-
Seminars in Reproductive Medicine Nov 2022"Very early medical abortion" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
"Very early medical abortion" (VEMA) refers to medical abortion (with mifepristone and misoprostol) before intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasound. Our aim is to present the current evidence on efficacy, safety (focused on ectopic pregnancies), and how to assess treatment success of VEMA. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of VEMA. The field is small and so our objective was to map all relevant literature, without conducting meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase on April 19, 2022. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. A total of 373 articles were identified. Six articles (representing four observational and one pilot trial) were included in the final review. Across all included studies, treatment efficacy ranged between 91 and 100%. Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy was low and very few cases ( = 2) of ruptures were reported. Most studies used serial serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (s-hCG) levels to determine success of abortion; one study used low sensitivity urine hCG. From the available evidence, VEMA appears to be efficacious and does not appear to cause harm to ectopic pregnancies. Treatment can be assessed with pre- and postabortion s-hCG. Good quality, randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to best inform practice.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Abortion, Induced; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Abortion, Spontaneous
PubMed: 36626915
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760117 -
Cureus Dec 2022In the absence of comprehensive data investigating carbetocin versus misoprostol for reducing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during cesarean section (CS), we performed this... (Review)
Review
In the absence of comprehensive data investigating carbetocin versus misoprostol for reducing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during cesarean section (CS), we performed this investigation to compare the efficiency and side events of carbetocin versus misoprostol in the protection and reduction of PPH for women who underwent CS. From inception to September 2022, we depended on searching through various databases for eligible trials involving Cochrane, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. From the efficacy prospect, we found that carbetocin substantially decreased intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), hemoglobin/hematocrit levels (p<0.001), and the need for blood transfusion (p=0.002)/additional surgical interventions (p=0.003) than misoprostol. However, we revealed no substantial variation between both drugs for the need for additional uterotonic agents (p=0.08). From the safety prospect, we found that incidences of fever (p=0.002), heat sensation (p=0.007), metallic taste (p=0.01), and shivering (p=0.0002) were lower in carbetocin administration than in misoprostol. However, headache (p=0.34) and palpitation (p=0.11) incidences revealed no substantial variation between both drugs. In conclusion, from the efficacy and safety prospect, for women who underwent CS, carbetocin is more effective and safer in preventing and reducing PPH than misoprostol.
PubMed: 36578852
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32901 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Feb 2023To compare the combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol administration versus intravaginal misoprostol administration-only for cervical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To compare the combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol administration versus intravaginal misoprostol administration-only for cervical ripening. The Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials that included patients with a singleton viable fetus who underwent induction of labor that required cervical ripening with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop ≤ 6) were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes was time to delivery and rate of cesarean delivery. Thirteen trials with 2978 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery between the two groups (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.14; I = 69 %). The combination group resulted in comparable time to delivery (MD -2.50 h; 95 % CI 0.38, -5.38; I = 97 %), shorter time to vaginal delivery (MD -3.49 h; 95 % CI -4.89, -2.09; I = 81 %), lower risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58-0.90, I = 0 %), meconium-stained fluid (RR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.31-0.73, I = 28 %), and tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes (RR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.27-0.86, I = 43 %), compared with intravaginal misoprostol-only group. There was no statistical difference in rates of terbutaline use, endometritis or chorioamnionitis between the two groups. The combination of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening is not associated with shorter time to delivery. However, the combination group shows significant difference in shorter time to vaginal delivery, NICU admission, meconium-stained fluid, and tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Cervical Ripening; Labor, Induced; Administration, Intravaginal; Catheters
PubMed: 36566685
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.12.022 -
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 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... May 2023The objective of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that surveyed the efficacy and safety of preoperative misoprostol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Preoperative Misoprostol to Reduce Blood Loss and Related Morbidities During Abdominal Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.
The objective of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that surveyed the efficacy and safety of preoperative misoprostol versus placebo during abdominal hysterectomy. Six databases were screened from inception until 3 August 2022. The eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. The outcomes were summarized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. Ten RCTs with 1076 patients (misoprostol = 537, placebo = 539 patients) were analyzed. Six and four RCTs had an overall low and high risk of bias (single-blinded), respectively. The mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 10 RCTs, MD = - 78.97 ml, 95% [- 130.89, - 27.06], p = 0.003), mean difference in hemoglobin drop (n = 10 RCTs, MD = - 0.42 g/dl, 95% CI [- 0.69, - 0.14], p = 0.003), and mean length of hospital stay (n = 5 RCTs, MD = - 0.2 d, 95% CI [- 0.24, - 0.16], p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in favor of the misoprostol group compared with the placebo group. However, there were no significant differences between both groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 8 RCTs, MD = - 0.63 min, 95% CI [- 5.07, 3.81], p = 0.78), rate of perioperative blood transfusion (n = 7 RCTs, RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.53, 1.3], p = 0.42), and rate of drug-related adverse events (i.e., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, chills, and fever). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed stability for all endpoints, except hospitalization stay. There was no publication bias for all endpoints, except perioperative blood transfusion. Among patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy, preoperative administration of misoprostol was largely safe and linked to substantial decrease in blood loss-related morbidities.
