Optimal misoprostol dosing among patients with a body mass index greater than 30: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity experience an increased duration of labor with an increased risk for perinatal morbidity. When compared with parturients without obesity, they also experience fewer uterine contractions after administration of misoprostol. It is unclear if the same dose of misoprostol should be used for induction of labor in patients with obesity compared to non-obese patients. Therefore, we sought to investigate if a higher dose of misoprostol for patients with obesity is more effective. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if 50 µg compared with 25 µg of vaginal misoprostol reduced the time from induction start to delivery among patients with obesity. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a double-blinded, pragmatic randomized controlled trial, between June 1, 2022, and July 17, 2023. Patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 who underwent labor induction at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation, had a singleton gestation, and a cervical dilation ≤3 cm at admission were included. Patients were excluded if they had a contraindication to vaginal delivery or misoprostol administration. Patients were randomized to 25 or 50 µg of vaginal misoprostol, stratified by parity, body mass index <40 kg/m2 or ≥40 kg/m2, and provider intent to use mechanical dilation at the onset of labor induction. Usual labor management was followed at the discretion of the provider. The primary outcome was time from induction to delivery. A priori, we estimated that 90 subjects per group (N=180) were needed for an 85% power to detect a 3-hour difference between groups with a type I error of 5%. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. A 2-sample t test was used for the primary outcome, Cohen's d was used as a measure of effect, and P values were reported. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients randomized, 88 were assigned to the 25 µg group and 92 were assigned to the 50 µg group. Of those, 96.1% of patients received the designated intervention. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups. No difference was found in the primary outcome of time to delivery (21.6 hours vs 18.6 hours; d=.28; 95% confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.57). In a planned subgroup analysis, multiparous patients delivered faster in the 50 µg group (15.2 hours vs 12.0 hours; d=.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.97). The risk for tachysystole associated with fetal heart tracing changes was rare overall (2.2%) and not significantly different between groups. No differences in maternal or neonatal adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Patients with obesity who underwent cervical ripening with 50 µg of vaginal misoprostol experienced a similar time to delivery when compared with those who received 25 µg of misoprostol. However, multiparous patients had a significantly reduced time to delivery when 50 µg was used. A higher dose of misoprostol may be a promising intervention for reducing time in labor, which warrants further study.

Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out. MAIN RESULTS: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone.

Outpatient labor induction-Exploring future potential by assessing eligibility in a historical cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Labor induction rates have increased over the last decades, and in many high-income countries, more than one in four labors are induced. Outpatient management of labor induction has been suggested in low-risk pregnancies to improve women's birth experiences while also promoting a more efficient use of healthcare resources. The primary aim of this paper was to assess the proportion of women in a historical cohort that would have been eligible for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol. Second, we wanted to report safety outcomes and assess efficacy outcomes for mothers and infants in pregnancies that met the criteria for outpatient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Criteria for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol were applied to a historical cohort of women with induction of labor at two Norwegian tertiary hospitals in the period January 1, through July 31, 2021. The criteria included low-risk women with an unscarred uterus expecting a healthy, singleton baby in cephalic position at term. The primary outcome was the proportion of women eligible for outpatient labor induction. Secondary outcomes included reasons for ineligibility and, for eligible women, safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 29.7% of the 1320 women who underwent labor induction in a singleton term pregnancy met the criteria for outpatient labor induction. We identified two serious adverse events that potentially could have occurred outside the hospital if the women had received outpatient care. The mean duration from initiation of labor induction to administration of the last misoprostol was 22.4 h. One in 14 multiparous women gave birth within 3 h after the last misoprostol dose. CONCLUSIONS: In this historical cohort, three in ten women met the criteria for outpatient management of labor induction with oral misoprostol. Serious adverse events were rare. The average time span from the initiation of labor induction to the last misoprostol was nearly 24 h. This suggests a potential for low-risk women with an induced labor to spend a substantial period of time at home before labor onset. However, larger studies testing or evaluating labor induction with oral misoprostol as an outpatient procedure are needed to draw conclusions.

