CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR DINOPROSTONE
✉ Email this page to a colleague
All Clinical Trials for dinoprostone
| Trial ID | Title | Status | Sponsor | Phase | Start Date | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00140114 ↗ | Sublingual Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term | Completed | American University of Beirut Medical Center | Phase 3 | 2004-01-01 | Misoprostol (Cytotec®) is a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analog that has been marketed in the United States since 1988 as a gastric cytoprotective agent. In contradistinction to prostaglandin E2 preparations (dinoprostone, Prepidil, Cervidil), misoprostol is inexpensive and available in scored tablets that can be broken and inserted vaginally. Despite a focused campaign by the manufacturer to curtail its use in obstetric practice, misoprostol has, over the past several years, gained widespread acceptance as both a labor induction and a cervical ripening agent. Such off-label indication has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical bodies. Recently, FDA approved a new label for the use of cytotec during pregnancy which removed pregnancy as a contraindication for its use. Vaginal administration seems to be more efficacious than when given orally, although there is the worry of uterine tachysystole and hyperstimulation with vaginal doses > 50-µg. The use of sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening at term was recently investigated in two studies that compared it to the oral route, on the assumption that the sublingual route would have the higher efficacy of the vaginal route by avoiding the first pass effects of the gastrointestinal and hepatic systems, while having lower hyperstimulation rates by avoiding the direct effects on the cervix. In addition, the sublingual route would combine an easier administration with the added advantage of no restriction of mobility after administration. There has been no previous report in the literature comparing the use of misoprostol given sublingually to that given vaginally for the induction of labor at term. Our aim is to compare efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with misoprostol given vaginally (the current standard) to that given sublingually. |
| NCT00148473 ↗ | Oral Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labor | Completed | Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Medical College and Vajira Hospital | Phase 2/Phase 3 | 2000-03-01 | The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy between a single dose of oral misoprostol 100 microgram and vaginal misoprostol 50 microgram for induction of labor. |
| NCT00299754 ↗ | Trial Of Misoprostol And Dinoprostone Vaginal Pessaries for Cervical Priming (TROMAD Study) | Completed | National Healthcare Group, Singapore | Phase 3 | 2003-01-01 | Most studies of labour induction with misoprostol used doses higher than 25mg and intervals of 3-4 hours. We studied a low-dose regime of 25mg misoprostol and compared its efficacy as single dose or double dose with dosing interval of 6 hours to our current regime of 3 mg dinoprostone pessary. |
| >Trial ID | >Title | >Status | >Sponsor | >Phase | >Start Date | >Summary |
Clinical Trial Conditions for dinoprostone
Condition Name
Clinical Trial Locations for dinoprostone
Trials by Country
Clinical Trial Progress for dinoprostone
Clinical Trial Phase
Clinical Trial Sponsors for dinoprostone
Sponsor Name
