Safety and Effectiveness of Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour in a Resource-limited Setting: a Dose Escalation Study
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Oral misoprostol as an induction of labour (IOL) agent is rapidly gaining popularity in resource-limited settings because it is cheap, stable at ambient temperatures, and logistically easier to administer compared to dinoprostone and oxytocin. We aim to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a regimen of oral misoprostol in Papua New Guinean women undergoing IOL.
Methods: As part of a prospective dose escalation study conducted at Modilon Hospital in Papua New Guinea, women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation and an unfavourable cervix who gave written informed consent were administered oral misoprostol, commencing at 25mcg once every 2 h for 4 doses and increased to 50mcg once every 2 h for 8 doses within 24 h. The primary outcomes studied were i) the proportion of women delivering within 24 h of oral misoprostol administration, and ii) rates of maternal and perinatal severe adverse events.
Results: Of 6167 labour ward screened admissions, 209 women (3%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and underwent IOL. Overall, 74% (155/209 [95% confidence interval 67.6-79.9]) delivered within 24 h. Most women (90%; 188/209; 95% CI [84.9-93.5]) delivered vaginally with 86% (180/209) having a good outcome for both the mother and baby. Of the 10% (21/209) who failed IOL and underwent caesarean section, a significant proportion of their babies were admitted to special-care nursery compared to babies delivered vaginally (20/21 [95%] versus 8/188 [4%]; Fisher Exact test P < 0.001), but their perinatal mortality rate was not significantly higher (1/21 [5%] versus 2/188 [1%]; P = 0.30). The only maternal death was not study related and occurred in a patient with post-partum haemorrhage, 15 h post-delivery.
Conclusion: The oral misoprostol regimen for IOL described in the present study is safe, effective and logistically feasible to administer in a resource-limited setting.
Kleszcz A, Cwiek D, Sipak-Szmigiel O BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):72.
PMID: 39871179 PMC: 11770951. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-07015-8.
Mwancha-Kwasa M, Admani R, Mbuga M, Maina M, Mwangi J, Nganga L PLoS One. 2024; 19(5):e0304631.
PMID: 38820427 PMC: 11142478. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304631.
Yadav S, Yadav I, Pradhan T, Jyoti S, Yadav R JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2024; 61(265):687-690.
PMID: 38289805 PMC: 10579742. DOI: 10.31729/jnma.8255.
What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review.
Torloni M, Betran A, Vazquez Corona M, Bohren M, Widmer M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(10):e068442.
PMID: 37899165 PMC: 10618966. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068442.
Socha M, Flis W, Wartega M, Stankiewicz M, Kunicka A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(12).
PMID: 37373798 PMC: 10299393. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12124106.