Efficacy and safety of isosorbide mononitrate plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in the management of the first and second trimester abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: However, misoprostol is often used to terminate a pregnancy, but it can also cause side effects. Isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) can help the cervix mature by increasing the production of prostaglandin E2 and vasodilation. Considering that the results of studies in this field are contradictory, it is the purpose of this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vaginal ISMN plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone in the management of first- and second-trimester abortions. METHOD: The search process was conducted for MEDLINE through the PubMed interface, Scopus, Web-of-Science, Science Direct, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until November 10, 2023. Our assessment of bias was based on version 2 of the risk-of-bias tool (RoB2) for randomized trials and our level of evidence quality was determined by GRADE. Meta-analysis of all data was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.1. RESULT: Seven randomized clinical trials were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis, with mixed quality. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that in the second-trimester abortion, the inclusion of ISMN in conjunction with vaginal misoprostol results in a noteworthy reduction in the induction abortion interval, specifically by 4.21 h (95% CI: -7.45 to -0.97, P = 0.01). The addition of vaginal ISMN to misoprostol, compared to vaginal misoprostol alone, increased the odds of a completed abortion by 3.76 times. (95% CI: 1.08 to 13.15, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study can offer valuable insights aimed at enhancing counseling and support for non-surgical methods of medication abortion within professional settings. Moreover, it improves the effectiveness of clinical treatment and reduces the occurrence of unnecessary surgical interventions in the abortion management protocol.

The Safety and Efficacy of a "No Touch" Abortion Program Implemented in the Greater Toronto Area During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of first-trimester "No Touch" medication abortion programs at 2 clinics in Toronto, Ontario during their early implementation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients who underwent virtual consultation for mifepristone-misoprostol medication abortion between April 2020-August 2022 at 2 reproductive health clinics. In response to the pandemic, "No Touch" abortion protocols have been developed that align with the Canadian Protocol for the Provision of Medical Abortion via Telemedicine. Records were reviewed for demographic information, clinical course, investigations required, confirmation of complete abortion and adverse events. The primary outcome was complete medication abortion, defined as expulsion of the pregnancy without requiring uterine aspiration. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients had abortions initiated in the "No Touch" or "Low Touch" care pathways and had sufficient follow-up to determine outcomes. Of these patients, 92.8% (95% CI 89.7%-95.8%) had a complete medication abortion (n = 257) and 76.1% (n = 159) remained "No Touch" throughout their care. Investigations were performed for 102 participants before or after their abortion, classifying them as "Low Touch". Nineteen patients (6.9%) underwent uterine aspiration. The rate of adverse events was low, with 1 case of a missed ectopic pregnancy and 1 patient requiring hospitalization for endometritis. CONCLUSIONS: "No Touch" provision of mifepristone-misoprostol medication abortion care was safe and effective with outcomes comparable to previous studies. These results provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of a "No Touch" approach in the Canadian context, which has the potential to reduce barriers to accessing abortion care.

Motivations for using misoprostol for abortion outside the formal healthcare system in Colombia: a qualitative study of women seeking postabortion care in Bogotá and the Coffee Axis.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, a Constitutional Court ruling partially decriminalized abortion in Colombia, allowing the procedure in cases of rape, risk to the health or life of the woman, and fetal malformations incompatible with life. Despite this less prohibitive law, some women and pregnant people preferred self-managing their abortions outside the formal healthcare system, often without accurate information. In 2018, we undertook a study to understand what motivated women to self-manage using medications that they acquired informally. Colombia has since adopted a progressive law in 2022, permitting abortion on request through the 24th week of pregnancy. However, the implementation of this law is still underway. Examining the reasons why women chose to informally self-manage an abortion after 2006 may not only highlight how barriers to legal services persisted at that time, but also could inform strategies to increase knowledge of the current abortion law and improve access to services going forward. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted in 2018 with 47 women aged 18 and older who used misoprostol obtained outside of health facilities to induce an abortion, and who were receiving postabortion care in two private clinics. Interviews explored what women knew about the 2006 abortion law which was then in effect, and the reasons why they preferred informal channels for abortion care over formal healthcare services. RESULTS: Women's motivations to use misoprostol obtained outside the formal healthcare system were influenced by lack of trust in the healthcare system along with incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of the abortion law. Conversely, women considered misoprostol obtained outside the healthcare system to be effective, affordable, and easier to access. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining misoprostol outside the formal healthcare system offered a more accessible and appealing prospect for some women given fears of legal repercussion and stigma toward abortion. Though this preference will likely continue despite the more liberal abortion law, strategies should be implemented to broaden knowledge of the recent change in law and to combat misinformation and stigma. This would support knowledge of and access to legal abortion for those who wish to avail themselves of these services.

