Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 78, Issue 15, pp 1615–1624 | Cite as

Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert: A Review in Cervical Ripening

  • Matt Shirley
Adis Drug Evaluation
  • 151 Downloads

Abstract

Dinoprostone vaginal insert (Cervidil®; Propess®), a retrievable vaginal pessary containing 10 mg of dinoprostone [prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)] in a controlled-release drug delivery device, is approved in many countries worldwide for the initiation (or continuation) of cervical ripening in patients at term prior to labour induction. The device is designed to provide a constant and sustained release of dinoprostone to the cervix to promote the complex processes involved in cervical ripening. The vaginal insert is attached to a retrieval system that facilitates easy removal of the device at the onset of labour or in the event of complications. The effectiveness of dinoprostone vaginal insert has been demonstrated in a vast range of randomized clinical trials in women at term. The agent is well tolerated, with a generally favourable safety profile, both maternal and foetal/neonatal. As with all prostaglandin agents used in cervical ripening, dinoprostone vaginal insert is associated with a risk of uterine hyperstimulation. However, this is generally rapidly reversible upon removal of the insert. The demonstrated effectiveness and safety of the device, combined with the benefits of controlled drug release from a simple, single application, and efficient dose control, suggest that dinoprostone vaginal insert is a valuable option for promoting cervical ripening in patients with an unfavourable cervix at term.

Notes

Acknowledgements

During the peer review process, the manufacturer of the dinoprostone vaginal insert was also offered an opportunity to review this article. Changes resulting from comments received were made on the basis of scientific and editorial merit.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.

Conflict of interest

Matt Shirley is a salaried employee of Adis/Springer, is responsible for the article content and declares no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. 2011. http://who.int. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  2. 2.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386–97.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burnett JE Jr. Preinduction scoring: an objective approach to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1966;28(4):479–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, et al. SOGC clinical practice guideline: induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(9):840–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(10):2123–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):167–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour: clinical guideline. 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  9. 9.
    Electronic Medicines Compendium. Mysodelle (misoprostol) 200 micrograms vaginal delivery system: summary of product characteristics. 2017. http://www.medicines.org.uk. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  10. 10.
    US FDA. Cytotec® misoprostol tablets: US prescribing information. 2018. http://www.fda.gov. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency. List of nationally authorised medicinal products: misoprostol (gynaecological indication labour induction). 2018. http://www.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  12. 12.
    Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. Cervidil® (dinoprostone vaginal insert): US prescribing information. 2016. http://www.ferringusa.com. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  13. 13.
    European Medicines Agency. List of nationally authorised medicinal products: dinoprostone. 2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  14. 14.
    Electronic Medicines Compendium. Propess (dinoprostone) 10 mg vaginal delivery system: summary of product characterisitics. 2017. http://www.medicines.org.uk. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  15. 15.
    US FDA. Prepidil® gel (dinoprostone cervical gel): US prescribing information. 2017. http://www.fda.gov. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  16. 16.
    Lyrenäs S, Clason I, Ulmsten U. In vivo controlled release of PGE2 from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) during induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108(2):169–78.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goharkhay N, Stanczyk FZ, Gentzschein E, et al. Plasma prostaglandin E2 metabolite levels during labor induction with a sustained-release prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert. J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2000;7(6):338–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goharkhay N, Stanczyk FZ, Zhang L, et al. Plasma progesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and estriol levels during labor induction with a sustained-release prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert. J Matern Fetal Med. 2001;10(3):197–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rayburn WF, Anderson JC, Smith CV, et al. Uterine and fetal Doppler flow changes after intravaginal prostaglandin E2 therapy for cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(1):125–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keskin HL, Kabacaoğlu G, Seçen EI, et al. Effects of intravaginally inserted controlled-release dinoprostone and oxytocin for labor induction on umbilical cord blood gas parameters. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2012;13(4):257–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rayburn WF, Wapner RJ, Barss VA, et al. An intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 pessary for cervical ripening and initiation of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79(3):374–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Witter FR, Mercer BM. Improved intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 insert for cervical ripening at term. J Matern Fetal Med. 1996;5(2):64–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TRB. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(3):830–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wing DA (for the Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Consortium). Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(4):801–12.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Pt 1):201–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(3):612–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanchez-Ramos L, Peterson DE, Delke I, et al. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(3):401–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13(4):254–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bolnick JM, Velazquez MD, Gonzalez JL, et al. Randomized trial between two active labor management protocols in the presence of an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):124–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rouzi AA, Alsibiani S, Mansouri N, et al. Randomized clinical trial between hourly titrated oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(1):56.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang X, Yang A, Ma Q, et al. Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294(3):495–503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):624.e1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thomas J, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, et al. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;19(6):CD003101.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hughes EG, Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J. Dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(5 Pt 2):847–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zeng X, Zhang Y, Tian Q, et al. Efficiency of dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening and induction of labor in women of full-term pregnancy compared with dinoprostone gel: a meta-analysis. Drug Discov Ther. 2015;9(3):165–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Agosti M, et al. Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):338.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Berger JL, et al. Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1280–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):125.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang H, Hong S, Liu Y, et al. Controlled-release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2382–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rugarn O, Tipping D, Powers B, et al. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event. BJOG. 2017;124(5):796–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pevzner L, Alfirevic Z, Powers BL, et al. Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with misoprostol and dinoprostone cervical ripening and labor induction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(2):144–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rath W. A clinical evaluation of controlled-release dinoprostone for cervical ripening—a review of current evidence in hospital and outpatient settings. J Perinat Med. 2005;33(6):491–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, et al. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):261–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hiersch L, Borovich A, Gabbay-Benziv R, et al. Can we predict successful cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal inserts? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(2):343–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Bodea-Braescu AV, et al. Foley catheter for induction of labor: potential barriers to adopting the technique. J Perinatol. 2015;35(12):996–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, et al. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):177–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SpringerAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations