Cargando…
Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE(1) 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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10348969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36472645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9 |
_version_ | 1785073777346871296 |
---|---|
author | Pergialiotis, Vasilios Panagiotopoulos, Michail Constantinou, Therapon Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou, Lito Koumenis, Andreas Stavros, Sofoklis Voskos, Andreas Daskalakis, George |
author_facet | Pergialiotis, Vasilios Panagiotopoulos, Michail Constantinou, Therapon Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou, Lito Koumenis, Andreas Stavros, Sofoklis Voskos, Andreas Daskalakis, George |
author_sort | Pergialiotis, Vasilios |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE(1) 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). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10348969 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103489692023-07-16 Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis Pergialiotis, Vasilios Panagiotopoulos, Michail Constantinou, Therapon Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou, Lito Koumenis, Andreas Stavros, Sofoklis Voskos, Andreas Daskalakis, George Arch Gynecol Obstet Review OBJECTIVE: Misoprostol is a synthetic PGE(1) 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). Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-06 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10348969/ /pubmed/36472645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Pergialiotis, Vasilios Panagiotopoulos, Michail Constantinou, Therapon Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou, Lito Koumenis, Andreas Stavros, Sofoklis Voskos, Andreas Daskalakis, George Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10348969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36472645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pergialiotisvasilios efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT panagiotopoulosmichail efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT constantinoutherapon efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT vogiatzivokotopouloulito efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT koumenisandreas efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT stavrossofoklis efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT voskosandreas efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT daskalakisgeorge efficacyandsafetyoforalandsublingualversusvaginalmisoprostolforinductionoflabourasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |