-
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Aug 2022We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol versus static oral misoprostol for labour... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol versus static oral misoprostol for labour induction. We searched for the available randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included RCTs compared titrated oral misoprostol versus static regimen of oral misoprostol during labour induction. Our main outcomes were vaginal and caesarean delivery rates, uterine tachysystole, misoprostol side effects, and neonatal adverse events. Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 360 patients. The vaginal delivery rate did not significantly differ between both groups (p = 0.49). Titrated oral misoprostol was associated with significant increase in the caesarean delivery rate compared to static oral misoprostol (p = 0.04). Moreover, titrated oral misoprostol led to significant increase in the uterine tachysystole and misoprostol side effects (p = 0.01 & p = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences among both groups regarding different neonatal adverse events. In conclusion, titrated oral misoprostol increases the incidence of caesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, and misoprostol side effects with a similar vaginal delivery rate compared to static dose misoprostol. Thus, static oral misoprostol should be used instead of titrated oral misoprostol during labour induction. Impact Statement Different studies have evaluated titrated oral misoprostol administration for induction of labour and proved their efficacy in comparison with other induction methods. However, there is controversy among the published studies between titrated oral misoprostol and static oral misoprostol during induction of labour. A recent study concluded that hourly titrated misoprostol and static oral misoprostol are equally safe and effective when utilised for induction of labour with no fear of any adverse events. However, another study recommended static oral misoprostol administration for labour induction as it was linked to a lower caesarean section incidence, fewer drug side effects, and decline in complication rates in comparison with titrated oral misoprostol. Titrated oral misoprostol increases the incidence of caesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, and misoprostol side effects with a similar vaginal delivery rate compared to static dose misoprostol. Static oral misoprostol should be used instead of titrated oral misoprostol during labour induction. More future trials are required to confirm our findings.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Cervical Ripening; Delivery, Obstetric; Dystocia; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35611858
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2054687 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Medical abortion became an alternative method of pregnancy termination following the development of prostaglandins and antiprogesterone in the 1970s and 1980s. Recently,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medical abortion became an alternative method of pregnancy termination following the development of prostaglandins and antiprogesterone in the 1970s and 1980s. Recently, synthesis inhibitors of oestrogen (such as letrozole) have also been used to enhance efficacy. The most widely researched drugs are prostaglandins (such as misoprostol, which has a strong uterotonic effect), mifepristone, mifepristone with prostaglandins, and letrozole with prostaglandins. More evidence is needed to identify the best dosage, regimen, and route of administration to optimise patient outcomes. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and side effects of different medical methods for first trimester abortion.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and LILACs on 28 February 2021. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different medical methods for abortion before the 12th week of gestation. The primary outcome is failure to achieve complete abortion. Secondary outcomes are mortality, surgical evacuation, ongoing pregnancy at follow-up, time until passing of conceptus, blood transfusion, side effects and women's dissatisfaction with the method.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected and evaluated studies for inclusion, and assessed the risk of bias. We processed data using Review Manager 5 software. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 99 studies in the review (58 from the original review and 41 new studies). 1. Combined regimen mifepristone/prostaglandin Mifepristone dose: high-dose (600 mg) compared to low-dose (200 mg) mifepristone probably has similar effectiveness in achieving complete abortion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33; I = 0%; 4 RCTs, 3494 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin dose: 800 µg misoprostol probably reduces abortion failure compared to 400 µg (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I= 0%; 3 RCTs, 4424 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin timing: misoprostol administered on day one probably achieves more success on complete abortion than on day three (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.58; 1489 women; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration strategy: there may be no difference in failure of complete abortion with self-administration at home compared with hospital administration (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.94; I = 84%; 2263 women; 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), but failure may be higher when administered by nurses in hospital compared to by doctors in hospital (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.22; I = 66%; 3 RCTs, 3056 women; low-certainty evidence). Administration route: oral misoprostol probably leads to more failures than the vaginal route (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; I = 39%; 3 RCTs, 1704 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with more frequent side effects such as nausea (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1380 women; low-certainty evidence) and diarrhoea (RR 1.80 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1379 women). Compared with the vaginal route, complete abortion failure is probably lower with sublingual (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; I = 59%; 2 RCTs, 3229 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be lower with buccal administration (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 479 women; low-certainty evidence), but sublingual or buccal routes may lead to more side effects. Women may experience more vomiting with sublingual compared to buccal administration (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77; low-certainty evidence). 