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions.

The U.S. FDA has permanently removed the in-person prescribing requirements that previously safeguarded the use of mifepristone/misoprostol medical abortions, allowing prescribing through telemedicine or on-line ordering and distribution through the mail and pharmacies, without standard pre-abortion testing. This will increase the risk of complications due to failure to adequately determine the gestational age or rule out ectopic pregnancy by ultrasound or physical exam, failure to perform labs to document whether RhoGAM is indicated, and failure to obtain appropriate informed consent to prevent unwanted abortions, among other concerns. The FDA justified this action by referencing flawed studies with significantly undercounted complications. The details of these study deficiencies are examined in this paper.

Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor is one of the most common obstetrical procedures today, with a successively rising rate. With a limited number of hospital beds, the option of starting induction at home has gained increasing attention. The primary aim of this study was to compare the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery and the duration of hospital stay before delivery in induction of labor with oral misoprostol starting at home and induction with oral misoprostol at the hospital, in a low-risk population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Women with home induction (n = 282) were individually matched to controls induced at the hospital during the same time period regarding parity, age, body mass index, labor unit and indication for induction. RESULTS: The rates of vaginal birth were similar in outpatients and inpatients (84.8% vs 86.2%; p = 0.5). Time from hospital admission to delivery in the outpatient group was significantly shorter than in the inpatient group (12.8 vs 20.6 h; p < 0.001), as was total hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in neonatal or maternal outcomes. One patient undergoing outpatient induction had an unplanned home birth. CONCLUSIONS: Starting induction at home reduced the time spent in hospital without affecting the vaginal delivery rate. Although underpowered to assess safety, this study did not show any differences in adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between inpatients and outpatients. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety of outpatient induction of labor with misoprostol.

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.

Reproductive outcome after early miscarriage: comparing vaginal misoprostol treatment with expectant management in a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reproductive outcome after early miscarriage between women managed expectantly and those treated with vaginal misoprostol. METHODS: This study was a planned secondary analysis of data collected prospectively in a randomized controlled trial comparing expectant management with vaginal misoprostol treatment (single dose of 800 µg) in women with early embryonic or anembryonic miscarriage and vaginal bleeding. The outcome measures were the number of women with a clinical pregnancy conceived within 14 months after complete miscarriage and the outcome of these pregnancies in terms of live birth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and legal termination of pregnancy. The participants replied to a questionnaire sent by post covering their reproductive history ≤ 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete. Supplementary information and data for women who did not return their questionnaire were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Of 94 women randomized to misoprostol treatment and 95 allocated to expectant management, 94 and 90 women, respectively, were included for analysis. Information on reproductive outcome was available for 89/94 (95%) and 83/90 (92%) women, respectively. Complete miscarriage without surgical evacuation was achieved within 31 days in 85% (76/89) of the women in the misoprostol group and in 65% (54/83) of those managed expectantly. The proportion of women treated with surgical evacuation was 33% (27/83) in the expectant-management group vs 12% (11/89) in the misoprostol group. At 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete, 75% (67/89) of women treated with misoprostol and 75% (62/83) of those managed expectantly had achieved at least one clinical pregnancy, while 40% (36/89) and 35% (29/83), respectively, had had at least one live birth (mean difference, 5.5% (95% CI, -9.7 to 20.3%)). When considering the outcome of all pregnancies conceived within 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete, 63% (56/89) of women in the misoprostol group and 55% (46/83) of those in the expectant-management group delivered a live baby after a pregnancy (mean difference, 7.5% (95% CI, -7.9 to 22.4%)). CONCLUSION: Women with early miscarriage can be reassured that fertility is similar after misoprostol treatment and expectant management. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

