DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20211114

A retrospective, observational, real-world evidence study to understand the clinical and obstetric characteristics and tolerability profile of women in labor managed with camylofin dihydrochloride injection

Vinita K. Taneja, Milind A. Telang

Abstract


Background: To determine the clinical and obstetric characteristics and tolerability profile of pregnant women in the active phase of labor who were managed with Camylofin dihydrochloride injection.

Methods: Retrospective data of 210 full-term pregnant women in the active phase of labor who were managed with Camylofin injection doses of 50 mg, 50+25 mg and 50+50 mg were considered in the study. The comparative effectiveness of 3 doses was evaluated using independent T-test and ANOVA at 5% level of significance.

Results: The overall mean maternal age was 25.4 (±4.14) years with mean gestational age of 38.8 (±1.04) weeks. In total, 77.1% (n=162) of patients needed 50 mg dose of Camylofin injection for adequate cervical dilatation, and additional doses of 25 mg or 50 mg were required in 16.7% (n=35) and 6.2% (n=13), of patients, respectively to accelerate the labor. The mean cervical dilatation rates increasing dose viz 2.8 cm/hr, 4.1 cm/hr and 2.9 cm/hr, respectively. The adverse events were 14.8% (n=23) in 50 mg arm, 34.3% (n=12) in 50+25 arm and 69.0% (n=9) in 50+50 arm. Of the total, 34 events (50.0%) were related to Camylofin dihydrochloride injection, i.e. ADRs.

The means of cervical dilation rate, active phase duration and total duration of labor were statistically significant (p-value <0.001) for 50 mg versus 50+25 mg.

Conclusions: The study infers Camylofin injection usage with consideration of dose escalation in the routine clinical management of labor. Both mother and neonate had shown comparable tolerability profile across the three dosage arms with minimal events.


Keywords


Real-world evidence, Camylofin, Labor management, Patient outcomes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Sarbhjit K, Bajwa SK, Parmjit K, Surinder B. To compare the effect of camylofin dihydrochloride (Anafortin) with combination of valethamate bromide (epidosin) and hyoscine butyl-n-bormide (buscopan) on cervical dilation. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7:1897-99.

Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Parturition. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd Edition, New York: McGraw Hill Medical 2010;136-60.

Nyfløt LT, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Vangen S. Duration of labor and the risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage: A case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0175306.

Ranjana, Sinha A. Incidence, causes and feto-maternal outcomes of obstructed labour in a tertiary health care centre. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:2817-21.

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e323-33.

Roos N, von Xylander SR. Why do maternal and newborn deaths continue to occur? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36:30-44.

Adhikari SM, Dasgupta M. Management of obstructed labour: A retrospective study. Journal Obs Gyna Ind. 2005;55(1):48-51.

Devi R, Andallu R, Laxmi DP, Sundari MT. A clinical study of prolonged pregnancies with regard to maternal and perinatal outcome. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2016;15:31-4.

Rohwer AC, Khondowe O, Young T. Antispasmodics for labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD009243.

Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;9:CD004907.

Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995;38:267-79.

Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Malinow AM, Saade GR, Garfield RE, Weiner CP. The forces of labour. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 2003;14:273-307.

Samuels L. Pharmacotherapy update: hyoscine butylbromide in the treatment of abdominal spasms. Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics 2009;1:647-55.

Mayadeo N, Gangadhar A, Das S. Camylofin in the management of prolonged labor: a review of evidence. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:776-780.

Warke HS, Chauhan AR, Raut VERSUS, Ingle KM. Effectivness of camylofin dihydrochloride in acceleration of labour. A randomised double blind trial. Bombay Hospital J. 2003;45:420-423.

Dayama SS, Patil SS, Sambarey PW. A randomised controlled study of intramuscular camylofin dihydrochloride versus intravenous hyoscine butylbromide in augmentation of labour. Global J Med Res: Gynecol Obstet. 2016;16:1-6.

Rajani U, Binu P. A randomized comparative study of intramuscular camylofin dihydrochloride and intravenous drotaverine hydrochloride on cervical dilatation in labor. Indian J Clinical Practice. 2015;26:558-563.

Brock N. Pharmacology of Avacan. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1951;76:474-477.

Murano T, Yamane K. A study of metabolism of Isoamyl-alpa-N(beta-diethylaminoethyl)Aminophenylacetate – (Avacan). Jpn J Pharmacol. 1956;5:122-131.

Daftary SN, Desai SV. Selected Topics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology-1 for Postgraduates and Practitioners. 1st Edition, New Delhi, Bi Publications Pvt Ltd. 2007.

Padubidri VG, Daftary SN. Hawkins and Bourne Shaw's Textbook of Gynecology E-Book. 16th Edition, New Delhi, Elsevier India Private Limited. 2015;472.

Salhan S, Textbook of Obstetrics. 2nd Edition, New Delhi, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. 2016; 250.

Malhotra N, Puri R, Malhotra J, Singh KN. Operative Obstetrics and Gynecology. New Delhi, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. 2014;185.

Pramod TK. Best Aid to Gynecology. First Edition, New Delhi, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. 2013;257.

Arvind Rao K. Textbook of Gynaecology. First Edition, New Delhi, Elsevier India Private Limited. 2008;42

Daftary SN, Desai SV, Thanawala U, Bhinde A, Levi J, Patki A, et al. Programmed Labor: Indegenous protocol to optimize labor outcome. South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009;1:61-4.

Bachani S, Topden S. Active management of labor in a low-resource setting and its impact on cesarean section rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:54-5.