2. Mifepristone alone versus combined regimen The efficacy of mifepristone alone in achieving complete abortion compared to combined mifepristone/prostaglandin up to 12 weeks is unclear (RR of failure 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.09; I = 83%; 3 RCTs, 273 women; very low-certainty evidence). 3. Prostaglandin alone versus combined regimen Nineteen studies compared prostaglandin alone to a combined regimen (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate). Compared to any of the combination regimens, misoprostol alone may increase the risk for failure to achieve complete abortion (RR of failure 2.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.02; I = 64%; 18 RCTs, 3471 women; low-certainty evidence), and with more diarrhoea. 4. Prostaglandin alone (route of administration) Oral misoprostol alone may lead to more failures in complete abortion than the vaginal route (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 8.71, 2 RCTs, 216 women; low-certainty evidence). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be slightly reduced with sublingual compared with vaginal (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.28; I = 87%; 5 RCTs, 2705 women; low-certainty evidence) and oral administration (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.99; I = 66%; 2 RCTs, 173 women). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be similar or slightly higher with sublingual administration compared to buccal administration (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; 1 study, 401 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Safe and effective medical abortion methods are available. Combined regimens (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate) may be more effective than single agents (prostaglandin alone or mifepristone alone). In the combined regimen, the dose of mifepristone can probably be lowered to 200 mg without significantly decreasing effectiveness. Vaginal misoprostol is probably more effective than oral administration, and may have fewer side effects than sublingual or buccal. Some results are limited by the small numbers of participants on which they are based. Almost all studies were conducted in settings with good access to emergency services, which may limit the generalisability of these results.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Spontaneous; Diarrhea; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Letrozole; Methotrexate; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Prostaglandins; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 35608608
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 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
BACKGROUND
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. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine if there is evidence of superiority of any particular pain relief regimen in the management of combination medical abortion (mifepristone + misoprostol) under 14 weeks' gestation (i.e. up to 13 + 6 weeks or 97 days). Secondary objectives To compare the rate of gastrointestinal side effects resulting from different methods of analgesia To compare the rate of complete abortion resulting from different methods of analgesia during medical abortion To determine if the induction-to-abortion interval is associated with different methods of analgesia To determine if any method of analgesia is associated with unscheduled contact with the care provider in relation to pain.
SEARCH METHODS
On 21 August 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov together with reference checking and handsearching of conference abstracts of relevant learned societies and professional organisations to identify further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs)) of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks' gestation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JRW and MA) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion with a third and fourth author as required (CM and SC). Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs and one NRSI. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, we were unable to perform meta-analysis for any of the primary or secondary outcomes in this review. Only one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000 mg (mean difference (MD) 2.26 out of 10 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00 to 1.52 lower; 1 RCT 108 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing pregabalin 300 mg with placebo (MD 0.5 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 1.41 lower to 0.41 higher; 1 RCT, 107 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing ibuprofen 800 mg with placebo (MD 1.4 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 3.33 lower to 0.53 higher; 1 RCT, 61 women; low-certainty evidence). Ambulation or non-ambulation during medical abortion treatment may have little to no effect on pain score, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.1 out of 5 higher, 95% CI 0.26 lower to 0.46 higher; 1 NRSI, 130 women; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800 mg (MD 0.2 out of 10 higher, 95% CI 0.41 lower to 0.81 higher; 1 RCT, 228 women; low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes of interest were reported inconsistently across studies. Where these outcomes were reported, there was no evidence of difference in incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, complete abortion rate, interval between misoprostol administration to pregnancy expulsion, unscheduled contact with a care provider, patient satisfaction with analgesia regimen nor patient satisfaction with abortion experience overall. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low.