NSAIDs, gastrointestinal toxicity and inflammatory bowel disease. / AINE, toxicidad gastrointestinal y enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are currently one of the most widely used drugs. The use of NSAIDs is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity, affecting both upper gastrointestinal tract (peptic ulcer disease) and lower gastrointestinal tract (NSAID-induced enteropathy). NSAIDs use has been associated with an increased risk of clinical relapse in inflammatory bowel disease patients. In this article, we review the upper and lower gastrointestinal toxicity of NSAIDs, with a focus on the risks and specific data of these drugs in inflammatory bowel disease patients, giving recommendations for its appropriate use in the clinical practice. Although evidence is scarce, short-term use of NSAIDs appears to be safe, and the data available suggest that selective COX-2 inhibitors are the safer option. NSAIDs should be avoided as long-term treatment or with high doses, especially in patients with active inflammation.

Mifepristone Pretreatment for the Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss.

BACKGROUND: Medical management of early pregnancy loss is an alternative to uterine aspiration, but standard medical treatment with misoprostol commonly results in treatment failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol with the efficacy and safety of misoprostol use alone for the management of early pregnancy loss. METHODS: We randomly assigned 300 women who had an anembryonic gestation or in whom embryonic or fetal death was confirmed to receive pretreatment with 200 mg of mifepristone, administered orally, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol, administered vaginally (mifepristone-pretreatment group), or 800 µg of misoprostol alone, administered vaginally (misoprostol-alone group). Participants returned 1 to 4 days after misoprostol use for evaluation, including ultrasound examination, by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment-group assignments. Women in whom the gestational sac was not expelled were offered expectant management, a second dose of misoprostol, or uterine aspiration. We followed all participants for 30 days after randomization. Our primary outcome was gestational sac expulsion with one dose of misoprostol by the first follow-up visit and no additional intervention within 30 days after treatment. RESULTS: Complete expulsion after one dose of misoprostol occurred in 124 of 148 women (83.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.8 to 89.3) in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 100 of 149 women (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.0 to 74.6) in the misoprostol-alone group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43). Uterine aspiration was performed less frequently in the mifepristone-pretreatment group than in the misoprostol-alone group (8.8% vs. 23.5%; relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.68). Bleeding that resulted in blood transfusion occurred in 2.0% of the women in the mifepristone-pretreatment group and in 0.7% of the women in the misoprostol-alone group (P=0.31); pelvic infection was diagnosed in 1.3% of the women in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with mifepristone followed by treatment with misoprostol resulted in a higher likelihood of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; PreFaiR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02012491 .).

Endometrial thickness following early miscarriage in IVF patients - is there a preferred management approach?

BACKGROUND: Endometrial thickness (ET) has previously been shown to positively correlate with implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. Pregnancies achieved using in-vitro fertilization (IVF) technique are prone to higher rates of early miscarriage. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of expectant management, medical treatment (Misoprostol) and dilation and curettage (D&C) for early miscarriage following IVF cycles on the subsequent cycle outcomes - endometrial thickness and reproductive outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of women who underwent embryo transfer, conceived and had first trimester miscarriage with at least one subsequent embryo transfer. ET measurements during fresh or frozen-thawed IVF cycles were assessed for each patient. Comparisons of ET differences between the miscarriage and the subsequent cycles, as well as reproductive outcomes, were performed according to the initial miscarriage management approach. RESULTS: A total of 223 women were included in the study. Seventy-eight women were managed conservatively, 61 were treated with Misoprostol and 84 women underwent D&C. Management by D&C, compared to conservative management and Misoprostol treatment was associated with higher prevalence of a significant (> 2 mm) ET decrease (29.8%% vs. 14.1and 6.6%, respectively; p < .001) and was the only approach associated with a significant increase in the rates of ET under 7 and 8 mm in the following cycle (p = 0.006 and 0.035; respectively). Clinical pregnancy rates were significantly lower following D&C compared with conservative management and Misoprostol (16.7% vs. 38.5 and 27.9%, respectively; p = 0.008) as well as implantation rate (11.1% vs. 30.5.% and 17.7, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that D&C management of a miscarriage is associated with decreased ET and higher rates of thin endometrium in the subsequent IVF cycle, compared with conservative management and Misoprostol treatment. In addition, implantation and pregnancy rates were significantly lower after D&C.

