Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

Medical abortion after 12 gestational weeks often requires a stay in hospital. We hypothesised that administering the first misoprostol dose at home could increase day-care procedures as compared with overnight care procedures, shorten inpatient stays, and improve patient satisfaction. This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done at six hospitals in Sweden. Participants were pregnant people aged 18 years and older who were undergoing medical abortion at 85–153 days of pregnancy. Randomisation was done in blocks 1:1 to mifepristone administered in-clinic followed by home administration or hospital administration of the first dose of misoprostol. Allocation was done by opening of opaque allocation envelopes. Due to the nature of the intervention, masking was not feasible. Between 24–48 h after mifepristone 200 mg, the participants administered 800 μg of misoprostol either at home 2 h before admission to hospital or in hospital. The primary outcome was the proportion of day-care procedures (defined as abortion completed in <9 h). The intention-to-treat analysis included all participants randomly assigned to receive the study drug and who had known results for the primary outcome. Individuals who received any treatment were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03600857, and EudraCT, 2018-000964-27. Between Jan 8, 2019, and Dec 21, 2022, 457 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups. In the intention-to-treat-population, 220 participants were assigned to the home group and 215 to the hospital group. In the home group, 156 (71%) of 220 participants completed the abortion as day-care patients, compared with 99 (46%) of 215 in the hospital group (difference 24·9%, 95% CI 15·4–34·3; p<0·0001). In total, 97 (22%) of 444 participants in the safety analysis had an adverse event. Seven (2%) of 444 participants aborted after mifepristone only. Two (1%) of 220 in the home group aborted after the first dose of misoprostol, before hospital admission. Home administration of misoprostol significantly increases the proportion of day-care procedures in medical abortion after 12 gestational weeks, offering a safe and effective alternative to in-clinic protocols. Region Västra Götaland, Hjalmar Svensson's Fund, the Gothenburg Society of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet–Region Stockholm, and The Swedish Research Council.

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.

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.

Background Labor induction is defined as any procedure that stimulates uterine contractions before labor begins spontaneously. The vaginal and oral routes of administration of misoprostol are those most used for the induction of labor in routine practice, with the recommended dose being 25 μg. Nevertheless, the sublingual route may reduce the number of vaginal examinations required, increasing patient comfort and lowering the risk of maternal and fetal infection. Based on a previous systematic review, the objective of this study was to compare the frequency of tachysystole as the main outcome measure when misoprostol is administered sublingually at the dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg to induce labor in a full-term pregnancy with a live fetus. Methods A randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted at two maternity hospitals in northeastern Brazil. Two hundred patients with a full-term pregnancy, a live fetus, Bishop score ≤ 6 and an indication for induction of labor were included. Following randomization, one group received 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually and a vaginal placebo, while the other group received a sublingual placebo and 25 μg misoprostol vaginally. The primary outcome was the frequency of tachysystole. Student’s t-test, the chi-square test of association and Fisher’s exact test were used, as appropriate. Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results The frequency of tachysystole was lower in the group using 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually compared to the group using 25 μg misoprostol vaginally (RR = 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02–0.97; p  = 0.002). Failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 h was similar in both groups. Sublingual administration was preferred to vaginal administration by women in both groups; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion The effectiveness of labor induction with low-dose sublingual misoprostol was similar to that achieved with vaginal administration of the recommended dose; however, the rate of tachysystole was lower in the sublingual group, and this route of administration may prove a safe alternative. Trial registration Registration number: NCT01406392 , ClinicalTrials.gov . Date of registration: August 1, 2011.