Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence in Women: NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is superior to sham stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) in women refractory to first-line treatments. METHODS: Women aged 18 years or older with ≥3 months of moderate-to-severe FI that persisted after a 4-week run-in phase were randomized 2:1 (PTNS:sham stimulation) to 12 weekly 30-minute sessions in this multicenter, single-masked, controlled superiority trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline FI severity measured by St. Mark score after 12 weeks of treatment (range 0-24; minimal important difference, 3-5 points). The secondary outcomes included electronic bowel diary events and quality of life. The groups were compared using an adjusted general linear mixed model. RESULTS: Of 199 women who entered the run-in period, 166 (of 170 eligible) were randomized, (111 in PTNS group and 55 in sham group); the mean (SD) age was 63.6 (11.6) years; baseline St. Mark score was 17.4 (2.7); and recording was 6.6 (5.5) FI episodes per week. There was no difference in improvement from baseline in St. Mark scores in the PTNS group when compared with the sham group (-5.3 vs -3.9 points, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.3 [-2.8 to 0.2]). The groups did not differ in reduction in weekly FI episodes (-2.1 vs -1.9 episodes, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -0.26 [-1.85 to 1.33]). Condition-specific quality of life measures did not indicate a benefit of PTNS over sham stimulation. Serious adverse events occurred in 4% of each group. DISCUSSION: Although symptom reduction after 12 weeks of PTNS met a threshold of clinical importance, it did not differ from sham stimulation. These data do not support the use of PTNS as conducted for the treatment of FI in women.

Comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and injectable bulking agents for treatment of fecal incontinence: Design and methods.

Fecal incontinence (FI), the involuntary passage of stool, is common and can markedly impair the quality of life. Among patients who fail initial options (pads or protective devices, bowel modifying agents, and pelvic floor exercises), the options are pelvic floor biofeedback (BIO), perianal injection with bulking agents (INJ), and sacral nerve electrical stimulation (SNS), which have not been subjected to head-to-head comparisons. This study will compare the safety and efficacy of BIO and INJ for managing FI. The impact of these approaches on quality-of-life and psychological distress, cost effectiveness, and predictors of response to therapy will also be evaluated. Six centers in the United States will enroll approximately 285 patients with moderate to severe FI. Patients who have 4 or more FI episodes over 2 weeks proceed to a 4-week trial of enhanced medical management (EMM) (ie, education, bowel management, and pelvic floor exercises). Thereafter, 194 non-responders as defined by a less than 75% reduction in the frequency of FI will be randomized to BIO or INJ. Three months later, the efficacy, safety, and cost of therapy will be assessed; non-responders will be invited to choose to add the other treatment or SNS for the remainder of the study. Early EMM responders will be re-evaluated 3 months later and non-responders randomized to BIO or INJ. Standardized, and where appropriate validated approaches will be used for study procedures, which will be performed by trained personnel. Prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization will be used for cost effectiveness analyses.

Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Fecal Incontinence in Women: The NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Study.

OBJECTIVES: High-level evidence for second-line noninvasive treatments for fecal incontinence in women is limited. We present the rationale for and design of the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial, a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and validated sham stimulation in women with refractory accidental bowel leakage. METHODS: The rationale and goals for a 2-part study with a run-in phase, use of a generic pulse generator for PTNS and sham stimulation, masking, participant inclusion, primary and secondary outcome measures, and adverse event collection are described. A superiority design will be used to compare change from baseline in St. Mark's score after 12 weekly stimulation sessions between PTNS and sham. Responders to initial treatment (PTNS or sham) will be assigned to scheduled or "as needed" intervention for up to 1 year. Secondary outcome measures include incontinence episodes and other bowel events recorded in a 14-day electronic bowel diary, general and condition-specific quality of life instruments, adaptive behavior, global impression of improvement, symptom control, and sexual function. RESULTS: Sample size calculations determined that 165 participants (110 PTNS and 55 sham) would provide 90% power to detect greater than or equal to 4-point difference between PTNS and sham in change from baseline in St. Mark's score at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The methods for the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial will provide high-level evidence of the effectiveness and optimal maintenance therapy schedule of a low-cost PTNS protocol in community-dwelling women seeking second-line intervention for refractory accidental bowel leakage.

Impact of treatment for fecal incontinence on constipation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Defecatory symptoms, such as a sense of incomplete emptying and straining with bowel movements, are paradoxically present in women with fecal incontinence. Treatments for fecal incontinence, such as loperamide and biofeedback, can worsen or improve defecatory symptoms, respectively. The primary aim of this study was to compare changes in constipation symptoms in women undergoing treatment for fecal incontinence with education only, loperamide, anal muscle exercises with biofeedback or both loperamide and biofeedback. Our secondary aim was to compare changes in constipation symptoms among responders and nonresponders to fecal incontinence treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 first-line therapies for fecal incontinence in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women with at least monthly fecal incontinence and normal stool consistency were randomized to 4 groups: (1) oral placebo plus education only, (2) oral loperamide plus education only, (3) placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and (4) loperamide plus biofeedback. Defecatory symptoms were measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms consists of 12 items that contribute to a global score and 3 subscales: stool characteristics/symptoms (hardness of stool, size of stool, straining, inability to pass stool), rectal symptoms (burning, pain, bleeding, incomplete bowel movement), and abdominal symptoms (discomfort, pain, bloating, cramps). Scores for each subscale as well as the global score range from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (maximum score), with negative change scores representing improvement in defecatory symptoms. Responders to fecal incontinence treatment were defined as women with a minimally important clinical improvement of ≥5 points on the St Mark's (Vaizey) scale between baseline and 24 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using a longitudinal mixed model, controlling for baseline scores, to estimate changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores from baseline through 24 weeks. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, there were small changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms global scores in all 4 groups: oral placebo plus education (-0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1), loperamide plus education (-0.1, 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to0.0), oral placebo plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2), and loperamide plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2). No differences were observed in change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores between women randomized to placebo plus education and those randomized to loperamide plus education (P = .17) or placebo plus biofeedback (P = .82). Change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores in women randomized to combination loperamide plus biofeedback therapy was not different from that of women randomized to treatment with loperamide or biofeedback alone. Responders had greater improvement in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores than nonresponders (-0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.3 vs -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to -0.0, P < .01, mean difference, 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.4). CONCLUSION: Change in constipation symptoms following treatment of fecal incontinence in women are small and are not significantly different between groups. Loperamide treatment for fecal incontinence does not worsen constipation symptoms among women with normal consistency stool. Women with clinically significant improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms report greater improvement in constipation symptoms.

Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Well designed, large comparative effectiveness trials assessing the efficacy of primary interventions for faecal incontinence are few in number. The objectives of this study were to compare different combinations of anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide, education, and oral placebo. METHODS: In this randomised factorial trial, participants were recruited from eight clinical sites in the USA. Women with at least one episode of faecal incontinence per month in the past 3 months were randomly assigned 0·5:1:1:1 to one of four groups: oral placebo plus education only, placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide plus education only, and loperamide plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback. Participants received 2 mg per day of loperamide or oral placebo with the option of dose escalation or reduction. Women assigned to biofeedback received six visits, including strength and sensory biofeedback training. All participants received a standardised faecal incontinence patient education pamphlet and were followed for 24 weeks after starting treatment. The primary endpoint was change in St Mark's (Vaizey) faecal incontinence severity score between baseline and 24 weeks, analysed by intention-to-treat using general linear mixed modelling. Investigators, interviewers, and outcome evaluators were masked to biofeedback assignment. Participants and all study staff other than the research pharmacist were masked to medication assignment. Randomisation took place within the electronic data capture system, was stratified by site using randomly permuted blocks (block size 7), and the sizes of the blocks and the allocation sequence were known only to the data coordinating centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008565. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, 377 women were enrolled, of whom 300 were randomly assigned to placebo plus education (n=42), placebo plus biofeedback (n=84), loperamide plus education (n=88), and the combined intervention of loperamide plus biofeedback (n=86). At 24 weeks, there were no differences between loperamide versus placebo (model estimated score change -1·5 points, 95% CI -3·4 to 0·4, p=0·12), biofeedback versus education (-0·7 points, -2·6 to 1·2, p=0·47), and loperamide and biofeedback versus placebo and biofeedback (-1·9 points, -4·1 to 0·3, p=0·092) or versus loperamide plus education (-1·1 points, -3·4 to 1·1, p=0·33). Constipation was the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event and was reported by two (2%) of 86 participants in the loperamide and biofeedback group and two (2%) of 88 in the loperamide plus education group. The percentage of participants with any serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Only one serious adverse event was considered related to treatment (small bowel obstruction in the placebo and biofeedback group). INTERPRETATION: In women with normal stool consistency and faecal incontinence bothersome enough to seek treatment, we were unable to find evidence against the null hypotheses that loperamide is equivalent to placebo, that anal exercises with biofeedback is equivalent to an educational pamphlet, and that loperamide and biofeedback are equivalent to oral placebo and biofeedback or loperamide plus an educational pamphlet. Because these are common first-line treatments for faecal incontinence, clinicians could consider combining loperamide, anal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and a standard educational pamphlet, but this is likely to result in only negligible improvement over individual therapies and patients should be counselled regarding possible constipation. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health.

An integrated randomized intervention to reduce behavioral and psychosocial risks: pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.

While biomedical risks contribute to poor pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in African American (AA) populations, behavioral and psychosocial risks (BPSR) may also play a part. Among low income AA women with psychosocial risks, this report addresses the impacts on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of an integrated education and counseling intervention to reduce BPSR, as well as the contributions of other psychosocial and biomedical risks. Subjects were low income AA women ≥18 years living in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area and seeking prenatal care. Subjects (n = 1,044) were screened for active smoking, environmental tobacco smoke exposure (ETSE), depression, or intimate partner violence (IPV) and then randomized to intervention (IG) or usual care (UCG) groups. Data were collected prenatally, at delivery, and postpartum by maternal report and medical record abstraction. Multiple imputation methodology was used to estimate missing variables. Rates of pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, live birth, perinatal death), preterm labor, Caesarean section, sexually transmitted infection (STI) during pregnancy, preterm birth (<37 weeks), low birth weight (<2,500 g), very low birth weight (<1,500 g), small for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and >2 days of hospitalization were compared between IG and UCG. Logistic regression models were created to predict outcomes based on biomedical risk factors and the four psychosocial risks (smoking, ETSE, depression, and IPV) targeted by the intervention. Rates of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were high and did not differ significantly between IG and UCG. In adjusted analysis, STI during the current pregnancy was associated with IPV (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.91). Outcomes such as preterm labor, caesarian section in pregnancy and preterm birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, NICU admissions and >2 day hospitalization of the infants were associated with biomedical risk factors including preexisting hypertension and diabetes, previous preterm birth (PTB), and late initiation of prenatal care, but they were not significantly associated with active smoking, ETSE, depression, or IPV. Neither the intervention to reduce BPSR nor the psychosocial factors significantly contributed to the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. This study confirms that biomedical factors significantly contribute to adverse outcomes in low income AA women. Biomedical factors outweighed psychosocial factors in contributing to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in this high-risk population. Early identification and management of hypertension, diabetes and previous PTB in low income AA women may reduce health disparities in birth outcomes. Level of evidence I.