-
Studies in Family Planning Jun 2021Little is known about the link between health literacy and women's ability to safely and successfully use misoprostol to self-induce an abortion. While abortion is only...
Little is known about the link between health literacy and women's ability to safely and successfully use misoprostol to self-induce an abortion. While abortion is only allowed to save a woman's life in Nigeria, misoprostol is widely available from drug sellers. We interviewed 394 women in 2018 in Lagos State, Nigeria, who induced abortion using misoprostol obtained from a drug seller to determine their sexual and reproductive health literacy (SRHL) and misoprostol knowledge levels; and how these were associated with ending the pregnancy successfully or seeking care for (perceived) complications. Our results show that women's misoprostol knowledge (measured both quantitatively and qualitatively) was low, but that almost all women were nevertheless able to use the drug effectively and safely. Higher SRHL was associated with being more likely to end the pregnancy successfully and also seeking postabortion health care. Our study is the first to examine this association and adds to the scarce literature examining the relationship between health literacy and self-use of misoprostol to induce abortions in restrictive settings.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Female; Health Literacy; Humans; Male; Misoprostol; Nigeria; Pregnancy; Reproductive Health
PubMed: 34043236
DOI: 10.1111/sifp.12156 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Female; Humans; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24924489
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2019Late second trimester dilation and evacuation is a challenging subset of surgical abortion. Among the reasons for this is the degree of cervical dilation required to... (Review)
Review
Late second trimester dilation and evacuation is a challenging subset of surgical abortion. Among the reasons for this is the degree of cervical dilation required to safely extricate fetal parts. Cervical dilation is traditionally achieved by placing multiple sets of osmotic dilators over two or more days prior to the evacuation procedure; however, there is interest in shortening cervical preparation time. The use of adjuvant mifepristone and misoprostol in conjunction with osmotic dilators has been studied for this purpose, and their use demonstrates that adequate cervical dilation can be achieved in less time than with dilators alone. We present a review of the current evidence surrounding adjunctive agents for cervical preparation, and contend that for women presenting for surgical abortion care above 19 weeks gestation, the use of adjunctive mifepristone and/or misoprostol should be strongly considered along with osmotic dilator insertion when cervical preparation in less than 24 h is needed.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Adult; Cervix Uteri; Dilatation; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 31004327
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-00953-2 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2024This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol administered orally and vaginally in obese pregnant women at term with either gestational hypertension...
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol administered orally and vaginally in obese pregnant women at term with either gestational hypertension or diabetes.
METHODS
A total of 264 pregnant women were enrolled and categorized into two groups based on their primary condition: hypertension (134 cases) or diabetes mellitus (130 cases) and were further divided into subgroups for misoprostol administration: orally (Oral group) or vaginally (Vaginal group). The primary outcomes measured were changes in the Bishop score following treatment, induction of labor (IOL) success rates, requirement for oxytocin augmentation, duration of labor, mode of delivery, and cesarean section rates.
RESULTS
Significant enhancements in Bishop scores, decreased cesarean section rates and increased success rates of IOL were noted in both administration groups. The incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly higher in the Vaginal group compared to the Oral group. Adverse effects, including nausea, uterine overcontraction, hyperfrequency of uterine contraction and uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate deceleration, were significantly more prevalent in the Vaginal group than in the Oral group.
CONCLUSION
Misoprostol administration, both orally and vaginally, proves effective for labor induction in obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes. However, the oral route presents a lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, suggesting its preference for safer labor induction in this demographic.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnant Women; Administration, Intravaginal; Cesarean Section; Labor, Induced; Administration, Oral; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 38485520
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2327573 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
PloS One 2020To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with α2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births.
RESULTS
Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, χ2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH<7.0 (P = 0.04, Fisher Exact).
CONCLUSION
There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Adult; Dinoprostone; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31923193
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227245 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Apr 2023The Induction of labor is the most common obstetric procedure in daily practice. Introducing propranolol as a new drug to augment the action of prostaglandins will help... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A pilot study to compare propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol and placebo for induction of labor in primigravidae; a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
The Induction of labor is the most common obstetric procedure in daily practice. Introducing propranolol as a new drug to augment the action of prostaglandins will help in the induction process and decrease CS rates. Several researchers have used propranolol in the augmentation of labor.
AIM
This pilot study compares propranolol and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction in primigravids.
METHODS
This is a Randomized clinical trial, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at Ain Shams University Maternity hospital. This study included 128 pregnant full-term primigravid women candidates for labor induction, randomized into two groups. All candidates underwent labor induction with 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol. Group I received 20 mg of oral propranolol tablets, while group II received sugary pills as a placebo. Candidates who responded successfully to induction were assessed for possible augmentation of labor by amniotomy or oxytocin infusion. The Primary outcome was induction to delivery interval, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of the latent phase, mode of delivery, and APGAR score of the neonate.
RESULTS
The induction-delivery time was (11.8 ± 8.1 h. vs. 12.6 ± 8.9 h., P value = 0.027) and the duration of the latent phase of labor (7.9 ± 5.6 h. vs. 9.2 ± 6.03 h., P value = 0.017) were significantly shorter in the group of misoprostol and propranolol compared to the group of misoprostol and placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups' mode of delivery, indications for cesarean section, misoprostol, and oxytocin doses, or neonatal outcome. (P value > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Propranolol, when used with misoprostol for induction of labor, results in augmentation of action of misoprostol and a significantly shorter induction-delivery interval.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
We retrospectively registered this trial in clinicaltrial.gov on 01/09/2020 (NCT04533841). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533841.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Administration, Intravaginal; Cesarean Section; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Pilot Projects; Propranolol
PubMed: 37016326
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05537-1