-
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Dec 2023To conduct the first-ever systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the antihemorrhagic utility and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To conduct the first-ever systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the antihemorrhagic utility and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) versus misoprostol for management (prevention and/or treatment) of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH).
METHODS
Six databases were screened from inception until May 2023 and updated in September 2023. The RCTs were assessed for quality according to the Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The endpoints were summarized as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with 2121 patients (TXA = 1061 and misoprostol = 1060) were analyzed. There was no significant difference between TXA and misoprostol groups regarding the mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 9 RCTs, MD = 17.32 ml, 95% CI [-40.43, 75.07], p = 0.56), mean change in hemoglobin (n = 6 RCTs, MD = 0.11 mg/dl, 95% CI [-0.1, 0.31], p = 0.30), mean hospital stay (n = 2 RCTs, MD = -0.3 day, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.01], p = 0.06), blood transfusion rate (n = 4 RCTs, RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.16, 1.47], p = 0.2), and rate of additional uterotonic agents (n = 4 RCTs, RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.72, 1.53], p = 0.81). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the results, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Regarding safety endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rates of minor side effects, such as diarrhea, fever, nausea, and vomiting. No patient developed thromboembolic events in the TXA group.
CONCLUSION
There was no significant antihemorrhagic efficacy between adjunct TXA and misoprostol for the management of PPH. The safety profile was comparable between both agents.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Tranexamic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hemostatics; Blood Loss, Surgical; Antifibrinolytic Agents
PubMed: 37832480
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.10.006 -
Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Obstetrics,... Oct 2023Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) STUDY DESIGN: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software.
RESULTS
We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.19; p = 0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91-1.60; p = 0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76-1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12, p = 0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27p = 0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Dinoprostone; Misoprostol; Cesarean Section; Uterine Rupture; Prostaglandins; Oxytocics; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Infant Death; Labor, Induced
PubMed: 37660506
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382 -
Contraception Nov 2023This study aimed to update our 2019 systematic review of data on the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol-only for first-trimester abortion. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to update our 2019 systematic review of data on the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol-only for first-trimester abortion.
STUDY DESIGN
We searched PubMed on December 18, 2022, to find published articles describing the outcomes of treatment with misoprostol-only for abortion of viable intrauterine pregnancy at ≤91 days of gestation. From each article identified, two authors independently abstracted relevant data about each group of patients treated with a distinct regimen. We assessed the risk of bias using four defined indicators. We estimated the proportion of patients with treatment failure using meta-analytic methods as well as the proportion hospitalized or transfused after treatment. We examined associations between treatment failure and selected characteristics of the groups.
RESULTS
We identified 49 papers with 66 groups that collectively included 16,354 evaluable patients, of whom 2960 (meta-analytic estimate 15%, 95% CI 12%, 19%) had treatment failures. Of 9228 patients assessed for ongoing pregnancy after treatment, 521 (meta-analytic estimate 6%, 95% CI 5%, 8%) had that condition. Failure risk was significantly associated with misoprostol dose, the total allowed number of doses, the maximum duration of dosing, and certain indicators of risk of bias. Among 11,007 patients allowed to take at least three misoprostol doses, the first consisting of misoprostol 800 mcg administered vaginally, sublingually, or buccally, the meta-analytic estimate of the failure risk was 11% (95% CI 8%, 14%). At most, 0.2% of 15,679 evaluable patients were hospitalized or received transfusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Although some studies in this updated review were adjudicated to have a high risk of bias, the results continue to support the key conclusion of our 2019 analysis: misoprostol-only is effective and safe for the termination of first-trimester intrauterine pregnancy.
