Cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence

Baiona's Consensus Statement for Fecal Incontinence. Spanish Association of Coloproctology

Faecal incontinence (FI) is a major health problem, both for individuals and for health systems. It is obvious that, for all these reasons, there is widespread concern for healing it or, at least, reducing as far as possible its numerous undesirable effects, in addition to the high costs it entails. There are different criteria for the diagnostic tests to be carried out and the same applies to the most appropriate treatment, among the numerous options that have proliferated in recent years, not always based on rigorous scientific evidence. For this reason, the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) proposed to draw up a consensus to serve as a guide for all health professionals interested in the problem, aware, however, that the therapeutic decision must be taken on an individual basis: patient characteristics/experience of the care team. For its development it was adopted the Nominal Group Technique methodology. The Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were established according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In addition, expert recommendations were added briefly to each of the items analysed.

Is percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) effective for fecal incontinence (FI) in adults compared with sham electrical stimulation? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacral nerve neuromodulation (SNM) has been considered the optimal second-line treatment for fecal incontinence (FI). However, SNM involves high cost and requires highly skilled operators. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) has emerged as an alternative treatment modality for FI, yielding varying clinical outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PTNS compared to sham electrical stimulation for FI.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from May 12, 2012 to May 12, 2022.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled studies were included in this review, involving a total of 439 adult patients with FI (300 in the PTNS group and 194 in the sham electrical stimulation group). Our meta-analysis revealed that PTNS demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing weekly episodes of FI compared to the control groups (MD - 1.6, 95% CI - 2.94 to - 0.26, p = 0.02, I2 = 30%). Furthermore, a greater proportion of patients in the PTNS group reported more than a 50% reduction in FI episodes per week (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.94, p = 0.02, I2 = 6%). However, no significant differences were observed in any domains of the FI Quality of Life (QoL) and St Mark's incontinence scores (MD - 2.41, 95% CI - 5.1 to 0.27, p = 0.08, I2 = 67%). Importantly, no severe adverse events related to PTNS were reported in any of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that PTNS was more effective than sham stimulation in reducing FI episodes and led to a higher proportion of patients reporting more than a 50% reduction in weekly FI episodes.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence as compared with symptomatic management.

METHODS

In the public health field, a micro-costing evaluation method was conducted from the perspectives of the health system and the society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used as a decision index, and we considered various scenarios to evaluate the impact of the cost of symptomatic management and percutaneous nerve evaluation success rate in its calculation. Clinical data were retrieved from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients with severe faecal incontinence undergoing sacral neuromodulation after a failure of conservative (pharmacological and biofeedback) and/or surgical (sphincteroplasty) first-line treatments were considered.

RESULTS

The long-term incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing sacral neuromodulation versus symptomatic management was 14347€/QALY and 28523€/QALY from the societal and health service provider's perspectives, respectively. If the definitive pulse generator implant success rate was 100%, incremental cost-effectiveness would correspond to 6831€/QALY and 16761€/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacral neuromodulation may be considered a cost-effective technique in the long-term treatment of severe faecal incontinence from the societal and health care sector perspectives. Improving patient selection and determining the predictive outcome factors for successful sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence would improve cost-effectiveness.

Faecal incontinence is associated with an impaired rectosigmoid brake and improved by sacral neuromodulation

BACKGROUND

The rectosigmoid brake, characterised by retrograde cyclic motor patterns on high-resolution colonic manometry, has been postulated as a contributor to the maintenance of bowel continence. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an effective therapy for faecal incontinence, but its mechanism of action is unclear. This study aims to investigate the colonic motility patterns in the distal colon of patients with faecal incontinence, and how these are modulated by SNM.

METHODS

A high-resolution fibreoptic colonic manometry catheter, containing 36 sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals, was positioned in patients with faecal incontinence undergoing stage 1 SNM. One hour of pre- and post meal recordings were obtained followed by pre- and post meal recordings with suprasensory SNM. A 700-kcal meal was given. Data were analysed to identify propagating contractions.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with faecal incontinence were analysed. Patients had an abnormal meal response (fewer retrograde propagating contractions compared to controls; p = 0.027) and failed to show a post meal increase in propagating contractions (mean 17 ± 6/h premeal vs. 22 ± 9/h post meal, p = 0.438). Compared to baseline, SNM significantly increased the number of retrograde propagating contractions in the distal colon (8 ± 3/h premeal vs. 14 ± 3/h premeal with SNM, p = 0.028). Consuming a meal did not further increase the number of propagating contractions beyond the baseline upregulating effect of SNM.

