Predictors of response and adherence to enuresis alarm therapy-a confirmatory study.

AIM: To look for predictors to response and adherence to the enuresis alarm while exploring the possibility of families managing therapy independently. METHODS: We used a body-worn alarm linked to a smartphone app. Subjects with enuresis were recruited both via paediatric nurses and independently as families bought the alarm and downloaded the app on their own. RESULTS: We recruited 385 nurse-supported and 1125 independent subjects. Many (79.9%) dropped out before 8 weeks, but among adherent subjects 48.2% had a full or partial response. Age was a predictor of non-response (p = 0.019). Daytime incontinence did not influence response. If enuresis frequency did not decrease during the first 4 weeks of therapy the chance of response was very small (p < 0.001). Adherence was higher among subjects supported by a nurse (p < 0.001), but for adherent subjects the outcome was similar regardless of nurse support (p = 0.554). CONCLUSIONS: Daytime incontinence is no contraindication to enuresis alarm therapy. Treatment can be managed independently by the families, but adherence is enhanced by nurse support. Alarm treatment should be reassessed after 4 weeks. Enuresis alarm treatment guidelines need to be updated.

Predictors of treatment response in therapy-resistant enuresis.

BACKGROUND: The voiding chart is part of the initial evaluation of enuresis, since the data gathered this way are assumed to carry predictive information. However, there is little evidence that the voiding chart actually does predict therapy response. Lundmark & Nevéus performed a pilot investigation in 2020 and found that anamnestic and voiding chart data did not predict response to second-line therapies. This study aims at evaluating whether these findings could be replicated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an evaluation of clinical practice. All patients in a tertiary outpatient clinic with enuresis resistant to first-line therapy (i.e. the enuresis alarm and desmopressin medication) during the evaluation period were included in the study. Baseline anamnestic data focused on bladder and bowel habits, were gathered and the families were instructed to complete a voiding chart including measurements of nocturnal urine production. The children were then treated in accordance with international guidelines, which are anticholinergics and antidepressants as second- and third-line treatment, respectively. Desmopressin was added if needed. RESULTS: In total, 70 patients were included. At the end of the study 37 of these patients were dry, 11 patients were still wetting their beds and 22 patients were lost to follow-up. Of the dry patients 21 became dry on anticholinergics (and/or mirabegron, with or without desmopressin), five on tricyclic antidepressants (with or without desmopressin), seven after a new attempt with the alarm and five became dry spontaneously. The only statistically significant differences between responders and non-responders to the various treatments were that children responsive to anticholinergics had harder and more infrequent stools (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study found that anamnestic and voiding chart data do not predict response to treatment in children with therapy-resistant enuresis. Because of this and the fact that we lose some children who need our help by demanding that they complete a voiding chart before initiating treatment, we question the use of this instrument in the evaluation of therapy-resistant enuresis.

Fecal disimpaction in children with enuresis and constipation does not make them dry at night.

BACKGROUND: Constipation, daytime incontinence and nocturnal enuresis often overlap. Treatment of constipation has been shown to be an important aspect of therapy for children with daytime incontinence. However, the value of fecal disimpaction, as a part of constipation therapy, in children with enuresis has not been evaluated. AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the antienuretic effect of fecal disimpaction in children with enuresis and concomitant constipation. METHODS: The bladder and bowel function was assessed noninvasively in children aged six to ten years who sought help for enuresis for the first time. If they were constipated according to the Rome IV criteria or had a rectal diameter exceeding 30 mm, as assessed by ultrasound, they were given standard evacuation with mini-enemas and macrogol therapy for at least two weeks. Enuresis frequency was documented 14 nights preceding and following therapy. RESULTS: In total, 66 children (20 girls, 46 boys) were evaluated, 23 (35%) of whom were constipated. There were no differences in age, sex or baseline bladder function between the two groups. The enuresis frequency per two weeks was 9.8 ± 4.1 nights before and 9.3 ± 5.1 nights after constipation therapy (p = 0.43). DISCUSSION: This study found that fecal disimpaction in children with enuresis who are also constipated did not alleviate nocturnal enuresis. Bowel problems may still need to be addressed but the child should not be given the false hope that this approach alone will make them dry at night. It might be that evidenced based therapies, such as the enuresis alarm and desmopressin, could be less efficient in children with enuresis and constipation unless their bowel disturbance is first properly addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal disimpaction in children with enuresis and concomitant constipation will, by itself, not make the children dry at night.

Daytime urotherapy in nocturnal enuresis: a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: According to international guidelines, children with enuresis are recommended urotherapy, or basic bladder advice, before treatment with evidence-based alternatives such as the enuresis alarm is given. The efficacy of this strategy has, however, not been supported by controlled studies. We wanted to test if basic bladder advice is useful in enuresis. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Paediatric outpatient ward, regional hospital. PATIENTS: Treatment-naïve enuretic children aged ≥6 years, with no daytime incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Three groups, each during 8 weeks: (A) basic bladder advice-that is, voiding and drinking according to a strict schedule and instructions regarding toilet posture, (B) enuresis alarm therapy and (C) no treatment (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reduction in enuresis frequency during week 7-8 compared with baseline. RESULTS: The median number of wet nights out of 14 before and at the end of treatment were in group A (n=20) 12.5 and 11.5 (p=0.44), in group B (n=22) 11.0 and 3.5 (p<0.001) and in group C (n=18) 12.5 and 12.0 (p=0.55). The difference in reduction of enuresis frequency between the groups was highly significant (p=0.002), but no difference was found between basic bladder advice and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Urotherapy, or basic bladder advice, is ineffective as a first-line treatment of nocturnal enuresis. Enuretic children who are old enough to be bothered by their condition should be offered treatment with the alarm or desmopressin. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03812094.