Longitudinal Fluctuations in Treatment Response After OnabotulinumToxinA and Sacral Neuromodulation for Refractory Urgency Incontinence.

PURPOSE: We compared fluctuations in treatment response after onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation for urgency incontinence using Markov models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We fit data from a randomized trial to Markov models to compare transitions of success/failure over 6 months between 200 U onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation. Objective failure was <50% reduction in urgency incontinence episodes from baseline; subjective failure "strongly disagree" to "neutral" to the Patient Global Symptom Control questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 357 participants (median baseline daily urgency incontinence episodes 4.7 [IQR 3.7-6.0]) 61% vs 51% and 3.2% vs 6.1% reported persistent states of objective success and failure over 6 months after onabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation. Participants receiving onabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation had lower 30-day transition probabilities from objective and subjective success to failure (10% vs 14%, ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.55-0.95]; 14% vs 21%, ratio 0.70 [95% CI 0.51-0.89]). The 30-day transition probability from objective and subjective failure to success did not differ between onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation (40% vs 36%, ratio 1.11 [95% CI 0.73-1.50]; 18% vs 17%, ratio 1.14 [95% CI 0.65-1.64]). CONCLUSIONS: Over 6 months after treatment, 2 in 5 women's symptoms fluctuate. Within these initial 6 months, women receiving onabotulinumtoxinA transitioned from success to failure over 30 days less often than sacral neuromodulation. For both treatments, there was an almost 20%-40% probability over 30 days that women returned to subjective and objective success after failure. Markov models add important information to longitudinal models on how symptoms fluctuate after urgency incontinence treatment.

Intraoperative Predictors of Sacral Neuromodulation Implantation and Treatment Response: Results From the ROSETTA Trial.

PURPOSE: We determined the utility of intraoperative data in predicting sacral neuromodulation outcomes in urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intraoperative details of sacral neuromodulation stage 1 were recorded during the prospective, randomized, multicenter ROSETTA trial, including responsive electrodes, amplitudes, and response strengths (motor and sensory Likert scales). Stage 2 implant was performed for stage 1 success on 3-day diary with 24-month follow-up. An intraoperative amplitude response score for each electrode was calculated ranging from 0 (no response) to 99.5 (maximum response, 0.5 V). Predictors for stage 1 success and improvement at 24 months were identified by stepwise logistic regression confirmed with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and stepwise linear regression. RESULTS: Intraoperative data from 161 women showed 139 (86%) had stage 1 success, which was not associated with number of electrodes generating an intraoperative motor and/or sensory response, average amplitude at responsive electrodes, or minimum amplitude-producing responses. However, relative to other electrodes, a best amplitude response score for bellows at electrode 3 was associated with stage 1 failure, a lower reduction in daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes during stage 1, and most strongly predicted stage 1 outcome in logistic modeling. At 24 months, those who had electrode 3 intraoperative sensory response had lower mean reduction in daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes than those who had no response. CONCLUSIONS: Specific parameters routinely assessed intraoperatively during stage 1 sacral neuromodulation for urgency urinary incontinence show limited utility in predicting both acute and long-term outcomes. However, lead position as it relates to the trajectory of the sacral nerve root appears to be important.

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.