Explore the vast range of titles available.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227245.].

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. 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. 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). There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.

In this randomized trial, treatment with mifepristone before the use of misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of successful management of first-trimester pregnancy loss than treatment with misoprostol alone.

In case of early pregnancy loss (EPL) women can either choose for expectant, medical or surgical management. One week of expectant management is known to lead to spontaneous abortion in approximately 50% of women. Medical treatment with misoprostol is known to be safe and less costly than surgical management, however less effective in reaching complete evacuation of the uterus. Recently, a number of trials showed that prompt treatment with the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone in reaching complete evacuation. In this analysis we evaluate whether the sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared to misoprostol alone, in the treatment of EPL. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a healthcare perspective was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which standard treatment with misoprostol only was compared with a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, in women with EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful management. A limited societal perspective scenario was added. This RCT, the Triple M trial, was a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial executed at 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The trial started on June 27th 2018, and ended prematurely in January 2020 due to highly significant outcomes from the predefined interim-analysis. We included 351 women with a diagnosis of EPL between 6 and 14 weeks gestation after at least one week of unsuccessful expectant management. They were randomized between double blinded pre-treatment with oral mifepristone 600mg (N = 175) or placebo (N = 176) taken on day one, both followed by misoprostol orally. In both groups, an intention-to-treat analysis was performed for 172 patients, showing a significant difference in success rates between participants treated with mifepristone and misoprostol versus those treated with misoprostol alone (79.1% vs 58.7% respectively). In this cost-effective analysis we measured the direct, medical costs related to treatment (planned and unplanned hospital visits, medication, additional treatment) and indirect costs based on the IMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY's) were calculated from participants' scores on the SF-36 questionnaires sent digitally at treatment start, and one, two and six weeks later. We found medical treatment with placebo followed by misoprostol to be 26% more expensive compared to mifepristone followed by misoprostol (p = 0.001). Mean average medical costs per patient were significantly lower in the mifepristone group compared to the placebo group (€528.95 ± 328.93 vs €663.77 ± 456.03, respectively; absolute difference €134.82, 95% CI 50,46-219,18, p = 0.002). Both indirect costs and QALY's were similar between both groups. The sequential combination of mifepristone with misoprostol is cost-effective compared with misoprostol alone, for treatment of EPL after a minimum of one week of unsuccessful expectant management.

Postpartum haemorrhage is a major cause of maternal mortality in the developing world. Although effective methods for prevention and treatment of such haemorrhage exist—such as the uterotonic drug oxytocin—most are not feasible in resource-poor settings where many births occur at home. We aimed to investigate whether oral misoprostol, a potential alternative to oxytocin, could prevent postpartum haemorrhage in a community home-birth setting. In a placebo-controlled trial undertaken between September, 2002, and December, 2005, 1620 women in rural India were randomised to receive oral misoprostol (n=812) or placebo (n=808) after delivery. 25 auxiliary nurse midwives undertook the deliveries, administered the study drug, and measured blood loss. The primary outcome was the incidence of acute postpartum haemorrhage (defined as ≥500 mL bleeding) within 2 h of delivery. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered with the US clinical trials database ( http://www. clinicaltrials.gov) as number NCT00097123. Oral misoprostol was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of acute postpartum haemorrhage (12·0% to 6·4%, p<0·0001; relative risk 0·53 [95% CI 0·39–0·74]) and acute severe postpartum haemorrhage (1·2% to 0·2%, p<0·0001; 0·20 [0·04–0·91]. One case of postpartum haemorrhage was prevented for every 18 women treated. Misoprostol was also associated with a decrease in mean postpartum blood loss (262·3 mL to 214·3 mL, p<0·0001). Postpartum haemorrhage rates fell over time in both groups but remained significantly higher in the placebo group. Women taking misoprostol had a higher rate of transitory symptoms of chills and fever than the control. Oral misoprostol was associated with significant decreases in the rate of acute postpartum haemorrhage and mean blood loss. The drug's low cost, ease of administration, stability, and a positive safety profile make it a good option in resource-poor settings.

Labour is induced in 20–30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone. We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466. Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86–1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69–1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure. In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness. FondsNutsOhra.

In women seeking medical abortion at up to 42 days of gestation with unconfirmed intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasonography, early start of abortion was noninferior to delaying treatment until intrauterine pregnancy was confirmed.

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal death in sub-Saharan Africa. Although the World Health Organization recommends use of oxytocin for prevention of PPH, misoprostol use is increasingly common owing to advantages in shelf life and potential for sublingual administration. There is a lack of data about the comparative efficacy of oxytocin and sublingual misoprostol, particularly at the recommended dose of 600 µg, for prevention of PPH during active management of labor. We performed a double-blind, double-dummy randomized controlled non-inferiority trial between 23 September 2012 and 9 September 2013 at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda. We randomized 1,140 women to receive 600 µg of misoprostol sublingually or 10 IU of oxytocin intramuscularly, along with matching placebos for the treatment they did not receive. Our primary outcome of interest was PPH, defined as measured blood loss ≥ 500 ml within 24 h of delivery. Secondary outcomes included measured blood loss ≥ 1,000 ml; mean measured blood loss at 1, 2, and 24 h after delivery; death; requirement for blood transfusion; hemoglobin changes; and use of additional uterotonics. At 24 h postpartum, primary PPH occurred in 163 (28.6%) participants in the misoprostol group and 99 (17.4%) participants in the oxytocin group (relative risk [RR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.05, p<0.001; absolute risk difference 11.2%, 95% CI 6.44 to 16.1). Severe PPH occurred in 20 (3.6%) and 15 (2.7%) participants in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups, respectively (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.58, p = 0.391; absolute risk difference 0.9%, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.88). Mean measured blood loss was 341.5 ml (standard deviation [SD] 206.2) and 304.2 ml (SD 190.8, p = 0.002) at 2 h and 484.7 ml (SD 213.3) and 432.8 ml (SD 203.5, p<0.001) at 24 h in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any other secondary outcomes. Women in the misoprostol group more commonly experienced shivering (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.21, p<0.001) and fevers (RR 5.20, 95% CI 3.15 to 7.21, p = 0.005). This study was conducted at a regional referral hospital with capacity for emergency surgery and blood transfusion. High-risk women were excluded from participation. Misoprostol 600 µg is inferior to oxytocin 10 IU for prevention of primary PPH in active management of labor. These data support use of oxytocin in settings where it is available. While not powered to do so, the study found no significant differences in rate of severe PPH, need for blood transfusion, postpartum hemoglobin, change in hemoglobin, or use of additional uterotonics between study groups. Further research should focus on clarifying whether and in which sub-populations use of oxytocin would be preferred over sublingual misoprostol. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866241 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54–0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

IntroductionThe management of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an unmet clinical need. Misoprostol, a structural analogue of naturally occurring prostaglandin E1, has been reported to decrease proinflammatory cytokine production and may have a potential role in treating NASH. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of misoprostol in treating patients with NASH.MethodsIn this phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, patients with NASH were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 200 µg of misoprostol or placebo thrice daily for 2 months. The primary endpoint was an improvement in liver function tests (LFTs), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and endotoxin levels. The secondary endpoint was improvement in insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia, hepatic fibrosis and hepatic steatosis.ResultsA total of 50 patients underwent randomisation, of whom 44 (88%) were males. The age range was 25–64 years (mean±SE of mean (SEM) 38.1±1.4). 19 (38%) patients had concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus. 32 (64%) patients were either overweight or obese. At the end of 2 months’ treatment, a reduction in total leucocyte count (TLC) (p=0.005), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (p<0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (p=0.002) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) (p=0.003) was observed in the misoprostol group, whereas placebo ensued a decline in ALT (p<0.001), AST (p=0.018), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) (p=0.003), CAP (p=0.010) and triglycerides (p=0.048). There was no diminution in insulin resistance, hepatic fibrosis (elastography) and dyslipidaemia in both groups. However, misoprostol resulted in a significant reduction in CAP as compared with the placebo group (p=0.039). Moreover, in the misoprostol group, pretreatment and post-treatment IL-6 and endotoxin levels remained stable, while in the placebo group, an increase in the IL-6 levels was noted (p=0.049). Six (12%) patients had at least one adverse event in the misoprostol group, as did five (10%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in the misoprostol group was diarrhoea. No life-threatening events or treatment-related deaths occurred in each group.ConclusionImprovement in the biochemical profile was seen in both misoprostol and placebo groups without any statistically significant difference. However, there was more improvement in steatosis, as depicted by CAP, in the misoprostol group and worsening of IL-6 levels in the placebo group.Trial registration numberNCT05804305.