Misoprostol treatment for early pregnancy loss: an international survey.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the global variability in misoprostol treatment for the management of early pregnancy loss (EPL)? DESIGN: An international web-based survey of fertility specialists and obstetrics and gynaecology clinicians was conducted between August and November 2020. The survey consisted of 16 questions addressing several aspects of misoprostol treatment for EPL. RESULTS: Overall, 309 clinicians from 80 countries participated in the survey, of whom 67.3% were fertility specialists. Nearly one-half (47.9%) of the respondents let the patient choose the first line of treatment (expectant management, misoprostol treatment or surgical aspiration) according to her own preference. The 248 respondents who administer misoprostol in their daily practice were asked further questions; 59.7% of them advise patients to take the medication at home. The most common dose and route of administration is 800 µg administered vaginally. Only 28.6% of participants use mifepristone pretreatment. Variation in the timing of the first follow-up visit after misoprostol administration was wide, ranging from 24 h to 1 week in most clinics. In case of incomplete expulsion, only 42.3% of the respondents routinely administer a second dose. The timing of the final visit and the definition of successful treatment also differed greatly among respondents. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in the use of misoprostol for the management of EPL. High-quality research is necessary to examine several aspects of the treatment. Particularly, the timing and effectiveness of a second dose administration and the criteria to decide on treatment failure or success deserve more research in the future.

Induction of labor at term with vaginal misoprostol or a prostaglandin E2 pessary: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is among the most common procedures for pregnant women. Only a few randomized clinical trials with relatively small samples have compared misoprostol with dinoprostone. Although their efficacy seems similar, their safety profiles have not been adequately evaluated, and economic data are sparse. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the noninferiority of vaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) (25 µg) to a slow-release dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) pessary (10 µg) for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix at term. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label multicenter randomized noninferiority trial at 4 university hospitals of the Research Group in Obstetrics and Gynecology between 2012 and 2015. We recruited women who underwent induction of labor for medical reasons, those with a Bishop score of ≤5 at ≥36 weeks' gestation, and those with a cephalic-presenting singleton pregnancy with no previous cesarean delivery. Women were randomly allocated to receive either vaginal misoprostol at 4-hour intervals (25 µg) or a 10-mg slow-release dinoprostone pessary. The primary outcome was the total cesarean delivery rate. Noninferiority was defined as a difference in the cesarean delivery rates between the groups of no more than 5%. Secondary outcomes included neonatal and maternal morbidity, vaginal delivery at <24 hours after starting the induction of labor process, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: The study included 1674 randomized women. The per-protocol analysis included 790 women in each group. The total cesarean delivery rates were 22.1% (n=175) in the misoprostol group and 19.9% (n=157) in the dinoprostone group, a difference of 2.2% (with an upper-bound 95% confidence limit of 5.6%) (P=.092). Results in the intention-to-treat analysis were similar. Neonatal and maternal morbidity rates were similar between groups. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly higher in the misoprostol group (59.3% vs 45.7%; P<.001) as was maternal satisfaction, assessed in the postpartum period by a visual analog scale (mean score, 7.1±2.4 vs 5.8±3.1; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The noninferiority of a 25-µg dose of vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours to the dinoprostone pessary for cesarean delivery rates after induction of labor at term could not be demonstrated, although the confidence limit of the difference barely exceeded the noninferiority margin. Nonetheless, given the small difference between these cesarean delivery rates and the similarity of neonatal and maternal morbidity rates in this large study, the clinical risk-to-benefit ratio justifies the use of both drugs.

