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


METHODS
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.


CONCLUSIONS
Misoprostol is more cost-effective than the comparable commercial dinoprostone prostaglandin preparations as an adjuvant to labor induction in women with an unfavorable cervix.
Ramsey
Patrick S
PS
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 35249, USA. ramsey_patrick@hotmail.com
Harris
Denise Y
DY
Ogburn
Paul L
PL
Heise
Robert H
RH
Magtibay
Paul M
PM
Ramin
Kirk D
KD
D020070:Cervical Ripening; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D015232:Dinoprostone / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D016527:Drug Costs; D005260:Female; D005782:Gels; D006801:Humans; D007751:Labor, Induced; D016595:Misoprostol / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010120:Oxytocics / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011247:Pregnancy
D005782:Gels; D010120:Oxytocics; D016595:Misoprostol; D015232:Dinoprostone