications. Clinical history, combined with serial quantitative beta human chorionic gonadotropin levels, urine pregnancy testing, or ultrasonography, is used to establish complete passage of the pregnancy tissue.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 33856168
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Jul 2023Misoprostol is the choice drug for inducing an abortion with intrauterine fetal death, but it has several side effects that increase with accumulating the dose received.... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of the effect of vaginal misoprostol and evening primrose oil capsule with misoprostol alone on the consequences of abortion in women with intrauterine fetal death: a randomized clinical trial.
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol is the choice drug for inducing an abortion with intrauterine fetal death, but it has several side effects that increase with accumulating the dose received. Induction abortion with cheap and non-invasive methods with minimal complications is essential. This study aimed to compare the effect vaginal misoprostol plus vaginal evening primrose oil capsule with vaginal misoprostol alone on the consequences of abortion in pregnant women with intrauterine fetal death at 12-20 weeks of pregnancy.
METHODS
This study is a randomized, triple-blind clinical trial with two parallel groups at a ratio of 1:1. We randomized 82 women with indications of termination of pregnancy due to intrauterine fetal death into two groups. The experimental group (n = 42) received 200 mcg of misoprostol tablet with 1000 mg evening primrose oil capsule intravaginal. The control group (n = 40) received 200 mcg of misoprostol tablet with 1000 mg evening primrose oil placebo capsule intravaginal. Both groups received the drugs every 4 h for up to five doses. The primary outcome was the mean induction-to-fetal expulsion interval. Secondary outcomes were the mean dose of misoprostol, the highest pain intensity in the induction-to-fetal expulsion interval, the frequency of participants requiring blood transfusion, curettage, and the frequency of side effects of misoprostol or evening primrose oil. Pain intensity was measured through the Visual Analog Scale.
RESULTS
The mean age of the experimental group was 32.30 ± 6.19 years, and the control group was 30.27 ± 7.68 years. The mean gestational age of the experimental group was 15.29 ± 2.26 weeks, and the control group was 15.10 ± 1.89 weeks. The mean induction-to-fetal expulsion interval in the experimental group (3.12 ± 2.17 h) was significantly lower than that in the control group (8.40 ± 4.1 h) (p < 0.001). The mean dose of misoprostol received in the experimental group (271.42 ± 115.39 mcg) was significantly lower than that in the control group (520 ± 201.53 mcg) (p < 0.001). Also, the mean pain intensity in the experimental group (5.02 ± 0.60) was significantly lower than that in the control group (8.65 ± 1.001) (p < 0.001). The two groups were not significantly different in the frequency of blood transfusion requirements, analgesia and drug side effects. The need for curettage in the experimental group (4.8%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (47.5%) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Vaginal administration of evening primrose oil with misoprostol reduced duration of time of fetal expulsion, pain intensity, mean dose of misoprostol received, and the need for curettage in participants. Therefore, we suggest this method for induced abortion in women with intrauterine fetal death.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
IRCT20181207041873N3. Dated 16/2/2021 prospectively registered https://en.irct.ir/user/trial/53681/view .
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Adult; Infant; Misoprostol; Abortion, Induced; Linoleic Acids; Fetal Death; Stillbirth
PubMed: 37468886
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-023-04082-w -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Oct 2022
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; United States
PubMed: 34862207
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2021-201321 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Feb 2022The purpose of this integrative literature review was to appraise studies conducted worldwide using misoprostol and estradiol in converting Type 3 transformation zone... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this integrative literature review was to appraise studies conducted worldwide using misoprostol and estradiol in converting Type 3 transformation zone (TZ) of the cervix into Types 1 or 2 and to assess which regimen could be more feasible in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). We reviewed the English language literature for peer-reviewed studies that evaluated strategies to convert Type 3 TZs to Types 1 or 2 for cervical cancer screening. Web of Science and PubMed searches were performed up to July 2020. Search terms included: "cervical colposcopy," "inadequate colposcopy", "cervical cancer screening", "transformation zone," "estrogen", "estradiol", and "misoprostol." Inclusion criteria were articles published in the English language, original research, and peer reviewed articles. A total of 127 articles were abstracted, 24 articles were reviewed, and 9 articles met all inclusion criteria. We found that intravaginal misoprostol, intravaginal estradiol, and oral estradiol can successfully convert Type 3 TZ to Types 1 or 2. A single dose of vaginal misoprostol had a similar maximum response rate (20-80%) to a multi-dose regimen over several days or weeks of both intravaginal estradiol (64-83%) and oral estradiol (50-70%). Misoprostol administration was associated with more side effects such as abdominal cramping and vaginal bleeding compared to estradiol, although these were generally mild. In conclusion, Oral estradiol, intravaginal estradiol, and intravaginal misoprostol can be used to convert Type 3 TZ to Types 1 or 2. Intravaginal misoprostol is well tolerated and more feasible in LMICs due to availability and shorter treatment schedule compared to oral or intravaginal estradiol.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Cervical Ripening; Early Detection of Cancer; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34952401
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.11.431 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... 2023This study aimed to analyze the effects of Foley catheter combined with misoprostol in the labor induction process. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to analyze the effects of Foley catheter combined with misoprostol in the labor induction process.
METHODS
This is a nonblinded, block randomized, controlled trial that compared the association between transcervical Foley catheter/vaginal misoprostol 25 μg combination and vaginal misoprostol 25 μg alone in normal-risk and healthy pregnant women undergoing labor induction in the south of Brazil.
RESULTS
A total of 230 patients with indications for labor induction were evaluated and classified into the "combined" group (Foley catheter plus misoprostol), consisting of 107 patients, and the "misoprostol" group (misoprostol only), consisting of 123 patients. The "combined" group was observed to have a shorter labor induction time (p=0.008). In addition, there was a lower need for misoprostol use for overall cervical ripening (p<0.001) and a lower relative risk of needing a second, third, or fourth misoprostol tablet in the "combined" group (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.91; RR 0.41; 95%CI 0.31-0.56; and RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.17-0.52, respectively) (p<0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in induction failure rate, cesarean section rate, or perinatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION
A combination of methods leads to shorter labor induction, lower need for misoprostol doses, and lower risk of cesarean section, with no increase in the rate of perinatal complications. REBEC number is RBR-7xcjz3z.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Cesarean Section; Administration, Intravaginal; Labor, Induced; Catheters
PubMed: 36629651
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20220897 -
Ciencia & Saude Coletiva Aug 2022The use of misoprostol for abortifacient purposes is a phenomenon observed in Brazil since the late 1980s. The drug started to be used at that time for self-induced... (Review)
Review
The use of misoprostol for abortifacient purposes is a phenomenon observed in Brazil since the late 1980s. The drug started to be used at that time for self-induced abortion, when it began to be commercialized for the treatment of peptic ulcer. Its access was restricted from 1998 onwards, but the drug continues to be commercialized illegally. The objective of this article is to summarize the knowledge produced by research in Brazil about induced abortion and the use of misoprostol. An integrative review of original studies carried out in Brazil and published in journals indexed in SciELO, PubMed and Lilacs databases was performed. The search found 68 titles, and 28 articles were included in the review. Most women who induced pregnancy interruption were young and did it before 15 gestational weeks. The rate of misoprostol use ranged from 89% to 36%. This drug is effective for terminating pregnancy in the first trimester and has a low rate of complications. However, the more socially vulnerable the woman is, the greater are the health risks in the abortion process. The conclusion is that the purchase of misoprostol as an abortifacient is facilitated, despite it being prohibited, and its complications are associated with the context of vulnerability of the pregnant woman.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Criminal; Abortion, Induced; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35894320
DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232022278.03102022 -
Reproductive Health Aug 2023Most treatments for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) lack evidence of effectiveness. New innovations are ubiquitous but have not been synthesized for ready access. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most treatments for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) lack evidence of effectiveness. New innovations are ubiquitous but have not been synthesized for ready access.
NARRATIVE REVIEW
Pubmed 2020 to 2021 was searched on 'postpartum haemorrhage treatment', and novel reports among 755 citations were catalogued. New health care strategies included early diagnosis with a bundled first response and home-based treatment of PPH. A calibrated postpartum blood monitoring tray has been described. Oxytocin is more effective than misoprostol; addition of misoprostol to oxytocin does not improve treatment. Heat stable carbetocin has not been assessed for treatment. A thermostable microneedle oxytocin patch has been developed. Intravenous tranexamic acid reduces mortality but deaths have been reported from inadvertent intrathecal injection. New transvaginal uterine artery clamps have been described. Novel approaches to uterine balloon tamponade include improvised and purpose-designed free-flow (as opposed to fixed volume) devices and vaginal balloon tamponade. Uterine suction tamponade methods include purpose-designed and improvised devices. Restrictive fluid resuscitation, massive transfusion protocols, fibrinogen use, early cryopreciptate transfusion and point-of-care viscoelastic haemostatic assay-guided blood product transfusion have been reported. Pelvic artery embolization and endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and pelvic arteries are used where available. External aortic compression and direct compression of the aorta during laparotomy or aortic clamping (such as with the Paily clamp) are alternatives. Transvaginal haemostatic ligation and compression sutures, placental site sutures and a variety of novel compression sutures have been reported. These include Esike's technique, three vertical compression sutures, vertical plus horizontal compression sutures, parallel loop binding compression sutures, uterine isthmus vertical compression sutures, isthmic circumferential suture, circumferential compression sutures with intrauterine balloon, King's combined uterine suture and removable retropubic uterine compression suture. Innovative measures for placenta accreta spectrum include a lower uterine folding suture, a modified cervical inversion technique, bilateral uterine artery ligation with myometrial excision of the adherent placenta and cervico-isthmic sutures or a T-shaped lower segment repair. Technological advances include cell salvage, high frequency focussed ultrasound for placenta increta and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation.
