Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov,  the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant patients with COVID-19: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted on 56 pregnant women with COVID-19 and 94 healthy pregnant women during the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran. Two groups were followed until childbirth. Demographic and obstetric information, clinical symptoms, laboratory and radiographic findings of the patients, and maternal and neonatal outcomes of the two groups were gathered by a checklist. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of maternal age, gravida, parity, and co-morbidities (P > 0.05). The rate of cesarean delivery in the exposed group was higher than that in the control group (P = 0.027; relative risk [RR] =2.23). Pre-eclampsia was seen in 19.8% of the exposed group and 7.4% of the control group (P = 0.037; RR = 2.68). The rate of preterm labor in the exposed group was higher than that in the control group (P = 0.003; RR = 2.70). Fetal distress was seen in 16.1% of the exposed group and 4.3% of the control group (P = 0.016; RR = 3.84). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with COVID-19 had an increased risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm labor, and cesarean delivery. Their fetal and neonatal outcomes were fetal distress, newborn prematurity, and low Apgar score.

Initial review of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Data regarding the pathogenesis and clinical manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to emerge, however, there's limited data in regard to maternal and neonatal outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all pregnant women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within Nuvance Health system. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the medical records of each patient and descriptive analysis was performed. Variables included demographics, COVID testing results, symptoms, management, labor course, neonatal information, and complications. RESULTS: Total of 40 patients were identified. Average age was 29.6 years old, 35% were Hispanic, and approximately one in three patients had comorbidities. Of the patients who had repeated testing, the average number of days between first positive test and negative test was 36.8 days (± 19.9 days). Three out of four women reported symptoms. Of the 40 pregnant women who were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 25 of them delivered. About 84% of the women delivered after 37 weeks. Twelve percent of the women delivered under 33 and 6/7 weeks. Most patients had vaginal deliveries (68%) and the remaining had cesarean deliveries. Neonatal outcomes included: mean 1 and 5 min Apgar scores of 8 and 8.8, respectively and the mean birth weight was 3212 g. Twenty neonates were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were all found to be negative. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, with routine prenatal care and preventive measures, pregnant patients and neonates in our study had good outcomes. At this time, there appears to be no evidence of vertical transmission.

Complicated COVID-19 in pregnancy: a case report with severe liver and coagulation dysfunction promptly improved by delivery.

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that pregnant women and their fetuses may be particularly at risk for poor outcomes due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. From the few case series that are available in the literature, women with high risk pregnancies have been associated with higher morbidity. It has been suggested that pregnancy induced immune responses and cardio-vascular changes can exaggerate the course of the COVID-19 infection. CASE PRESENTATION: A 26-year old Somalian woman (G2P1) presented with a nine-day history of shortness of breath, dry cough, myalgia, nausea, abdominal pain and fever. A nasopharyngeal swab returned positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Her condition rapidly worsened leading to severe liver and coagulation impairment. An emergency Caesarean section was performed at gestational week 32 + 6 after which the patient made a rapid recovery. Severe COVID-19 promptly improved by the termination of the pregnancy or atypical HELLP (Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes and Low Platelet Count) exacerbated by concomitant COVID-19 infection could not be ruled out. There was no evidence of vertical transmission. CONCLUSIONS: This case adds to the growing body of evidence which raises concerns about the possible negative maternal outcomes of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy and advocates for pregnant women to be recognized as a vulnerable group during the current pandemic.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes and pharmacological management of Covid-19 infection in pregnancy: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Over 4.2 million confirmed cases and more than 285,000 deaths, COVID-19 pandemic continues to harm significant number of people worldwide. Several studies have reported the impact of COVID-19 in general population; however, there is scarcity of information related to pharmacological management and maternal and perinatal outcomes during the pandemic. Altered physiological, anatomical, and immunological response during pregnancy makes it more susceptible to infections. Furthermore, during pregnancy, a woman undergoes multiple interactions with the health care system that increases her chance of getting infected; therefore, managing pregnant population presents a unique challenge. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: This systematic review seeks to answer the following questions in relation to COVID-19: What are the different clinical characteristics presented in maternal and perinatal population? What are the different maternal and perinatal outcome measures reported? What are the distinct therapeutic interventions reported to treat COVID-19? Is it safe to use "medications" used in the treatment of COVID-19 during antenatal, perinatal, postnatal, and breastfeeding? METHOD: The search will follow a comprehensive, sequential three step search strategy. Several databases relevant to COVID-19 and its impact on pregnancy including Medline, CINAHL, and LitCovid will be searched from the inception of the disease until the completion of data collection. The quality of this search strategy will be assessed using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies Evidence-Based Checklist (PRESS EBC). An eligibility form will be developed for a transparent screening and inclusion/exclusion of studies. All studies will be sent to RefWorks, and abstraction will be independently performed by two researchers. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomized studies, and for case reports, Murad et al. tool will be used. Decision to conduct meta-analysis will be based on several factors including homogeneity and outcome measures reported; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be deemed appropriate. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will summarize the existing data on effect of COVID-19 on maternal and perinatal population. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review addressing therapeutic management and safety of medicines to treat COVID-19 during pregnancy and breastfeeding. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review has been registered and published with Prospero ( CRD42020172773 ).

Fetal heart rate changes on the cardiotocograph trace secondary to maternal COVID-19 infection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cardiotocograph (CTG) changes in women with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. STUDY DESIGN: 12 anonymised CTG traces from 2 hospitals in Spain were retrospectively analysed by 2 independent assessors. CTG parameters were studied based on fetal pathophysiological responses to inflammation and hypoxia that would be expected based on the pathogenesis of COVID-19 patients. Correlation was made with perinatal outcomes (Apgar score at 5 min and umbilical cord pH). RESULTS: All fetuses showed an increased baseline FHR > 10 percent compared to the initial recording, in addition to absence of accelerations. 10 out of 12 CTG traces (83.3 percent) demonstrated late or prolonged decelerations and 7 out of 12 fetuses (58.3 percent) showed absence of cycling. Not a single case of sinusoidal pattern was observed. ZigZag pattern was found in 4 CTG traces (33 percent). Excessive uterine activity was observed in all CTG traces where uterine activity was monitored (10 out of 12). Apgar scores at 5 min were normal (>7) and absence of metabolic acidosis was found in the umbilical cord arterial pH (pH > 7.0) in the cases that were available (11 and 9, respectively). CONCLUSION: Fetuses of COVID-19 patients showed a raised baseline FHR (>10 percent), loss of accelerations, late decelerations, ZigZag pattern and absence of cycling probably due to the effects of maternal pyrexia, maternal inflammatory response and the "cytokine storm". However, the perinatal outcomes appear to be favourable. Therefore, healthcare providers should optimise the maternal environment first to rectify the reactive CTG changes instead of performing an urgent operative intervention.