Buccal vs vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter for cervical ripening at term (the BEGIN trial): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining pharmacologic agents with mechanical ripening achieves the shortest time to labor; however, there is no clear evidence on route of drug administration. Buccal administration of misoprostol has shown greater patient acceptance but remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the difference in time to delivery between buccal and vaginal administration of misoprostol along with a Foley catheter for induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: The BEGIN trial (buccal vs vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter for cervical ripening at term) was an institutional review board-approved, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2019 to January 2020 comparing identical doses (25 µg) of buccal misoprostol and vaginal misoprostol along with a Foley catheter for induction of labor. Randomization was stratified by parity. Labor management was standardized among participants. Individuals undergoing induction of labor at ≥37 weeks with a singleton gestation and needing cervical ripening were included. Our primary outcome was time to delivery. Kruskal-Wallis, Pearson chi-squared, and Cox survival analyses with intent-to-treat principles were performed. A sample size of 216 was planned to detect a 4-hour reduction in delivery time. RESULTS: A total of 215 women (108 in the buccal drug administration group and 107 in the vaginal drug administration group) were randomized. The vaginal route of drug administration achieved a faster median time to delivery than the buccal route of drug administration (19.7 hours in the vaginal route vs 24.1 hours in the buccal route; P<.001). A greater percentage of women in the vaginal drug administration group delivered within 24 hours compared with the buccal drug administration group (65% vs 49%; P=.02). There was no difference in the cesarean delivery rate between the 2 groups (17% in the vaginal drug administration group vs 21% in the buccal drug administration group; P=.6). Individuals who received vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter delivered 2 times faster than women who received buccal misoprostol with Foley catheter after censoring for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-3.17). There was no significant difference in maternal and neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found that vaginal administration of misoprostol was superior to buccal administration of misoprostol along with a Foley catheter for induction of labor. Furthermore, vaginal administration of misoprostol resulted in twice the chance of delivering earlier compared with buccal administration of misoprostol with no difference in cesarean delivery rates. Therefore, the vaginal route of administration of misoprostol should be preferred among individuals undergoing a combined pharmacologic and mechanical induction.

Misoprostol for open myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials.

BACKGROUND: Excessive blood loss is a significant risk of myomectomy with the potential need for hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of preoperative misoprostol compared with placebo at open myomectomy on intra- and postoperative outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, MEDLINE and EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control studies of women undergoing open myomectomy for symptomatic fibroids who were given either misoprostol or placebo preoperatively. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were blood loss, drop in haemoglobin and need for blood transfusion. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pyrexia and length of postoperative stay. Pooled effect sizes with corresponding 95% CI were calculated using random effects models. Data were analysed using two statistical models for statistical reliability. RESULTS: Eight studies were included with a total of 385 patients, of which 192 received misoprostol. Preoperative misoprostol was significantly associated with lower blood loss by -170.32 ml (95% CI -201.53 to -139.10), lower drop in haemoglobin by -0.48 g/dl (95% CI -0.65 to -0.31), reduced need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR] -0.48, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.31), and a reduction in operative time by -11.64 minutes (95% CI -15.73 to -7.54). There was no difference in postoperative pyrexia or length of postoperative stay. CONCLUSION: Moderate- to high-quality studies have established that misoprostol minimises blood loss and need for blood transfusion at open myomectomy. This low-cost and readily available drug should be routinely administered prior to open myomectomy to improve clinical outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Use of misoprostol at open myomectomy reduces blood loss and need for blood transfusion with no impact on postoperative pyrexia.

Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). SETTING: Twenty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. SAMPLE: A cohort of 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. METHODS: Treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol or with matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and a QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost saving of £182 (95% CI £26-£338). Hence, the MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that the MifeMiso intervention is preferable, compared with expectant management, and this is the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, the MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective and less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.

