Oral misoprostol tablets (25 µg) for induction of labor: a targeted literature review and cost analysis

References

• World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: Induction of labour at or beyond term; 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277233/9789241550413-eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):Cd004945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norgine. Confidential market research.
   Google Scholar
• Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. INSEE and official statistics; 2021. Available from: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5012724
   Google Scholar
• Perined. Perined database 2018. Available from: perined.nl/
   Google Scholar
• Belgian Federal Public Service. STATBEL. Available from: https://statbel.fgov.be/fr
   Google Scholar
• Leroy C, Van Leeuw VS. Santé périnatale en Wallonie – Année 2019; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Devlieger R, Goemaes R, Laubach M. Perinatale activiteiten in Vlaanderen 2019; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuw V, Daelemans C, Debauche C, et al. Santé périnatale en Région bruxelloise – Année 2017; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Coulm B, Bonnet C, Blondel B, et al. Enquête nationale périnatale Rapport 2016: Les naissances et les établissements. Situation et évolution depuis 2010; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Iannuzzi L, Branchini L, Clausen JA, et al. Optimal outcomes and women's positive pregnancy experience: a comparison between the world health organization guideline and recommendations in European National Antenatal Care guidelines. Minerva Ginecol. 2018;70(6):650–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vayssiere C, Haumonte J-B, Chantry A, et al. Prolonged and post-term pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169(1):10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandruzzato G, Alfirevic Z, Chervenak F, et al. Guidelines for the management of postterm pregnancy. J Perinat Med. 2010;38(2):111–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie & Gynaecologie. Guideline Prolonged Pregnancy; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Guideline relative to low risk birth; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Coates D, Homer C, Wilson A, et al. Induction of labour indications and timing: a systematic analysis of clinical guidelines. Women Birth. 2020;33(3):219–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for Induction of labour; 2011. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/9789241501156/en/
   Google Scholar
• Mambourg F, Gailly J, Wei-Hong Z. Guideline relative to low risk birth. Good clinical practice (GCP). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, et al. Labour induction practices in France: a population-based declarative survey in 94 maternity units. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(2):57–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Déclenchement artificiel du travail à partir de 37 semaines d'aménorrhée; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Federatie Medisch Specialisten. Elective inductie; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. WHO recommendations: Induction of labour at or beyond term; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Pfizer Ltd. Cytotec 200 mcg tablets – summary of product characteristics (SmPC)-(eMC); 2013 [cited 2021 Feb 10]. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/1642/smpc
   Google Scholar
• Weeks A, Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z. Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour. BJOG. 2017;124(11):1642–1645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amini M, Reis M, Wide-Swensson D. A relative bioavailability study of two misoprostol formulations following a single oral or sublingual administration. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfizer Ltd. New Zealand Data Sheet: Cytotec 200 microgram tablets. New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (MEDSAFE); 2019. Available from: https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/Cytotectab.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berard V, Fiala C, Cameron S, et al. Instability of misoprostol tablets stored outside the blister: a potential serious concern for clinical outcome in medical abortion. PLOS One. 2014;9(12):e112401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amini M, Reis M, Wide-Swensson D. A relative bioavailability study of two misoprostol formulations following a single oral or sublingual administration. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1462–1470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson A, Jeppesen S, Krebs L. Induction of labour in nulliparous women-quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agence nationale de sécurité du medicament et des produits de santé. Cytotec (misoprostol): arrêt de commercialisation à compter du 1er mars 2018 – Communiqué; 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 10]. Available from: https://ansm.sante.fr/S-informer/Communiques-Communiques-Points-presse/Cytotec-misoprostol-arret-de-commercialisation-a-compter-du-1er-mars-2018-Communique
   Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Clinical guideline: induction of labour (CG70); 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Dear Doctor Letter (Rote-Hand-Brief) on Cytotec® (misoprostol): risks associated with an off-label use for birth initiation; 2020. Available from: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/Pharmakovigilanz/EN/RHB/2020/rhb-cytotec.pdf;jsessionid=2D391EF527C0DFCC253B8912F668A983.2_cid354?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
   Google Scholar
• Norgine BV. ANGUSTA summary of product characteristics (SmPC); 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 30]. Available from: https://mri.cts-mrp.eu/Human/Downloads/DK_H_2584_001_FinalSPC.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bendix JM, Friis Petersen J, Andersen BR, et al. Induction of labor with high- or low-dosage oral misoprostol–A Danish descriptive retrospective cohort study 2015–16. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(2):222–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmig RB, Hvidman LE. An audit of oral administration of Angusta® (misoprostol) 25 µg for induction of labor in 976 consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy in a University Hospital in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(10):1396–1402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11(1):84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(65):1–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Technische Cel. Nationale Databank Medische Diagnose 2021. Available from: tct.fgov.be/
   Google Scholar
• Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit. Open data from the Dutch Healthcare Authority 2021. Available from: https://www.opendisdata.nl/
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Our reviews 2020 [cited 2020]. Available from: https://pregnancy.cochrane.org/our-reviews
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeJoy SA, Bohl MG, Mahoney K, et al. Estimating the financial impact of reducing primary cesareans. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2020;65(1):56–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran PS, Normand C, Gillen P, et al. Economic implications of reducing caesarean section rates – analysis of two health systems. PLOS One. 2020;15(7):e0228309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ, et al. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 9(9):CD007701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L, et al. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: a national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;187:85–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates R, Cupples G, Scamell A, et al. Women's experiences of induction of labour: qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Midwifery. 2019;69:17–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350(10):h217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vaan MDT, ten Eikelder MLG, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10(10):CD001233.
   Google Scholar
• ScanSante. Stats ATIH 2021. Available from: https://www.scansante.fr/
   Google Scholar
• Norgine. Confidential Market research 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, et al. [Overview of induction of labor practices in France]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47(7–8):555–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar