Literature DB >> 31895722

Characteristics Associated With Clinically Important Treatment Responses in Women Undergoing Nonsurgical Therapy for Fecal Incontinence.

Holly E Richter1, J E Jelovsek2, P Iyer3, R G Rogers4,5, I Meyer1, D K Newman6, M S Bradley7, I Harm-Ernandes8, K Y Dyer9, K Wohlrab10, D Mazloomdoost11, M G Gantz3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify baseline clinical and demographic characteristics associated with clinically important treatment responses in a randomized trial of nonsurgical therapies for fecal incontinence (FI).
METHODS: Women (N = 296) with FI were randomized to loperamide or placebo- and manometry-assisted biofeedback exercises or educational pamphlet in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Treatment response was defined in 3 ways from baseline to 24 weeks: minimal clinically important difference (MID) of -5 points in St. Mark's score, ≥50% reduction in FI episodes, and combined St. Mark's MID and ≥50% reduction FI episodes. Multivariable logistic regression models included baseline characteristics and treatment groups with and without controlling for drug and exercise adherence.
RESULTS: Treatment response defined by St. Mark's MID was associated with higher symptom severity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.28) and being overweight vs normal/underweight (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.07-4.34); these predictors remained controlling for adherence. Fifty percent reduction in FI episodes was associated with the combined loperamide/biofeedback group compared with placebo/pamphlet (aOR 4.04, 95% CI 1.36-11.98), St. Mark's score in the placebo/pamphlet group (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.65), FI subtype of urge vs urge plus passive FI (aOR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09-5.25), and passive vs urge plus passive FI (aOR 3.26, 95% CI 1.48-7.17). Controlling for adherence, associations remained, except St. Mark's score. DISCUSSION: Higher severity of FI symptoms, being overweight, drug adherence, FI subtype, and combined biofeedback and medication treatment were associated with clinically important treatment responses. This information may assist in counseling patients, regarding efficacy and expectations of nonsurgical treatments of FI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31895722      PMCID: PMC7197976          DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000482

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   12.045


  30 in total

1.  The digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS).

Authors:  Bruce A Orkin; Svetlana B Sinykin; Patricia C Lloyd
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.585

2.  Validity and reliability of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire in assessing patients with fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Soo Kwon; Anthony G Visco; Mary P Fitzgerald; Wen Ye; William E Whitehead
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems.

Authors:  C J Vaizey; E Carapeti; J A Cahill; M A Kamm
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time.

Authors:  S J Lewis; K W Heaton
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Faecal incontinence 20 years after one birth: a comparison between vaginal delivery and caesarean section.

Authors:  Maria Gyhagen; Maria Bullarbo; Thorkild F Nielsen; Ian Milsom
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  A data-based approach to diet questionnaire design and testing.

Authors:  G Block; A M Hartman; C M Dresser; M D Carroll; J Gannon; L Gardner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 7.  Fecal incontinence: the role of the urologist.

Authors:  C A Unger; H B Goldman; J E Jelovsek
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Biofeedback for fecal incontinence: short-term outcomes of 513 consecutive patients and predictors of successful treatment.

Authors:  Christopher M Byrne; Michael J Solomon; Jane M Young; Jenny Rex; Christine L Merlino
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Inconclusive psychometric properties of the Vaizey score in fecally incontinent patients: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Esther M J Bols; Erik J M Hendriks; Marije Deutekom; Bary C M Berghmans; Cor G M I Baeten; Rob A de Bie
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.696

Review 10.  Fecal Incontinence: Community Prevalence and Associated Factors--A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kheng-Seong Ng; Yogeesan Sivakumaran; Natasha Nassar; Marc A Gladman
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Faecal incontinence in adults.

Authors:  Adil E Bharucha; Charles H Knowles; Isabelle Mack; Allison Malcolm; Nicholas Oblizajek; Satish Rao; S Mark Scott; Andrea Shin; Paul Enck
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 65.038

2.  Characterization of symptom severity and impact on four fecal incontinence phenotypes in women presenting for evaluation.

Authors:  Tanya P Hoke; Isuzu Meyer; Christina T Blanchard; Jeff M Szychowski; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.696

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.