Topics: Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Hysterectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36376614
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-01121-8 -
Cureus Oct 2022Globally, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the top cause of maternal death. Multiple uterotonic medications are available to prevent PPH; however, it is still unclear... (Review)
Review
Intravenous Carbetocin Versus Rectal Misoprostol for the Active Management of the Third Stage of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Globally, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the top cause of maternal death. Multiple uterotonic medications are available to prevent PPH; however, it is still unclear whether one is the most effective. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous carbetocin with rectal misoprostol for the active management of the third stage of labor in order to prevent PPH. Eligible studies were found utilizing digital medical sources, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from inception until September 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that matched the inclusion requirements were chosen. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias scale (version 2) to assess the quality of the included studies. The Review Manager (version 5.4 for Windows) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The results were summarized as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in fixed- or random-effects models according to the degree of between-study heterogeneity. Collectively, we screened 621 articles after omitting duplicates and eventually included three RCTs for analysis. Overall, 404 patients were included in these studies; 202 patients were allocated to the intravenous carbetocin group whereas 202 patients were allocated to the rectal misoprostol group. Two RCTs were judged as "low" risk of bias, whereas one RCT was judged as having "some concerns" regarding the quality assessment. Regarding efficacy endpoints, the intravenous carbetocin group had significantly lower blood loss (n=3 RCTs, MD=-117.74 mL, 95% CI [-185.41, -50.07], p<0.001), need for additional uterotonics (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.06, 95% CI [0.01, 0.46], p=0.007), need for uterine massage (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.40, 95% CI [0.20, 0.80], p=0.009), and need for blood transfusion (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.38, 95% CI [0.15, 0.95], p=0.04) compared with the rectal misoprostol group. Regarding safety endpoints, the rates of diarrhea (n=3 RCTs, RR=0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.55], p=0.003) and chills (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.31, 95% CI [0.12, 0.83], p=0.02) were significantly lower in the intravenous carbetocin group compared with the rectal misoprostol group. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rates of headache (n=3 RCTs, RR=1.23, 95% CI [0.06, 1.91], p=0.35) and facial flushing (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.88, 95% CI [0.46, 1.68], p=0.70). In conclusion, it was discovered that intravenous carbetocin was a superior substitute for rectal misoprostol for the active management of the third stage of labor. With far fewer side effects, intravenous carbetocin decreased postpartum blood loss and further uterotonic use. For women who have a high risk of PPH, intravenous carbetocin is advised.
PubMed: 36246091
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30229 -
Contraception Dec 2022Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Medical abortion is known to be a painful process, but the optimal method of pain management is unclear. We sought to identify and compare pain management regimens for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation.
STUDY DESIGN
We conducted our search in August 2019 and included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks' gestation.
RESULTS
We included four RCTs and one observational study. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, meta-analysis was not possible. Only one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000mg (MD 2.26/10 [CI 3-1.52 lower]). For other interventions (pregabalin 300mg vs placebo; ibuprofen 800mg vs placebo; therapeutic vs prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800mg; ambulation vs non-ambulation during treatment) there appeared to be little to no difference with comparator.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review provide some support for the use of ibuprofen as a single dose given with misoprostol prophylactically, or in response to pain as needed. The optimal dosing of ibuprofen is unclear, but a single dose of ibuprofen 1600mg was shown to be effective and it was less certain whether 800mg was effective.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Pain Management; Misoprostol; Mifepristone; Ibuprofen; Pain; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36055363
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.08.005 -
The European Journal of Contraception &... Dec 2022Under some circumstances, individuals choose to undergo pregnancy termination for foetal anomalies in the second half of pregnancy. This report provides objective...
