Literature DB >> 12592272

Comparative efficacy and cost of the prostaglandin analogs dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents.

Patrick S Ramsey1, Denise Y Harris, Paul L Ogburn, Robert H Heise, Paul M Magtibay, Kirk D Ramin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and cost of three commercially available prostaglandin analogs, misoprostol (Cytotec), dinoprostone gel (Prepidil), and dinoprostone insert (Cervidil), as labor preinduction agents. STUDY
DESIGN: One-hundred eleven women with an unfavorable cervix who underwent labor induction were assigned randomly to receive either misoprostol 50 microg every 6 hours for two doses, dinoprostone gel 0.5 mg every 6 hours for two doses, or dinoprostone insert 10 mg for one dose intravaginally. Twelve hours later, oxytocin induction was initiated per standardized protocol. Efficacy and cost of the labor preinduction/induction with the study treatments were compared.
RESULTS: Mean Bishop score change (+/-SD) over the initial 12-hour interval was significantly greater in the misoprostol group (5.2 +/- 3.1) compared with the dinoprostone insert (3.2 +/- 2.3) or the dinoprostone gel groups (2.2 +/- 1.3, P <.0001). The proportion of women who reached complete dilation (68.4%, 50.0%, 51.4%, respectively; P =.14) and who were delivered (60.5%, 47.4%, 40.0%, respectively; P =.10) within 24 hours of the initiation of induction were not significantly different between the misoprostol, dinoprostone insert, and dinoprostone gel groups. Induction-to-delivery intervals, however, were significantly shorter among women who treated with misoprostol (24.0 +/- 10.8 hours) compared with either the dinoprostone gel (31.6 +/- 13.4 hours) or the dinoprostone insert (32.2 +/- 14.7 hours, P <.05). Overall mean cost per patient that was incurred by labor induction was significantly less for the misoprostol group ($1036.13) compared with the dinoprostone insert group ($1565.72) or the dinoprostone gel group ($1572.92, P <.0001). No significant differences were noted with respect to the mode of delivery or to the adverse maternal/neonatal outcome.
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is more cost-effective than the comparable commercial dinoprostone prostaglandin preparations as an adjuvant to labor induction in women with an unfavorable cervix.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12592272     DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  7 in total

Review 1.  Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

Authors:  G Justus Hofmeyr; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Cynthia Pileggi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

2.  Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.

Authors:  A M Faucett; K Daniels; H C Lee; Y Y El-Sayed; Y J Blumenfeld
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 2.521

3.  Discovery and Optimization of 7-Alkylidenyltetrahydroindazole-Based Acylsulfonamide EP3 Antagonists.

Authors:  Bin Zhu; Xuqing Zhang; Lili Guo; Matthew Rankin; Ivona Bakaj; George Ho; Seunghun P Lee; Lisa Norquay; Mark Macielag
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 4.345

4.  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.

Authors:  Joscha Reinhard; Roberta Rösler; Juping Yuan; Sven Schiermeier; Eva Herrmann; Michael H Eichbaum; Frank Louwen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective.

Authors:  T Draycott; H van der Nelson; C Montouchet; L Ruff; F Andersson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ge Zhao; Guang Song; Jing Liu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 3.105

Review 7.  Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Authors:  Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Judith A F Huirne; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.981

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.