Dataset Information

Impact of treatment for fecal incontinence on constipation symptoms.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Andy UU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7242126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence can be treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. Little data exists on the comparative effects of treatment of refractory urgency urinary incontinence on other pelvic floor complaints, such as bowel and sexual function. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to compare the impact of these treatments on fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms. METHODS:This was a planned supplemental analysis of a randomized trial in women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 190) or sacral neuromodulation (n = 174). Fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Fecal incontinence symptoms were measured using the St Mark's (Vaizey) Fecal Incontinence severity scale. Sexual symptoms were measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR). The PISQ-IR allows measurement of sexual symptoms in both sexually active and non-sexually active adults. Primary outcomes were change in Vaizey and PISQ-12 scores between baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were change in PISQ-IR total and subscores between baseline and 6 months and change in Vaizey, PISQ-12, and PISQ-IR scores between baseline and 12 and 24 months. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using repeated measures mixed model to estimate change in all parameters from baseline while adjusting for the baseline score. A subgroup analysis of women with clinically significant bowel symptoms was conducted based on baseline Vaizey score of ?12. RESULTS:At baseline, mean Vaizey scores were indicative of mild fecal incontinence symptoms and were not different between onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups (7.6 ± 5.3 vs 6.6 ± 4.9, P = .07). The proportion of sexually active women (56% vs 63%, P = .25), mean PISQ-12 score (33.4 ± 7.5 vs 32.7 ± 6.7, P = .55), or PISQ-IR subscores were also not different between the onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups at baseline. There was no difference between women treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and those treated with sacral neuromodulation at 6 months in terms of improvement in fecal incontinence symptom score (Vaizey: -1.9, 95% confidence interval -2.6 to -1.2 vs -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.2, P = .07) or sexual symptoms score (PISQ-12: 2.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.7 vs 2.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.7, P = .99). There was no difference in improvement between groups in the sexual symptom subscores in sexually active and non-sexually active women at 6 months. Similar findings were noted at 12 and 24 months. In a subgroup (onabotulinumtoxinA = 33 and sacral neuromodulation = 22) with clinically significant fecal incontinence at baseline (Vaizey score ?12), there was a clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms in both groups from baseline to 6 months, with no difference in improvement between the onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups (-5.1, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -2.8 vs -5.6, 95% confidence interval -8.5 to -2.6, P = .8). CONCLUSION:There were no differences in improvement of fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms in women with urgency urinary incontinence treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. Women with significant fecal incontinence symptoms at baseline had clinically important improvement in symptoms, with no difference between the treatments. Our findings can help clinicians counseling women considering treatment for refractory urgency urinary incontinence.

Project description:PurposeThis systematic review determines the best known form of biofeedback (BF) and/or electrical stimulation (ES) for the treatment of fecal incontinence in adults and rates the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Attention is given to type, strength, and application mode of the current for ES and to safety.MethodsMethods followed the Cochrane Handbook. Randomized controlled trials were included. Studies were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42011001334).ResultsBF and/or ES were studied in 13 randomized parallel-group trials. In 12 trials, at least one therapy group received BF alone and/or in combination with ES, while ES alone was evaluated in seven trials. Three (four) trials were rated as of high (moderate) quality. Average current strength was reported in three of seven studies investigating ES; only two studies reached the therapeutic window. No trial showed superiority of control, or of BF alone or of ES alone when compared with BF + ES. Superiority of BF + ES over any monotherapy was demonstrated in several trials. Amplitude-modulated medium-frequency (AM-MF) stimulation, also termed pre-modulated interferential stimulation, combined with BF was superior to both low-frequency ES and BF alone, and 50 % of the patients were continent after 6 months of treatment. Effects increased with treatment duration. Safety reporting was bad, and there are safety issues with some forms of low-frequency ES.ConclusionsThere is sufficient evidence for the efficacy of BF plus ES combined in treating fecal incontinence. AM-MF plus BF seems to be the most effective and safe treatment.Key messages• The higher the quality of the randomized trial the more likely was a significant difference between treatment groups. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback was used instead of a control, such as pelvic floor exercises. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback plus electrical stimulation was used instead of biofeedback only. • Low-frequency electrical stimulation can have adverse device effects, and this is in contrast to amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation. • There is high quality evidence that amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation plus electromyography biofeedback is the best second-line treatment for fecal incontinence.

Project description:Introduction and hypothesisTo evaluate change in fecal incontinence symptom severity after 8 weeks of darifenacin therapy in patients with double incontinence-urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) and fecal incontinence. Important secondary outcomes included fecal incontinence symptom distress and impact on quality of life, fecal incontinence episodes, global impression of improvement and overactive bladder symptom distress and impact.MethodsProspective open-label cohort study of women presenting primarily with UUI, diagnosed with double incontinence and electing antimuscarinic therapy for UUI. Women ≥ 18 years with moderate or greater bothersome UUI and fecal incontinence of liquid/solid stool with St. Marks (Vaizey) score ≥ 12 were included. Subjects were treated with darifenacin 15 mg daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in fecal incontinence symptom severity using the St. Marks (Vaizey) score after 8 weeks. Sample size was based on the minimally important difference of the St. Marks, -5, and standard deviation, ± 8.5; 30 subjects provided 80% power and type I error of 0.05, including a 15% attrition rate.ResultsThirty-two women were consented with mean baseline St. Marks (Vaizey) score of 18.0 ± 3.0. Mean age was 66.5 ± 10.3 years. Twenty-eight subjects (29/32, 87.5%) completed assessments. St. Marks (Vaizey) score significantly improved from 18.0 to 11.0 [mean difference - 7.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): -8.7, -5.3], and 19 subjects (19/32,67.9%) met the minimally important difference. Statistically significant improvements were also noted in fecal incontinence frequency, quality of life, and overactive bladder symptom bother and quality of life (all p < 0.01).ConclusionsDarifenacin can be considered a highly effective early intervention in women suffering from double incontinence.Clinical trial registrationBladder Antimuscarinic Medication and Accidental Bowel Leakage (BAMA), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03543566 , NCT03543566.