Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE4
108 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-08-12
2023-01-08
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
PROMMO Trial: Oral Misoprostol vs IV Oxytocin
NCT04478942
Tearing of Membranes Before Birth - a Comparison Between Two Ways of Induction of Labor Pitocin Opposite Prostaglandin
NCT02720978
Oxytocin/Foley vs. Oxytocin for Induction in Patients With PPROM
NCT07119398
Labor Induction With Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin in Women With Premature Rupture of Membranes
NCT04143685
Induction of Labor in Pregnant Women With Prelabor Rupture of Membranes - Oxytocin or Misoprostol
NCT05215873
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The optimal method for PROM induction is less clear. Prior literature has examined the use of Pitocin (Oxytocin), vaginal and oral misoprostol, and dinoprost with mixed results. The TermPROM study found an increased risk of chorioamnionitis and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) admission among women treated with vaginal misoprostol for induction.
The postulated link between vaginal misoprostol and chorioamnionitis is the need for vaginal examination for placement of the misoprostol; more vaginal examinations could potentially increase the risk for infection. Utilizing oral misoprostol would eliminate the need for a vaginal exam for administration, thereby potentially mitigating this risk of infection. Currently, vaginal and oral misoprostol as well as oxytocin are used routinely in clinical care based on provider discretion.
Among 7 randomized controlled trials examining the use of oral misoprostol as compared to oxytocin, two found oral misoprostol to result in faster induction to delivery, two found oxytocin to result in faster deliveries, and the remaining three found no difference between the two.3-9 These studies are limited by small sample size, inadequate reporting of patient demographics, varied misoprostol and oxytocin protocols, and inconsistent primary outcomes. Therefore, the utility of oral misoprostol in this population has not been established. Furthermore, its efficacy in specific patient populations is unreported in the literature.
The primary aim of this study is to determine if oxytocin or oral misoprostol results in a shorter interval to delivery after the start of induction among nulliparous women with unfavorable cervical exams with PROM.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Oral Misoprostol
Misoprostol
Oral misoprostol 50 mcg every 4 hours for up to 6 doses or until cervical ripening is no longer indicated
Oxytocin
Oxytocin
IV Oxytocin 2 milliunits (mU)/min, increased by 2mU/min q15 minutes per hospital protocol
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Misoprostol
Oral misoprostol 50 mcg every 4 hours for up to 6 doses or until cervical ripening is no longer indicated
Oxytocin
IV Oxytocin 2 milliunits (mU)/min, increased by 2mU/min q15 minutes per hospital protocol
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* PROM \</= 24 hours with no evidence of labor
* \>/= 36 weeks gestation
* Agreeable to induction of labor
* Nulliparous
* Singleton pregnancy
* Vertex presentation
* Cervical dilation \</=2 cm AND Bishop score \< 8
Exclusion Criteria
* Other contraindication to vaginal delivery
* Intrauterine Fetal Demise
* Major Congenital Anomaly
* Intraamniotic infection diagnosed at time of admission
* 36 weeks - 36 weeks and 6 days with unknown Group B Strep (GBS) status
18 Years
FEMALE
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Pennsylvania
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Lisa Levine
Assistant Professor
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 188: Prelabor Rupture of Membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;131(1):e1-e14. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002455.
Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Myhr TL, Wang EE, Weston JA, Willan AR. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996 Apr 18;334(16):1005-10. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199604183341601.
Al-Hussaini TK, Abdel-Aal SA, Youssef MA. Oral misoprostol vs. intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Jul;82(1):73-5. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(03)00136-x. No abstract available.
Crane JM, Delaney T, Hutchens D. Oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep;189(3):720-4. doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00768-3.
Butt KD, Bennett KA, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for labor induction in term prelabor membrane rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Dec;94(6):994-9. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00423-8.
Ngai SW, Chan YM, Lam SW, Lao TT. Labour characteristics and uterine activity: misoprostol compared with oxytocin in women at term with prelabour rupture of the membranes. BJOG. 2000 Feb;107(2):222-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11693.x.
Mozurkewich E, Horrocks J, Daley S, Von Oeyen P, Halvorson M, Johnson M, Zaretsky M, Tehranifar M, Bayer-Zwirello L, Robichaux A 3rd, Droste S, Turner G; MisoPROM study. The MisoPROM study: a multicenter randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for premature rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;189(4):1026-30. doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00845-7.
Mbaluka CM, Kamau K, Karanja JG, Mugo N. EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF 2-HOURLY 20 MCG ORAL MISOPROSTOL SOLUTION COMPARED TO STANDARD INTRAVENOUS OXYTOCIN IN LABOUR INDUCTION DUE TO PRE-LABOUR RUPTURE OF MEMBRANES AT TERM: A RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL AT KENYATTA NATIONAL HOSPITAL. East Afr Med J. 2014 Sep;91(9):303-10.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
833536
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.