PURPOSE
Under some circumstances, individuals choose to undergo pregnancy termination for foetal anomalies in the second half of pregnancy. This report provides objective information on the clinical management of such cases and a systematic review of the literature on labour induction outcomes for third-trimester abortion using mifepristone-misoprostol.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study is a case series describing outcomes for labour induction abortion for foetal anomalies, at gestational age 24 weeks and beyond. A systematic review was performed, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Two independent authors reviewed and quality assessed the data from the articles.
RESULTS
During a two-year period, 15 patients met inclusion criteria. Fourteen patients received mifepristone and misoprostol, and one received oxytocin. All delivered vaginally. Thirteen patients delivered within 24 hours of the first misoprostol dose, and half delivered within 12 hours. The average interval from misoprostol initiation to foetal expulsion was 15.5 hours in our series. The systematic review identified nine articles for inclusion, all retrospective studies. Labour induction protocols for mifepristone-misoprostol, reporting of gestational age, and key comparisons varied greatly.
CONCLUSIONS
The case series illustrates successful termination of pregnancy primarily using combined mifepristone-misoprostol. Certainty of current evidence is low, based on the GRADE framework. Future research is necessary on third-trimester outcomes with mifepristone-misoprostol.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Infant; Misoprostol; Mifepristone; Gestational Age; Retrospective Studies; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Labor, Induced; Abortion, Induced; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
PubMed: 35899830
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2022.2102604 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Oct 2022Shenghua Decoction (SHD) is a well-known classic herbal formula documented in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) that has been widely applied during the postpartum... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Shenghua Decoction (SHD) is a well-known classic herbal formula documented in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) that has been widely applied during the postpartum period in Chinese communities for several years. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of SHD as an adjuvant treatment for early medical abortion using a combination of mifepristone followed by misoprostol.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported using 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Eight databases were searched from their establishment to February 28, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs): PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese BioMedical database, the Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and the Wanfang database. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation estimated the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs involving 3016 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with no treatment as the control group after early medical abortion, patients treated with SHD were associated with a higher complete abortion rate (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.10 - 1.18; P < 0.01, I = 26%, moderate quality), lower incomplete abortion rate (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.24 - 0.41; P < 0.01, I = 0%, moderate quality), and lower viable pregnancy rate (RR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.62; P < 0.01, I = 0%, moderate quality). Additionally, SHD supplementation was associated with reduced the induction-abortion time, duration of vaginal bleeding and menstrual recovery time.
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that SHD supplementation may be beneficial for women seeking a medical abortion before the 7-week gestational period and no adverse events in the experimental group were reported. However, the methodological quality of the included RCTs was unsatisfactory, and therefore it is necessary to further verify the effectiveness of SHD using standardized studies of rigorous design.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Dietary Supplements; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35779783
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102848 -
The Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2022To evaluate the efficacy of misoprostol to minimized blood loss during and after cesarean delivery (CD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of misoprostol to minimized blood loss during and after cesarean delivery (CD).
SEARCH STRATEGY
Screening of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2021 using the keywords related to misoprostol, CD, postpartum hemorrhage, and intraoperative blood loss and their MeSH terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only RCTs were included. Participants included women undergoing CD whether elective or selective. Thirty studies including 6593 women, 26 in English, 2 in Thai, 1 in French, and 1 in Chinese.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from all selected studies were extracted independently by two authors. Data extracted included location of the trial, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participants characteristics, intervention details including timing, dose, and route of drug administration. Outcomes assessed included estimated intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage, the need for additional uterotonics, and hemoglobin difference.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies (968 women) compared preoperative to postoperative misoprostol and found a mean difference in intraoperative blood loss of -205.00 (-339.22, -70.77), p = 0.003 and in postoperative blood loss -216.27 (-347.08, -85.46), p < 0.001 and a significantly lower need for additional uterotonics with a risk ratio of 0.54 (0.46, 0.64), p < 0.00001. Twenty-two studies (4701 participants) compared misoprostol to oxytocin. There was a mean difference in intraoperative blood loss of -108.43 (-156.04, -60.82), p < 0.0001. Nine of these trials with 1978 participants evaluated postoperative blood loss. These found a mean difference of -64.12 (-116.19, -12.04) with a p = 0.02. Fourteen trials with 3166 participants measured the difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin. These found a mean difference of -0.25 (-0.35, -0.15) with a p < 0.001. Twenty trials with 4416 participants measured the need for administration of additional uterotonics. These found a risk ratio of 0.62 (0.49, 0.78) with a p value of <0.001.
CONCLUSION
The combined use of misoprostol and oxytocin during CD is effective in reducing blood loss during and after CD.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35661336
DOI: 10.1111/jog.15318