• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

2021 Cochrane Review: Oral Misoprostol vs Other Labor Induction Methods

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Kerr et al. (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021) assessed the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labor induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Inclusion criteria
    • RCTs
    • Studies that compared low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) with
      • Placebo
      • Vaginal dinoprostone
      • Vaginal misoprostol
      • Oxytocin
      • Mechanical methods
    • Studies that compared oral misoprostol protocols
      • one- to two-hourly vs four- to six- hourly protocols
      • 20 µg to 25 µg vs 50 µg
      • 20 µg hourly titrated vs 25 µg two-hourly static
  • Study design
    • Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria
  • Primary outcomes
    • Vaginal birth within 24 hours
    • Cesarean delivery
    • Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes

RESULTS:

  • 61 trials | 20,026 women
  • Quality of evidence ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty, with downgrading due to imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations

Oral misoprostol vs placebo/no treatment (4 trials | 594 women)

  • Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesareans
    • Risk ratio (RR) 0.81 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.11); moderate certainty
  • Effect on uterine hyperstimulation is uncertain
    • RR 5.15 (95% CI, 0.25 to 105.31); very low‐certainty
  • Vaginal births within 24 hours were not reported
  • In all trials, oxytocin could be started after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre‐labor ruptured membranes

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials | 9676 women)

  • Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer cesarean deliveries
    • RR 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90); moderate certainty
  • Subgroup analysis indicated that this decrease in cesarean deliveries may be limited to 10 µg to 25 µg vs 50 µg dose group
    • 10 to 25 µg: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.87)
    • 50 µg: RR 1.10 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.34)
  • Oral misoprostol may decrease
    • Vaginal births within 24 hours
      • RR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.00); low certainty
    • Hyperstimulation
      • RR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.59); low certainty

Oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol (33 trials | 6110 women)

  • Oral use may result in
    • Fewer vaginal births within 24 hours: Average RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.95); low certainty
    • Less hyperstimulation: RR 0.69 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92); low certainty
      • Subgroup analysis suggests 10 to 25 µg orally may be superior to 50 µg orally
      • 10 to 25 µg: RR 0.28 (5% CI, 0.14 to 0.57)
      • 50 µg: RR 0.82 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.11)
  • Oral misoprostol probably does not increase cesarean deliveries overall
    • Average RR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.16) low certainty
  • Oral misoprostol likely results in fewer cesarean deliveries due to fetal distress
    • RR 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.99)

Oral misoprostol vs intravenous oxytocin (6 trials | 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes)

  • Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours
    • RR 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.33); low certainty
  • Misoprostol probably results in fewer cesarean deliveries
    • RR 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90); moderate certainty
  • The effect on hyperstimulation is uncertain
    • RR 0.66 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.26); very low certainty

Oral misoprostol vs mechanical methods (6 trials | 2993 women)

  • All six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter
  • Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours
    • RR 1.32 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.79); low certainty
  • Misoprostol probably reduces the risk for cesarean
    • RR 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.95); moderate certainty
  • There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation
    • RR 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78 to 2.21); low certainty

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs four‐ to six‐hourly (1 trial |64 women)

  • The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported

Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated vs 25 µg two‐hourly static (2 trials | 296 women)

  • The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours
    • RR 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.16); low certainty
  • The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes

CONCLUSION:

  • Overall, oral misoprostol is probably better than other methods of labor induction
  • Compared to vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with
    • Fewer caesarean deliveries | More vaginal births | Lower rates of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes
    • Time to birth may be increased
  • Compared to Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with
    • Fewer caesarean deliveries
    • Rates of hyperstimulation are similar
  • Compared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol is probably associated with
    • Similar rates of vaginal birth | Rates may be lower within the first 24 hours
    • There are likely fewer cesarean deliveries due to fetal distress, and lower rates of hyperstimulation
  • 25 µg starting dose appears to be safe and effective
  • The authors state

The best available evidence suggests that low dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction

This review supports the use of low dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

Want to stay on top of key guidelines and research papers?

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Oral vs Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction
Single or Multi-Dose Misoprostol for Labor Induction?
Cochrane Review 2017: Outpatient Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction
Cochrane Review Update: Safety and Effectiveness of Mechanical vs Pharmacological Methods of Labor Induction

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site