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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacral Neuromodulation versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence: Results of the ROSETTA Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection are therapies for refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Sacral neuromodulation involves surgical implantation of a device that can last 4 to 6 years while onabotulinumtoxinA therapy involves serial office injections. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2-stage implantation sacral neuromodulation vs 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrent with the ROSETTA (Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment) randomized trial of 386 women with 6 or more urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a 3-day diary. Analysis is from the health care system perspective with primary within-trial analysis for 2 years and secondary 5-year decision analysis. Costs are in 2018 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reductions in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two-year costs were higher for sacral neuromodulation than for onabotulinumtoxinA ($35,680 [95% CI 33,920-37,440] vs $7,460 [95% CI 5,780-9,150], p <0.01), persisting through 5 years ($36,550 [95% CI 34,787-38,309] vs $12,020 [95% CI 10,330-13,700], p <0.01). At 2 years there were no differences in mean reduction in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day (-3.00 [95% CI -3.38 - -2.62] vs -3.12 [95% CI -3.48 - -2.76], p=0.66) or QALYs (1.39 [95% CI 1.34-1.44] vs 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.45], p=0.60). The probability that sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective relative to onabotulinumtoxinA is less than 0.025 for all willingness to pay values below $580,000 per QALY at 2 years and $204,000 per QALY at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were effective, the high cost of sacral neuromodulation is not good value for treating urgency urinary incontinence compared to 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

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.

Refractory urgency urinary incontinence treatment in women: impact of age on outcomes and complications.

BACKGROUND: Women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence (ie, unresponsive to behavioral and pharmacological interventions) are treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare treatment efficacy and adverse events in women <65 and ≥65 years old treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled community-dwelling women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence to onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation treatments. The primary outcome was a change in mean daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a bladder diary over 6 months. Secondary outcomes included ≥75% urgency urinary incontinence episode reduction, change in symptom severity/quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Both age groups experienced improvement in mean urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day following each treatment. There was no evidence that mean daily urgency urinary incontinence episode reduction differed between age groups for onabotulinumtoxinA (adjusted coefficient, -0.127, 95% confidence interval, -1.233 to 0.979; P = .821) or sacral neuromodulation (adjusted coefficient, -0.698, 95% confidence interval, -1.832 to 0.437; P = .227). Among those treated with onabotulinumtoxinA, women <65 years had 3.3-fold greater odds of ≥75% resolution than women ≥65 years (95% confidence interval, 1.56 -7.02). Women <65 years had a greater reduction in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form symptom bother scores compared with women ≥65 years by 7.49 points (95% confidence interval, -3.23 to -11.74), regardless of treatment group. There was no difference between quality of life improvement by age. Women ≥65 years had more urinary tract infections following onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation (odds ratio, 1.9, 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.3). There was no evidence of age differences in sacral neuromodulation revision/removal or catheterization following onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. CONCLUSION: Younger women experienced greater absolute continence, symptom improvement, and fewer urinary tract infections; both older and younger women had beneficial urgency urinary incontinence episode reduction, similar rates of other treatment adverse events, and improved quality of life.

Improving patient knowledge about sacral nerve stimulation using a patient based educational video.

PURPOSE: We developed a patient based educational video to address the information needs of women considering sacral nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five semistructured focus groups were used to identify patient knowledge gaps, information needs, patient acceptable terminology and video content preferences for a patient based sacral nerve stimulation educational video. Each session was transcribed, independently coded by 2 coders and examined using an iterative method. A 16-minute educational video was created to address previously identified knowledge gaps and information needs using patient footage, 3-dimensional animation and peer reviewed literature. We developed a questionnaire to evaluate participant sacral nerve stimulation knowledge and therapy attitudes. We then performed a randomized trial to assess the effect of the educational video vs the manufacturer video on patient knowledge and attitudes using our questionnaire. RESULTS: We identified 10 patient important domains, including 1) anatomy, 2) expectations, 3) sacral nerve stimulation device efficacy, 4) surgical procedure, 5) surgical/device complications, 6) post-procedure recovery, 7) sacral nerve stimulation side effects, 8) postoperative restrictions, 9) device maintenance and 10) general sacral nerve stimulation information. A total of 40 women with overactive bladder were randomized to watch the educational (20) or manufacturer (20) video. Knowledge scores improved in each group but the educational video group had a greater score improvement (76.6 vs 24.2 points, p <0.0001). Women who watched the educational video reported more favorable attitudes and expectations about sacral nerve stimulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Women with overactive bladder considering sacral nerve stimulation therapy have specific information needs. The video that we developed to address these needs was associated with improved short-term patient knowledge.