AUTHORS' 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 1600 mg was shown to be effective, and it was less certain whether 800 mg was effective. Paracetamol 2000 mg does not improve pain scores as much as ibuprofen 1600 mg, however its use does not appear to cause greater frequency of side effects or reduce the success of the abortion. A single dose of pregabalin 300 mg does not affect pain scores during medical abortion, but like paracetamol, does not appear to cause harm. Ambulation or non-ambulation during the medical abortion procedure does not appear to affect pain scores, outcomes, or duration of treatment and so women can be advised to mobilise or not, as they wish. The majority of outcomes in this review had low- to very low-certainty evidence, primarily due to small sample sizes and two studies at high risk of bias. High-quality, large-scale RCT research is needed for pain management during medical abortion at gestations less than 14 weeks. Consistent recording of pain with a validated measure would be of value to the field going forward.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Acetaminophen; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pain; Pain Management; Pregabalin; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35553047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013525.pub2 -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) can cause serious prenatal and postnatal complications and is a threat to maternal and fetal health. To offer guidance for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) can cause serious prenatal and postnatal complications and is a threat to maternal and fetal health. To offer guidance for clinical decisions, we systematically reviewed the effects of misoprostol on induction of labour in HDP patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched for relevant literature from 2010 to 2020. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed to compare the effective rate of induction of labour and reducing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) between the intervention group ( = 544, misoprostol) and the control group ( = 543, oxytocin).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies with 1087 patients were included. The 10 studies compared the effective rate of induction of labour between the two groups and confirmed that the effective rate in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (OR = 4.37; 95% CI: 2.73, 7.00). Seven studies compared PPH between the groups and showed that it was significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group (SMD = -1.32; 95% CI: -2.05, -0.59; < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Misoprostol has a high effective rate of induction of labour in HDP patients and is an effective uterotonic agent in reducing PPH. This meta-analysis provides clinicians with meaningful information to help them make evidence-based decisions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35432818
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8448690 -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Apr 2022Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define... (Review)
Review
Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion.
BACKGROUND
Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling.
RESULTS
We included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%-100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%-1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%-22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%-98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates.
DISCUSSION
Based on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach.
FUNDING
This work did not receive any funding.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
We registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849).
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Counseling; Female; Harm Reduction; Humans; Misoprostol; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35017226
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2021-201389 -
Severe Anaphylaxis in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Presentation to Determine Outcomes.Journal of Personalized Medicine Oct 2021Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are... (Review)
Review
Anaphylactic reactions during pregnancy can range from subjective cutaneous symptoms to anaphylaxis and lethal anaphylactic shock. The fetal and maternal outcomes are unpredictable. This study is the first systematic review of the clinical presentation of severe anaphylaxis in pregnancy as defined by the World Allergy Organization to determine maternal and fetal outcomes. We searched PubMed, the Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles published between 1 January 1985 and 15 April 2021 using the following terms (((anaphylactic shock) AND (pregnancy)) OR ((anaphylaxis) AND (pregnancy))). In 42 studies involving 47 patients, 36.17% of patients were 31-35 years old, and 74.47% of cases occurred peripartum, mostly during cesarean section. Accurate diagnosis with valid and reliable outcome measures was reported for 71.74% of cases. Twenty-two allergens were identified: antibiotics (penicillins and cephalosporins), anesthetic drugs (suxamethonium, mepivacaine), latex, oxytocin, sodium and sucrose iron, laminaria, misoprostol, rubber from Foley catheter, oral phytomenadione, ranitidine, chamomile, and ant sting. Two cases of maternal death related to latex and intravenous iron sucrose, and six infants with neurological disease were reported, mostly related to antibiotics. This review of the currently available literature shows that favorable outcomes are attainable with a high degree of observation, multidisciplinary cooperation, and rapid treatment.
PubMed: 34834412
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11111060 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Jan 2022To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the maternal and neonatal outcomes of misoprostol+isosorbide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Misoprostol plus isosorbide mononitrate versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening during labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the maternal and neonatal outcomes of misoprostol+isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) versus misoprostol alone (control) in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.
METHODS
We searched five databases from inception until 05-May-2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs, meta-analyzed 23 endpoints, and pooled them as mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Overall, five RCTs met the inclusion criteria, comprising 850 patients (426 and 424 patients were allocated to misoprostol+ISMN and misoprostol group, respectively). Overall, the RCTs had a low risk of bias. Pertaining to maternal delivery-related outcomes, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean interval from drug administration to delivery, rate of vaginal delivery, rate of cesarean section delivery, and rate of need for oxytocin augmentation. Pertaining to maternal drug-related side effects, the rate of maternal headache was significantly higher in disfavor of the misoprostol+ISMN compared with misoprostol alone. However, the rates of maternal nausea, hypotension, flushing, palpitation, dizziness, postpartum hemorrhage, and uterine tachysystole did not differ between both groups. Pertaining to neonatal outcomes, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding rates of NICU admission, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and Apgar score <7 at five minutes.
