Prostaglandin-E2-Vaginalgel versus Intrazervikalgel und Vaginaltablette in Abhängigkeit vom Zervixstatus - Ergebnisse einer prospektiven randomisierten Multizenter-Studie zur Geburtseinleitung

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prostaglandin E2 labour induction with intravaginal (Minprostin) versus intracervical (Prepidil) administration at term: randomized study of maternal and neonatal outcome and patient's perception using the osgood semantic differential scales

AIM

To compare the efficacy, safety, and patient's perception of two prostaglandin E2 application methods for induction of labour.

METHOD

Above 36th weeks of gestation, all women, who were admitted to hospital for induction of labour, were prospectively randomised to intravaginal 1 mg or intracervical 0.5 mg irrespective of cervical Bishop score. The main outcome variables were induction-to-delivery interval, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, rate of vaginal delivery, and patient's perception using semantic differential questionnaire.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in regard to perceptions of induction. The median induction delivery time using intravaginal versus intracervical administration was 29.9 versus 12.8 hours, respectively (P = 0.04). No statistically difference between the groups was detected in regard to parity, gestation age, cervical Bishop score, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, and mode of birth.

SUMMARY

Irrespective of the cervical Bishop Score, intracervical gel had a shorter induction delivery time without impingement on the women's perception of induction.

Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for induction of labour since the 1960s. This is one of a series of reviews evaluating methods of induction of labour. This review focuses on prostaglandins given per vaginam, evaluating these in comparison with placebo (or expectant management) and with each other; prostaglandins (PGE2 and PGF2a); different formulations (gels, tablets, pessaries) and doses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of vaginal prostaglandins E2 and F2a for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment or other vaginal prostaglandins (except misoprostol).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2014) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing vaginal prostaglandins used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment, with each other, or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (11,487 women) are included. In this update seven new RCTs (778 women) have been added. Two of these new trials compare PGE2 with no treatment, four compare different PGE2 formulations (gels versus tablets, or sustained release pessaries) and one trial compares PGF2a with placebo. The majority of trials were at unclear risk of bias for most domains.Overall, vaginal prostaglandin E2 compared with placebo or no treatment probably reduces the likelihood of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 hours. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes is increased (4.8% versus 1.0%, risk ratio (RR) 3.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 5.98, 15 trials, 1359 women). The caesarean section rate is probably reduced by about 10% (13.5% versus 14.8%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02, 36 trials, 6599 women). The overall effect on improving maternal and fetal outcomes (across a variety of measures) is uncertain.PGE2 tablets, gels and pessaries (including sustained release preparations) appear to be as effective as each other, small differences are detected between some outcomes, but these maybe due to chance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostaglandins PGE2 probably increase the chance of vaginal delivery in 24 hours, they increase uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes but do not effect or may reduce caesarean section rates. They increase the likelihood of cervical change, with no increase in operative delivery rates. PGE2 tablets, gels and pessaries appear to be as effective as each other, any differences between formulations are marginal but may be important.

Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for induction of labour since the 1960s. Initial work focused on prostaglandin F2a as prostaglandin E2 was considered unsuitable for a number of reasons. With the development of alternative routes of administration, comparisons were made between various formulations of vaginal prostaglandins.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of vaginal prostaglandins E2 and F2a for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment or other vaginal prostaglandins (except misoprostol).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing vaginal prostaglandins used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three (10,441 women) have been included.Vaginal prostaglandin E2 compared with placebo or no treatment reduced the likelihood of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 hours (18.1% versus 98.9%, risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.25, two trials, 384 women). The risk of the cervix remaining unfavourable or unchanged was reduced (21.6% versus 40.3%, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.62, five trials, 467 women); and the risk of oxytocin augmentation reduced (35.1% versus 43.8%, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, 12 trials, 1321 women) when PGE2 was compared to placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between caesarean section rates, although the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was increased (4.4% versus 0.49%, RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.93 to 8.90, 14 trials, 1259 women).PGE2 tablet, gel and pessary appear to be as efficacious as each other and the use of sustained release PGE2 inserts appear to be associated with a reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery rates (9.9 % versus 19.5%, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76, NNT 10 (6.7 to 24.0), five trials, 661 women) when compared to vaginal PGE2 gel or tablet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PGE2 increases successful vaginal delivery rates in 24 hours and cervical favourability with no increase in operative delivery rates. Sustained release vaginal PGE2 is superior to vaginal PGE2 gel with respect to some outcomes studied.Further research is needed to assess the best vehicle for delivering vaginal prostaglandins and this should, where possible, include some examination of the cost-analysis.

Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for cervical ripening and induction of labour since the 1970s. The goal of the administration of prostaglandins in the process of induction of labour is to achieve cervical ripening before the onset of contractions. One of the routes of administration that was proposed is intracervical. Using this route, prostaglandins are less easy to administer and the need for exposing the cervix may cause discomfort to the woman.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of intracervical prostaglandins for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour compared with placebo/no treatment and with vaginal prostaglandins (except misoprostol).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (August 2007) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing intracervical prostaglandins used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods (vaginal prostaglandins, except misoprostol).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-six trials (7738 women) are included. INTRACERVICAL PGE2 WITH PLACEBO/NO TREATMENT: 28 TRIALS, 3764 WOMEN: Four studies reported the number of women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, showing a decreased risk with PGE2 (relative risk (RR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.79). There was a small, and statistically non-significant, reduction of the risk of caesarean section when PGE2 was used (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00). The finding was statistically significant in a subgroup of women with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix only (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98). The risk of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes was not significantly increased (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.05). However, the risk of hyperstimulation without FHR changes was significantly increased (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33. INTRACERVICAL PGE2 WITH INTRAVAGINAL PGE2: 29 TRIALS, 3881 WOMEN: The risk of not achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours was increased with intracervical PGE2 (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41). There was no change in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.22). The risks of hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49) and without FHR changes (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15) were non-significantly different with the two methods of PGE2 administration. Only one trial with small sample size reported on women's views, with no difference between groups. INTRACERVICAL PGE2 LOW DOSE WITH INTRACERVICAL PGE2 HIGH DOSE: TWO TRIALS, 102 WOMEN: The trials are too small to provide any useful information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intracervical prostaglandins are effective compared to placebo, but appear inferior when compared to intravaginal prostaglandins.

Induction of labor by prostaglandin E(2) in relation to the Bishop score

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of prostaglandin E(2) intravaginal gel with the intracervical gel in patients with an unfavorable cervix.

METHOD

In a prospective multicenter trial 470 patients with unfavorable Bishop scores (3-4) were randomized to receive prostaglandin vaginal gel (2 mg) or intracervical gel (0.5 mg).

RESULTS

In patients with unfavorable Bishop scores the intravaginal application route resulted in a better cervical ripening, a shorter induction to delivery interval and a higher cumulative rate of deliveries during 24 h (P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Intravaginal instillation of prostaglandin E(2) gel for induction of labor is effective in patients with an unfavorable Bishop score of 3-4.