Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Summary

Misoprostol (Cytotec®) is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog that has been marketed in the United States since 1988 as a gastric cytoprotective agent. In contradistinction to prostaglandin E2 preparations (dinoprostone, Prepidil, Cervidil), misoprostol is inexpensive and available in scored tablets that can be broken and inserted vaginally. Despite a focused campaign by the manufacturer to curtail its use in obstetric practice, misoprostol has, over the past several years, gained widespread acceptance as both a labor induction and a cervical ripening agent. Such off-label indication has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical bodies. Recently, FDA approved a new label for the use of cytotec during pregnancy which removed pregnancy as a contraindication for its use. Vaginal administration seems to be more efficacious than when given orally, although there is the worry of uterine tachysystole and hyperstimulation with vaginal doses > 50-µg. The use of sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening at term was recently investigated in two studies that compared it to the oral route, on the assumption that the sublingual route would have the higher efficacy of the vaginal route by avoiding the first pass effects of the gastrointestinal and hepatic systems, while having lower hyperstimulation rates by avoiding the direct effects on the cervix. In addition, the sublingual route would combine an easier administration with the added advantage of no restriction of mobility after administration. There has been no previous report in the literature comparing the use of misoprostol given sublingually to that given vaginally for the induction of labor at term. Our aim is to compare efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with misoprostol given vaginally (the current standard) to that given sublingually.


Clinical Trial Description

Misoprostol, a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog, has been given both orally and vaginally for induction of labor in the third trimester.1 Vaginal misoprostol has been shown to be more efficacious than oral misoprostol in equivalent doses,2 although there is the worry of uterine tachysystole and hyperstimulation with vaginal doses of 50 µg or higher.2-4 The higher efficacy after vaginal administration may be explained by the pharmacokinetics of the drug. Zeiman et al5 showed that the systemic bioavailability of vaginally administered misoprostol is 3 times higher than that after oral administration. Plasma concentrations of its metabolite, misoprostol acid, peak one to two hours after vaginal application as compared with the peak seen 30 minutes following oral administration, and although peak levels are lower with the vaginal route, they are sustained longer and overall exposure to the drug is increased, perhaps because of the presystemic gastrointestinal or hepatic metabolism that occurs with the oral route. An additional explanation for the higher efficacy could be that there is a direct effect on the cervix that initiates the physiologic events that lead to increased uterine contractility.6 However, there seems to be a trend toward patient preference for the oral route. The sublingual route of administration has not been reported in the literature prior to 2001. Since then and partly because of issues relating to patient preference, investigators started studying the sublingual route of administration of misoprostol. In theory, the sublingual route could mimic vaginal administration pharmacokinetically, although there have been no such reported studies on this route of administration.

It is speculated that sublingual misoprostol could combine the higher efficacy of the vaginal route by avoiding gastrointestinal and hepatic metabolism, but it could have a more restrained effect on uterine contractility by avoiding direct effects on both the uterus and cervix. Therefore, in theory, the sublingual route may have lower hyperstimulation rates and would have the advantage of a less invasive administration and lack of restriction of mobility.

Although many studies have been published on the use of sublingual misoprostol for medical abortion in the first and second trimesters, 7-11, only two studies (by the same group) have compared sublingual to oral misoprostol, in different doses.12,13 The 50-µg dose was chosen because it is the dose most commonly used orally and vaginally in various studies reported in the literature.3,14 To the best of our knowledge, no study comparing sublingual to vaginal misoprostol for labor induction at term has been previously published in the literature. Therefore, this study, when completed will provide evidence on the relative effect and safety profile of different routes of administration of misoprostol for labor induction.

The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of a 50-µg sublingual dose of misoprostol administered at 4-hour intervals with an equivalent dose regimen administered vaginally in women admitted for induction of labor for a medical or obstetric indication at term. In addition, we want to assess the safety profile and patient acceptability of the 2 modes of administration.

The study hypothesis is that the sublingual route of administration of misoprostol is as effective as the vaginal route for induction of labor at term and is more acceptable to patients as compared to vaginal misoprostol. ;


Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Treatment


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


NCT number NCT00140114
Study type Interventional
Source American University of Beirut Medical Center
Contact
Status Completed
Phase Phase 3
Start date January 2004
Completion date September 2006

See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT01127581 - Efficacy & Safety Study Comparing Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI) Versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert (DVI) for Reducing Time to Vaginal Delivery Phase 3
Completed NCT01139801 - Cervical Ripening for Induction of Labor: Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin in Conjunction With Foley Balloon N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT06324279 - Cervical Sliding Sign to Predict Outcome of Induction of Labor
Recruiting NCT05864326 - Heated Saline in Cervical Balloon for Labor Induction, a RCT N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT06056141 - Induction of Labour at Term With Low Dose Oral Misoprostol Versus a Foley Catheter Phase 4
Completed NCT04529837 - Ultrasound Assessment of DILAPAN-S
Completed NCT02477085 - Methods of Labor Induction and Perinatal Outcomes
Completed NCT03138252 - Study of the Effectiveness of Cervical Ripening Balloon With and Without Oxytocin Phase 3
Completed NCT02098421 - Foley Labor Induction Trial at Term and in PROM Phase 1
Recruiting NCT01720394 - Efficacy of Induction of Labor on Term Using a Double Balloon Catheter Compared to Dinoprostone Vaginal-insert Phase 4
Completed NCT00451308 - Induction of Labor With a Foley Balloon Catheter: Inflation With 30ml Compared to 60ml Phase 4
Not yet recruiting NCT05511727 - Use of Single Versus Double Foley's Catheter in Pre-induction Cervical Ripening N/A
Recruiting NCT02762942 - Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol Plus Supracervical Balloon Versus Vaginal Misoprostol Alone for Induction of Labor Phase 4
Completed NCT01283022 - Pharmacokinetic (PK) Study of the 200 Microgram (mcg) Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI 200) in Women at Term Gestation (The MVI-PK Study) Phase 2
Recruiting NCT00684606 - Transcervical Foley Catheter With or Without Oxytocin for Induction of Labor N/A
Recruiting NCT05759364 - The Effect of IV PAPAVERINE 80 mg Prior to Catheter Balloon Insertion on Bishop Score and Pain N/A
Recruiting NCT03854383 - Using Isosorbide Mononitrate in Reducing Time in Induction of Labor in Post Date Women Phase 2
Completed NCT01428037 - Safety and Efficacy Study of Vaginal Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor Phase 3
Terminated NCT03752073 - Comparison of Two Mechanical Methods of Outpatient Ripening of the Cervix N/A
Recruiting NCT03045939 - Cervical Ripening With the Double Balloon Device for 6 Hours Compared With 12 Hours N/A