IMPLICATIONS
Misoprostol-only is a safe and effective option for medication abortion in the first trimester if mifepristone is unavailable or inaccessible.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Abortifacient Agents; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Mifepristone; Abortion, Induced; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
PubMed: 37517447
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110132 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Feb 2024Misoprostol is widely used for cervical ripening and labour induction as it is heat-stable and inexpensive. Oral misoprostol 25 μg given 2-hourly is recommended over... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of 25 μg or 50 μg oral misoprostol versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol is widely used for cervical ripening and labour induction as it is heat-stable and inexpensive. Oral misoprostol 25 μg given 2-hourly is recommended over vaginal misoprostol 25 μg given 6-hourly, but the need for 2-hourly fetal monitoring makes oral misoprostol impractical for routine use in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol initiated at 25 or 50 μg versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- to 6-hourly intervals for labor induction in women at or beyond term (≥ 37 weeks) with a single viable fetus and an unscarred uterus.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We identified eligible randomized, parallel-group, labor-induction trials from recent systematic reviews. We additionally searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and clinical trials registries from February 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 without language restrictions. Database-specific keywords for cervical priming, labor induction, and misoprostol were used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We excluded labor-induction trials exclusively in women with ruptured membranes, in the third trimester, and those that initiated misoprostol at doses not specified in the review's objectives. The primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 h, cesarean section, perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, and maternal morbidity. The secondary outcomes were uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, and oxytocin augmentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived pooled weighted risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the dose and frequency of misoprostol regimens. We used the I statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty (confidence) in the effect estimates.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen trials, from Canada, India, Iran, and the US, randomizing 2941 women at ≥37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), met the eligibility criteria. Five misoprostol regimens were compared: 25 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (three trials); 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (five trials); 50 μg followed by 100 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 4-hourly (two trials); 50 μg oral, 4-hourly versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (one trial); and 50 μg oral versus 25 μg vaginal, 6-hourly (two trials). The overall certainty in the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, due to high risk of bias in 11/13 trials (affecting all outcomes), unexplained heterogeneity (1/7 outcomes), indirectness (1/7 outcomes), and imprecision (4/7 outcomes). Vaginal misoprostol probably increased vaginal deliveries within 24 h compared with oral misoprostol (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; 11 trials, 2721 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence); this was more likely with 4-hourly than with 6-hourly vaginal regimens. The risk of cesarean sections did not appreciably differ (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; very low-certainty evidence), although oral misoprostol 25 μg 4-hourly probably increased this risk compared with 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21-2.36; three trials, 515 mothers). The risk of perinatal mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11-3.90; one trial, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence), neonatal morbidity (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.06; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; low-certainty evidence), and maternal morbidity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48-1.44; 6 trials; 1945 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence) did not differ appreciably. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes may be lower with oral misoprostol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95; 10 trials, 2565 mothers; low-certainty evidence). Oxytocin augmentation was probably more frequent with oral compared with vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10-1.51; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol regimens probably result in more vaginal births within 24 h and less frequent oxytocin use compared with low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly, oral misoprostol regimens. Vaginal misoprostol may increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes compared with oral misoprostol, without increasing the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, or maternal morbidity. Indirect evidence indicates that 25 μg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly may be more effective and as safe as the recommended 6-hourly vaginal regimen. This evidence could inform clinical decisions in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Cervical Ripening; Cesarean Section; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Perinatal Death
PubMed: 37401143
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14970 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2023Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue that is used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue that is used to prevent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether use of misoprostol also decreases the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials that compared misoprostol vs. placebo in an adult patient population were selected. The primary outcome was kidney injury and the secondary outcome was severe adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were eligible for inclusion. Although the rates of kidney injury and severe adverse events did not differ significantly between misoprostol and placebo, a posthoc subgroup analysis that excluded studies in which different NSAIDs were used in the misoprostol and placebo groups suggested that misoprostol may reduce the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury (risk difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.03, P < .01, I = 87%; evidence of very low certainty).
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence that misoprostol reduces the risk of NSAID-induced kidney injury. Misoprostol possibly contributes to reducing the risk of kidney injury associated with chronic NSAID use. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest further high-quality clinical trials are warranted.
PubMed: 37309574
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15824 -
Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and... Jun 2023Blood loss is an inevitable complication and a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality at cesarean deliveries. We detected a potential preference regarding...
Efficacy and safety of rectal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin on reducing blood loss in cesarean section: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Blood loss is an inevitable complication and a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality at cesarean deliveries. We detected a potential preference regarding the efficacy and safety of rectal misoprostol over oxytocin as a uterotonic agent. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and other databases for the relevant trials from inception to September 2022. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared rectal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin to control bleeding in women undergoing cesarean delivery. Our primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative blood loss, and hemoglobin drop after delivery. Secondary outcomes included the need for blood transfusion, need for additional uterotonics, difference in operative time, as well as safety outcomes such as the incidence of shivering, pyrexia, nausea, and vomiting. Our search strategy revealed 1007 unique records, of them we retrieved full texts of 19 articles to check their adherence to our eligibility criteria. Seven RCTs with 1,090 participants were included. We found a significant reduction in postoperative blood loss [MD: -27.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-53.85, -2.10); p=0.03], and Hb drop after delivery [MD: -11; 95% CI: (-0.19, -0.03); p=0.01]. There is no significant difference regarding intraoperative blood loss, operative time, need for blood transfusion, or need for additional uterotonics. We could not find a significant difference between the two groups regarding safety outcomes, except for a higher shivering incidence in the misoprostol group [RR: 0.33; 95% CI; (0.16, 0.70); p=0.004]. We found a significant reduction in postoperative blood loss with a potentially favorable safety profile in women who administrated rectal misoprostol compared with oxytocin administration. Our findings recommend and prefer rectal misoprostol as a cheaper and effective uterotonic agent over oxytocin, which is expensive and requires an adequate cold chain for transportation and storage.
PubMed: 37260225
DOI: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2023.15098 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement. Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocin; Perinatal Death
PubMed: 36996264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4 -
Frontiers in Global Women's Health 2023To compare mifepristone plus a misoprostol-combined regimen with misoprostol alone in the medical abortion of first trimester pregnancy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare mifepristone plus a misoprostol-combined regimen with misoprostol alone in the medical abortion of first trimester pregnancy.
