A comparison of sublingual with vaginal administration of misoprostol for induction of labor at term

Monika D. Akare, Purvi K. Patel


Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual route of misoprostol with vaginal route of administration.

Methods: This study was conducted at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College, Baroda, Gujarat, India. 50 cases each with a singleton term pregnancy and a live fetus requiring induction of labor were allocated to sublingual and vaginal administration of misoprostol. Outcome measures related to labor and maternal and fetal side effects were compared between the 2 groups and evaluated using Chi square test and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: The sublingual route of misoprostol was associated with a reduced risk of failed induction, reduced time from initiation to induction, reduced induction to delivery interval and a higher incidence of maternal and fetal side effects. However, the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The sublingual route of administration of misoprostol is comparable in efficacy and safety to the vaginal route for induction.


Induction of labour, Misoprostol, Sublingual

Full Text:



Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Chung Ho P. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum. Reprod. 2002;17(2):332-6.

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho P C. Misoprostol: Pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99:160-7.

Aronsson A, Bygdeman M, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Effects of misoprostol on uterine contractility following different routes of administration. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):81-4.

Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Chung Ho P. Pharmacokinetics of repeated doses of misoprostol. Hum. Reprod. 2009;24(8):1862-9.

Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Nadisauskiene R. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91(1):2-9.

Feitosa FEL, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA Jr, Amorim MMR, Passini R Jr. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91-5.

Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Krikstolaitis R, Gintautas V, Nadisauskiene R. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1431-7.

Nassar AH, Awwad J, Khalil AM, Abu-Musa A, Mehio G, Usta IM. A randomized comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term. BJOG. 2007;114:1215-21.

Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2004;4.Art. No.: CD004221.