Eric Jelovsek J, Markland Alayne D, Whitehead William E, Barber Matthew D, Newman Diane K, Rogers Rebecca G, Dyer Keisha, Visco Anthony, Sung Vivian W, Sutkin Gary, Meikle Susan F, Gantz Marie G
Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Sep;44:164-174. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.08.009. Epub 2015 Aug 18.
The goals of this trial are to determine the efficacy and safety of two treatments for women experiencing fecal incontinence. First, we aim to compare the use of loperamide to placebo and second, to compare the use of anal sphincter exercises with biofeedback to usual care. The primary outcome is the change from baseline in the St. Mark's (Vaizey) Score 24weeks after treatment initiation. As a Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) trial, subjects are enrolling from eight PFDN clinical centers across the United States. A centralized data coordinating center supervises data collection and analysis. These two first-line treatments for fecal incontinence are being investigated simultaneously using a two-by-two randomized factorial design: a medication intervention (loperamide versus placebo) and a pelvic floor strength and sensory training intervention (anal sphincter exercises with manometry-assisted biofeedback versus usual care using an educational pamphlet). Interventionists providing the anal sphincter exercise training with biofeedback have received standardized training and assessment. Symptom severity, diary, standardized anorectal manometry and health-related quality of life outcomes are assessed using validated instruments administered by researchers masked to randomized interventions. Cost effectiveness analyses will be performed using prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization. This article describes the rationale and design of this randomized trial, focusing on specific research concepts of interest to researchers in the field of female pelvic floor disorders and all other providers who care for patients with fecal incontinence.
本试验的目的是确定两种治疗女性大便失禁的方法的疗效和安全性。首先,我们旨在比较洛哌丁胺与安慰剂的使用情况;其次,比较肛门括约肌锻炼结合生物反馈与常规护理的效果。主要结局是治疗开始24周后圣马克(瓦齐)评分相对于基线的变化。作为盆底功能障碍网络(PFDN)的一项试验,研究对象来自美国各地的八个PFDN临床中心。一个集中的数据协调中心监督数据的收集和分析。采用二乘二随机析因设计同时研究这两种大便失禁的一线治疗方法:一种药物干预(洛哌丁胺与安慰剂)和一种盆底力量及感觉训练干预(肛门括约肌锻炼结合测压辅助生物反馈与使用教育手册的常规护理)。提供肛门括约肌锻炼结合生物反馈训练的干预人员已接受标准化培训和评估。症状严重程度、日记、标准化肛门直肠测压以及与健康相关的生活质量结局,使用由对随机干预不知情的研究人员管理的经过验证的工具进行评估。成本效益分析将使用前瞻性收集的护理成本和资源利用数据进行。本文描述了这项随机试验的基本原理和设计,重点关注女性盆底功能障碍领域的研究人员以及所有其他护理大便失禁患者的医疗服务提供者感兴趣的特定研究概念。