METHODS
An internet-based search of available literature was performed using text words contained in titles and abstracts. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Google scholar were used to locate English-based articles published until December 2021. Studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected, appraised, and assessed for methodological quality. The included studies were pooled for meta-analysis, and the results were presented in risk ratio at a 95% confidence interval.
FINDINGS
Nine studies comprising 2,052 participants (1,035 intervention and 1,017 controls) were considered. Primary endpoints were complete expulsion, incomplete expulsion, missed abortion, and ongoing pregnancy. The intervention was found to more likely induce complete expulsion irrespective of gestational age (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.14-1.25). The administration of misoprostol 800 mcg after 24 h of mifepristone pre-treatment in the intervention group more likely induced complete expulsion (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.17-1.30) than after 48 h. The intervention group was also more likely to experience complete expulsion when misoprostol was used either vaginally (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.09-1.17) or buccally (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.16-1.30). The intervention was more effective in the subgroup with a negative foetal heartbeat at reducing incomplete abortion (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.26-0.78) compared with the control group. The intervention more likely reduced both missed abortion (RR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.91) and ongoing pregnancy (RR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05-0.26). Fever was less likely to be reported (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.12-0.89), whereas the subjective experience of bleeding was more likely to be encountered (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53) by the intervention group.
CONCLUSION
The review strengthened the theory that a combined mifepristone and misoprostol regimen can be an effective medical management for inducing abortions during first trimester pregnancy in all contexts. Specifically, there is a high-level certainty of evidence on complete expulsion during the early stage and its ability to reduce both missed and ongoing pregnancies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019134213, identifier CRD42019134213.
PubMed: 36970118
DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2023.1112392 -
European Journal of Medical Research Jan 2023This study is aimed to compare the effect of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol to induce labor as a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study is aimed to compare the effect of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol to induce labor as a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Electronic databases including PubMed [Medline], Scopus, Web of science, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the relevant keywords. All RCTs comparing the effect of oral vs vaginal misoprostol on labor induction were considered. The Cochrane Risk of Bias checklist was used for assessing quality of included RCTs. All statistical analyses were completed using STATA (Version 16) and Revman (Version 5).
RESULTS
Thirty-three RCTs with 5162 patients (1560 in oral and 2602 in vaginal groups) were included in this meta-analysis. Labor induction length did differ significantly between the two routes of misoprostol administration [Standardized Mean Difference: 0.40 h, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34, 0.46; I: 66.35%; P = 0.04]. In addition, the risk of neonatal death, tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation, preeclampsia, non-FHR and abortion was lower in the oral misoprostol group and the risk of hypertonus, PROM, oxytocin need and cesarean fever was higher in this group than the vaginal misoprostol group.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on results of this meta-analysis, it can be inferred that currently, clinical specialists can decide to use this drug orally or vaginally on a case-by-case basis, depending on the condition of the pregnant mother and the baby.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Administration, Oral; Administration, Intravaginal; Labor, Induced
PubMed: 36707858
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01007-8 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Jan 2023To summarize the effectiveness and safety outcomes of medication abortion performed without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram ("no-test medication abortion").
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the effectiveness and safety outcomes of medication abortion performed without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram ("no-test medication abortion").
DATA SOURCES
We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane (including ClinicalTrials.gov), CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and CAB Direct databases to identify relevant studies published before April 2022 using a peer-reviewed search strategy including terms such as "medication abortion" and "ultrasonography." We contacted experts in the field for unpublished data and ongoing studies.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We reviewed 2,423 studies using Colandr. We included studies if they presented clinical outcomes of medication abortion performed with mifepristone and misoprostol and without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram. We excluded studies with duplicate data. We abstracted successful abortion rates overall, as well as rates by gestational age through 63 days, 70 days and past 84 days. We abstracted complication rates, including the need for surgical evacuation, additional medications, blood transfusion, and ectopic pregnancy.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS
We included 21 studies with a total of 10,693 patients with outcome data reported. The overall efficacy of no-test medication abortion was 96.4%; 93.8% (95% CI 92.8-94.6%) through 63 days of gestation and 95.2% (95% CI 94.7-95.7%) through 70 days of gestation. The overall rate of surgical evacuation was 4.4% (95% CI 4.0-4.9), need for additional misoprostol 2.2% (95% CI 1.8-2.6), blood transfusion 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.6), and ectopic pregnancy 0.06% (95% CI 0.02-0.15).
CONCLUSION
Medication abortion performed without prior pelvic examination or ultrasonogram is a safe and effective option for pregnancy termination.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42021240739.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Infant; Misoprostol; Abortifacient Agents; Abortion, Induced; Mifepristone; Pregnancy, Ectopic
PubMed: 36701607
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005016