Women's experiences of a telemedicine abortion service (up to 12 weeks) implemented during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: a qualitative evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of women in Scotland who accessed medical abortion at home up to 12 weeks' gestation, delivered via a telemedicine abortion service implemented in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, to identify areas for improvement and inform service provision. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Abortion service in one National Health Service health board in Scotland. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Twenty women who accessed telemedicine abortion services and self-administered mifepristone and misoprostol at home up to 12 weeks' gestation. METHODS: Thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews, informed by the Framework analytic approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's experiences of accessing telemedicine for medical abortion at home, specifically: acceptability of the telephone consultation and remote support; views on no pre-abortion ultrasound scan; and self-administration of abortion medications at home. RESULTS: Novel study findings were three-fold: (1) participants valued the option of accessing abortion care via telemedicine and emphasised the benefits of providing a choice of telephone and in-person consultation to suit those with different life circumstances; (2) the quality of abortion care was enhanced by the telemedicine service in relation to access, comfort and flexibility, and ongoing telephone support; (3) participants described being comfortable with, and in some cases a preference for, not having an ultrasound scan. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrates support for the continuation of telemedicine abortion services beyond the temporary arrangements in place during COVID-19, and lends weight to the argument that offering the option of telemedicine abortion care can enable women to access this essential health service. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: #Telemedicine provision of medical #abortion at home up to 12 weeks' gestation is acceptable and highly valued by #women #Research #SRHR @nbw80 @doctorjjrw @jeniharden @cameronsharon @mrc_crh @edinuniusher.

Psychological impact of early miscarriage and client satisfaction with treatment: comparison between expectant management and misoprostol treatment in a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the short- and long-term emotional distress (grief, anxiety and depressive symptoms) after early miscarriage and satisfaction with treatment between women randomized to expectant management vs vaginal misoprostol treatment. METHODS: This was a preplanned analysis of data collected during a randomized controlled trial comparing expectant management with misoprostol treatment in women with early anembryonic or embryonic miscarriage and vaginal bleeding. If the miscarriage was not complete on day 31 after inclusion, surgical evacuation was recommended. The main outcomes were levels of anxiety and grief, depressive symptoms and client satisfaction with the treatment, which were assessed using the following validated psychometric self-assessment instruments: Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Form Y), Perinatal Grief Scale (PGS), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S; self-reported version) and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). All women were assessed at four timepoints: on the day of randomization, on the day when the miscarriage was judged to be complete, and at 3 months and 14 months after complete miscarriage. The psychometric and client satisfaction scores were compared between the misoprostol group and the expectant-management group at each assessment. Analysis was performed by the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Ninety women were randomized to expectant management and 94 to misoprostol treatment. The psychometric and client satisfaction scores were similar in the two treatment groups at all assessment timepoints. At inclusion, 41% (35/86) of the women managed expectantly and 37% (34/92) of those treated with misoprostol had a STAI-state score of > 46 ('high level of anxiety'), and 9% (8/86) and 10% (9/91), respectively, had symptoms of moderate or severe depression (MADRS-S score ≥ 20). In both treatment groups, symptom scores for anxiety and depression were significantly higher at inclusion than after treatment and remained low until 14 months after complete miscarriage. Grief reactions were mild in both groups, with a median PGS score of 40.0 at 3 months and 37.0 at 14 months after complete miscarriage in both treatment groups. Four women treated with misoprostol and two women managed expectantly had a PGS score of > 90 (indicating deep grief) 3 months after complete miscarriage, while one woman managed expectantly had a PGS score of > 90 14 months after complete miscarriage. Women in both treatment groups were satisfied with their management, as indicated by a median CSQ-8 score of > 25 at each assessment. More than 85% of participants in each of the two groups reported that they would recommend the treatment they received to a friend. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological response to and recovery after early miscarriage did not differ between women treated with misoprostol and those managed expectantly. Satisfaction with treatment was high in both treatment groups. Our findings support patient involvement when deciding on the management of early miscarriage. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.