CONCLUSIONS
Knowledge of innovative methods can equip clinicians with last-resort options when faced with haemorrhage unresponsive to conventional methods.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Oxytocin; Misoprostol; Placenta; Hemostatics
PubMed: 37568196
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-023-01657-1 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2021A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
TRIAL DESIGN
A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage.
METHODS
Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 μg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage.
RESULTS
A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone.
LIMITATIONS
The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage.
FUTURE WORK
Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage.
CONCLUSIONS
Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 34821547
DOI: 10.3310/hta25680 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Oct 2023To evaluate the efficacy of combined mifepristone and misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in outpatient medical treatment of first trimester miscarriage.... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of combined mifepristone and misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in outpatient medical treatment of first trimester miscarriage. Additionally, the study intends to compare the rate of complications, adverse effects, and treatment acceptability between groups.
STUDY DESIGN
Single-center double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial including women with diagnosis of missed first trimester miscarriage up to 9 weeks of gestation.
RESULTS
Between April 2019 and November 2021, 216 women diagnosed with first trimester miscarriage up to 9 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to mifepristone group or to misoprostol-alone group. Data from 105 women in mifepristone group and 103 women in misoprostol-alone group were analyzed, with no differences in baseline characteristics. The median time between medications (oral mifepristone/placebo and vaginal misoprostol) was nearly 43 h in both groups (p = 0.906). The median time to first follow-up was 2.6 weeks (IQR 1.0) in mifepristone group and 2.4 weeks (IQR 1.0) in misoprostol-alone group (p = 0.855). The overall success rate of medical treatment was significantly higher in the mifepristone-group comparing to misoprostol-alone group (94.3% vs. 82.5%, RR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.03-1.26; p = 0.008). Accordingly, the rate of surgical treatment was significantly lower in the mifepristone-group (5.7% vs.14.6%, RR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.16-0.97; p = 0.034). The composite complication rate was similar and lower than 4% in both groups. No case of complicated pelvic infection, hemodynamic instability or inpatient supportive treatment was reported. There were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events, median score for vaginal bleeding intensity or analgesics use. Despite the same median value, the score of abdominal pain intensity was significantly higher in the mifepristone-group (p = 0.011). In both groups, more than 65% of the women classified the treatment as "good" and 92% would recommend it to a friend on the same clinical situation.
CONCLUSION
The mifepristone plus vaginal misoprostol combined treatment for medical resolution of first trimester miscarriage resulted in significant higher success rate and lower rate of surgical uterine evacuation comparing to misoprostol-alone treatment, with no relevant differences in adverse events or treatment acceptability.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Abortion, Missed
PubMed: 37678127
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.391 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Sep 2023Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE analogue that is used for induction of labour. Current guidelines support the use of doses that do not exceed 25 mcg in order to limit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE analogue that is used for induction of labour. Current guidelines support the use of doses that do not exceed 25 mcg in order to limit maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The present meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of oral compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol in terms of induction of labor and adverse peripartum outcomes.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception till April 2022. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of oral misoprostol (per os or sublingual) compared to vaginally inserted misoprostol. Effect sizes were calculated in R. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of small study effects, p-hacking. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis according to the dose of misoprostol was also investigated. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the risk of bias 2 tool. Quality of evidence for primary outcomes was evaluated under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, ranging from very low to high.
RESULTS
Overall, 57 studies were included that involved 10,975 parturient. Their risk of bias ranged between low-moderate. There were no differences among the routes of intake in terms of successful vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80) and cesarean section rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82, 1.04). Sublingual misoprostol was superior compared to vaginal misoprostol in reducing the interval from induction to delivery (MD - 1.11 h, 95% CI - 2.06, - 0.17). On the other hand, per os misoprostol was inferior compared to vaginal misoprostol in terms of this outcome (MD 3.45 h, 95% CI 1.85, 5.06). Maternal and neonatal morbidity was not affected by the route or dose of misoprostol.
CONCLUSION
The findings of our study suggest that oral misoprostol intake is equally safe to vaginal misoprostol in terms of inducing labor at term. Sublingual intake seems to outperform the per os and vaginal routes without increasing the accompanying morbidity. Increasing the dose of misoprostol does not seem to increase its efficacy.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V9JHF ).
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Cesarean Section; Labor, Induced; Administration, Sublingual
PubMed: 36472645
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9