CONCLUSION
Compared with misoprostol alone, co-administration of misoprostol+ISMN did not correlate with superior maternal delivery-related outcomes. The rate of maternal headache was significantly higher in disfavor of the misoprostol+ISMN group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding neonatal endpoints.
Topics: Adult; Cervical Ripening; Female; Humans; Isosorbide; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34583026
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102235 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Mar 2022Postpartum hemorrhage causes a quarter of global maternal deaths. The World Health Organization recommends oxytocin as the first line agent to prevent hemorrhage during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpartum hemorrhage causes a quarter of global maternal deaths. The World Health Organization recommends oxytocin as the first line agent to prevent hemorrhage during cesarean delivery. However, some randomized controlled trials suggest that other uterotonics are superior.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a network meta-analysis comparing the ability of pharmacologic agents to reduce blood loss and minimize the need for additional uterotonics during cesarean delivery.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE databases from inception to May 2020.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared oxytocin, carbetocin, misoprostol, ergometrine, carboprost, or combinations of these in the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage during cesarean delivery.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review followed by an NMA in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality of the evidence was assessed with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool within the summary of findings table. Our primary outcomes were the estimated blood loss and need for additional uterotonics. Secondary outcomes included nausea and postpartum hemorrhage of >1000 mL. We performed sensitivity analyses to explore the influence of surgical context and oxytocin administration strategy.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies with 7368 participants were included. Of those, 21 trials (6 agents and 3665 participants) formed the "estimated blood loss" network and, considering the treatment effects, certainty in the evidence, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, carbetocin was assessed to probably be superior to oxytocin, but only in reducing the estimated blood loss by a clinically insignificant volume (54.83 mL; 95% confidence interval, 26.48-143.78). Misoprostol, ergometrine, and the combination of oxytocin and ergometrine were assessed to probably be inferior, whereas the combination of oxytocin and misoprostol was assessed to definitely be inferior to oxytocin. A total of 37 trials (8 agents and 6193 participants) formed the "additional uterotonic" network and, again, carbetocin was assessed to probably be superior to oxytocin, requiring additional uterotonics 185 (95% confidence interval, 130-218) fewer times per 1000 cases. Oxytocin plus misoprostol, oxytocin plus ergometrine, and misoprostol were assessed to probably be inferior, whereas carboprost, ergometrine, and the placebo were definitely inferior to oxytocin. For both primary outcomes, oxytocin administration strategies had a higher probability of being the best uterotonic, if initiated as a bolus.
CONCLUSION
Carbetocin is probably the most effective agent in reducing blood loss and the need for additional uterotonics. Oxytocin appears to be more effective when initiated as a bolus.
Topics: Carboprost; Ergonovine; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34534498
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.060 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Administration of aspirin has the potential for significant side effects of gastrointestinal (GI) injury mainly caused by gastric acid stimulation, especially in...
Administration of aspirin has the potential for significant side effects of gastrointestinal (GI) injury mainly caused by gastric acid stimulation, especially in long-term users or users with original gastrointestinal diseases. The debate on the optimal treatment of aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury is ongoing. We aimed to compare and rank the different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury based on current evidence. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Chinese databases for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury from inception to 1 May 2021. All of the direct and indirect evidence included was rated by network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework. A total of 10 RCTs, which comprised 503 participants, were included in the analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate to high. Eleven different treatments, including omeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, famotidine, geranylgeranylacetone, misoprostol, ranitidine bismuth citrate, chili, phosphatidylcholine complex, omeprazole plus rebamipide, and placebo, were evaluated in terms of preventing gastrointestinal injury. It was suggested that omeprazole plus rebamipide outperformed other treatments, whereas geranylgeranylacetone and placebo were among the least treatments. This is the first systematic review and network meta-analysis of different treatments for aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury. Our study suggested that omeprazole plus rebamipide might be considered the best option to treat aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury. More multicenter, high quality, large sample size randomized controlled trials will confirm the advantages of these medicines in the treatment of aspirin-induced gastrointestinal injury in the future.
PubMed: 34475825
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.730681 -
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