Comparative Study of Oral Misoprostol (Angusta®) Versus Vaginal Dinoprostone (Propess®/Prostin®) for the Induction of Term Labor at EpiCura Hospital. Ath

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol (Angusta®) versus vaginal dinoprostone (Propess®/Prostin®) for induction of labor at term. Methodology: A retrospective descriptive and analytical cohort study conducted over 5 years (January 2020 to December 2024) at the EpiCura hospital, Ath. Eligible patients had term monofoetal pregnancy, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix requiring induction of labor. Data were collected and analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM SPSS 29. Quantitative variables were compared using the Student’s t-test, while qualitative variables were compared using the chi-square test, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Results: Of 3,669 deliveries, 766 induced, representing an induction rate of 20.8%. A total of 684 patients were analyzed: 244 induced with oral misoprostol and 440 with vaginal dinoprostone. Groups were comparable in terms of maternal age, BMI, gravidity, and Bishop score. However, significant differences were observed regarding parity and gestational age, with a higher proportion of primiparous women and prolonged pregnancies in the Propess®/Prostin® group. Prolonged pregnancy was the main indication for induction in both groups. The rate of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly higher with oral misoprostol compared to vaginal dinoprostone (92.6% vs. 70.2%). Cesarean rate, oxytocin use, maternal tolerance, and neonatal outcomes were similar. Conclusion: Oral misoprostol is more effective than vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term, with comparable maternal and neonatal safety.

Carin Glady Kiar Awou and Christian Saurel Kamto Fotso. Comparative Study of Oral Misoprostol (Angusta®) Versus Vaginal Dinoprostone (Propess®/Prostin®) for the Induction of Term Labor at EpiCura Hospital. Ath. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 13 (2026) 42-48, doi: 10.17265/2328-2150/2026.01.004

[1]       Lansac, J. 2012. Pratique de L’accouchement. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier - Health Sciences Division, p. 1.

[2]       Leroy, C., and Van Leeuw, V. 2023. Santé périnatale en Wallonie Année 2022. [cité 24 janv 2025]. Disponible sur: https://www.cepip.be/img/pdf/rapport_CEPIP_Wal_2022-fr.pdf

[3]       European Perinatal Health Report 2010. Euro Peristat. [cité 24 janv 2025]. Disponible sur: https:// www.europeristat.com/publications/european-perinatal-health-report-2010/

[4]       Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 34 (5) - EM consulte [Internet]. Disponible sur: https://www.em-consulte.com/revue/JGYN/34/5/table-des-matieres/

[5]       Elati, A., and Weeks, A. D. 2009. “The use of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynaecology.” BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 116 Suppl 1:61‑9.

[6]       Alfirevic, Z., Aflaifel, N., and Weeks, A. 2014. “Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6, Art. No.: CD001338. Disponible sur: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3/full

[7]       Ehrenthal, D. B., Jiang, X., and Strobino, D. M. 2010. “Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term.” Obstet Gynecol. 116 (1): 35‑42.

[8]       Caughey, A. B., Sundaram, V., Kaimal, A. J., Gienger, A., Cheng, Y. W., and McDonald, K. M. et al. 2009. “Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy.” Ann Intern Med. 151 (4): 252‑63, W53-63.

[9]       Grobman, W. A., Bailit, J., Lai, Y., Reddy, U. M., Wapner, R. J., and Varner, M. W. et al. 2018. “Defining failed induction of labor.” Am J Obstet Gynecol. 218 (1): 122.e1-122.e8.

[10]    Mandruzzato, G., Alfirevic, Z., Chervenak, F., Gruenebaum, A., Heimstad, R., and Heinonen, S. et al. 2010. “Guidelines for the management of postterm pregnancy.” J Perinat Med. 38 (2): 111‑9.

[11]    WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. [cité 13 déc 2025]. Disponible sur: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241501156

[12]    Glantz, J. C. 2005. “Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes.” J Reprod Med. 50 (4): 235‑40.

[13]    Faucett, A. M., Daniels, K., Lee, H. C., El-Sayed, Y. Y., and Blumenfeld, Y. J. 2014. “Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.” J Perinatol Off J Calif Perinat Assoc. 34 (2): 95‑9.

[14]    Hofmeyr, G. J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., and Pileggi, C. 2010. “Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 (10): CD000941.

[15]    Alfirevic, Z., Keeney, E., Dowswell, T., Welton, N. J., Medley, N., and Dias, S. et al. 2016. “Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.” Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 20 (65): 1‑584.

[16]    Ten Eikelder, M. L. G., Oude Rengerink, K., Jozwia, K. M., de Leeuw, J. W., de Graaf, I. M., and van Pampus, M. G. et al. 2016. “Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): A multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.” Lancet Lond Engl. 387 (10028): 1619‑28.

[17]    Alfirevic, Z. 2000. “Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (4): CD001338.

[18]    Morris, J. L., Winikoff, B., Dabash, R., Weeks, A., Faundes, A., and Gemzell-Danielsson, K. et al. 2017. “FIGO’s updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics.” Int J Gynecol Obstet. 138 (3): 363‑6.