Milena M Weinstein1, Sarah Collins2, Lieschen Quiroz3, Jennifer T Anger4, Marie Fidela R Paraiso5, Jessica DeLong6, Holly E Richter7. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK. 4. Department of Urology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Cleveland Clinic, Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland, OH. 6. Department of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. 7. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of an intravaginal motion-based digital therapeutic device for pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) was superior to PFMT alone in women with stress-predominant urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: A multicenter, randomized-controlled trial was conducted where women with SUI or SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence were treated with either PFMT using the device (intervention group) or PFMT alone (control group). Primary outcomes, measured at 8 weeks, included change in Urinary Distress Inventory, short-version and improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, defined as "much better" or "very much better." Participants also completed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Colorectal-anal Distress Inventories, Pelvic-Floor-Impact Questionnaire and a 3-day bladder diary. Primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach. Statistical analysis used Student t test and χ2 test. The trial was prematurely halted due to device technical considerations. RESULTS: Seventy-seven women were randomized, and final analysis included 61 participants: 29 in intervention and 32 in control group. There was no statistical difference in Urinary Distress Inventory, short-version scores between the intervention (-13.7 ± 18.7) and the control group (-8.7 ± 21.8; P = 0.85), or in Patient Global Impression of Improvement (intervention 51.7% and control group 40.6%; P = 0.47). Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Colorectal-anal Distress Inventories and Pelvic-Floor-Impact Questionnaire scores improved significantly more in the intervention group than the control group (all P < 0.05). Median number of SUI episodes decreased from baseline to 8 weeks by -1.7 per-day [(-3)-0] in the intervention group and -0.7[(-1)-0] in the control group, (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In this prematurely terminated trial, there were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes; however, PFMT with this digital therapeutic device resulted in significantly fewer SUI episodes and greater improvement in symptom-specific quality of life outcomes. A larger powered trial is underway.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of an intravaginal motion-based digital therapeutic device for pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) was superior to PFMT alone in women with stress-predominant urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: A multicenter, randomized-controlled trial was conducted where women with SUI or SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence were treated with either PFMT using the device (intervention group) or PFMT alone (control group). Primary outcomes, measured at 8 weeks, included change in Urinary Distress Inventory, short-version and improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, defined as "much better" or "very much better." Participants also completed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Colorectal-anal Distress Inventories, Pelvic-Floor-Impact Questionnaire and a 3-day bladder diary. Primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach. Statistical analysis used Student t test and χ2 test. The trial was prematurely halted due to device technical considerations. RESULTS: Seventy-seven women were randomized, and final analysis included 61 participants: 29 in intervention and 32 in control group. There was no statistical difference in Urinary Distress Inventory, short-version scores between the intervention (-13.7 ± 18.7) and the control group (-8.7 ± 21.8; P = 0.85), or in Patient Global Impression of Improvement (intervention 51.7% and control group 40.6%; P = 0.47). Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Colorectal-anal Distress Inventories and Pelvic-Floor-Impact Questionnaire scores improved significantly more in the intervention group than the control group (all P < 0.05). Median number of SUI episodes decreased from baseline to 8 weeks by -1.7 per-day [(-3)-0] in the intervention group and -0.7[(-1)-0] in the control group, (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In this prematurely terminated trial, there were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes; however, PFMT with this digital therapeutic device resulted in significantly fewer SUI episodes and greater improvement in symptom-specific quality of life outcomes. A larger powered trial is underway.