CONCLUSION

The rectosigmoid brake was suppressed in this cohort of patients with faecal incontinence. SNM may exert a therapeutic effect by modulating this rectosigmoid brake.

Economic burden of long-term treatment of severe fecal incontinence

INTRODUCTION

Find out the long-term economic cost associated with the treatment of severe fecal incontinence by SNS versus symptomatic conservative treatment and definitive colostomy.

METHODS

Detailed descriptive study of the costs of the healthcare process (interventions, consultations, devices, complementary tests, hospitalization, etc.) of 3 treatment alternatives for fecal incontinence using analytical accounting tools of the Health Service based on clinical activity data. The frequency of use of health resources or the quantity of products dispensed in pharmacies (medication, diapers, ostomy material, etc.) was estimated in each case. Costs derived from adverse situations were included. Patients with severe fecal incontinence, defined by a score greater than 9 on the Wexner severity scale, in whom first-line treatments had failed, were included. Data from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients who underwent an SNS between 2002 and 2016 were used; patients who underwent definitive colostomy (n=2); parastomal hernia (n=3); and colostomy stenosis (n=1).

RESULTS

The mean cumulative cost in 10 years per patient in each alternative was: € 10,972.9 symptomatic treatment (62% diapers); € 17,351.57 SNS (95.83% interventions; 81.6% devices); € 25,858.54 definitive colostomy (70.4% ostomy material and accessories).

CONCLUSIONS

Management of severe fecal incontinence implies a great burden in economic terms. The colostomy is the alternative that generates the most direct cost, followed by SNS and symptomatic treatment.

Economic burden of long-term treatment of severe fecal incontinence

INTRODUCTION

Find out the long-term economic cost associated with the treatment of severe fecal incontinence by SNS versus symptomatic conservative treatment and definitive colostomy.

METHODS

Detailed descriptive study of the costs of the healthcare process (interventions, consultations, devices, complementary tests, hospitalization, etc.) of 3 treatment alternatives for fecal incontinence using analytical accounting tools of the Health Service based on clinical activity data. The frequency of use of health resources or the quantity of products dispensed in pharmacies (medication, diapers, ostomy material, etc.) was estimated in each case. Costs derived from adverse situations were included. Patients with severe fecal incontinence, defined by a score greater than 9 on the Wexner severity scale, in whom first-line treatments had failed, were included. Data from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients who underwent an SNS between 2002 and 2016 were used; patients who underwent definitive colostomy (n=2); parastomal hernia (n=3), and colostomy stenosis (n=1).

RESULTS

The mean cumulative cost in 10 years per patient in each alternative was: € 10,972.9 symptomatic treatment (62% diapers); € 17,351.57 SNS (95.83% interventions; 81.6% devices); € 25,858.54 definitive colostomy (70.4% ostomy material and accessories).

CONCLUSIONS

Management of severe fecal incontinence implies a great burden in economic terms. The colostomy is the alternative that generates the most direct cost, followed by SNS and symptomatic treatment.

Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence: the SaFaRI RCT

BACKGROUND

Preliminary studies using the FENIX™ (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) magnetic sphincter augmentation device suggest that it is safe to use for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence, but efficacy data are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicentre, parallel-group, unblinded, randomised trial comparing FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation in participants suffering moderate to severe faecal incontinence.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised on an equal basis to either sacral nerve stimulation or FENIX. Follow-up occurred 2 weeks postoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomisation.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

The primary outcome was success, defined as device in use and ≥ 50% improvement in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Between 30 October 2014 and 23 March 2017, 99 participants were randomised across 18 NHS sites (50 participants to FENIX vs. 49 participants to sacral nerve stimulation). The median time from randomisation to FENIX implantation was 57.0 days (range 4.0-416.0 days), and the median time from randomisation to permanent sacral nerve stimulation was 371.0 days (range 86.0-918.0 days). A total of 45 out of 50 participants underwent FENIX implantation and 29 out of 49 participants continued to permanent sacral nerve stimulation. The following results are reported, excluding participants for whom the corresponding outcome was not evaluable. Overall, there was success for 10 out of 80 (12.5%) participants, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups [FENIX 6/41 (14.6%) participants vs. sacral nerve stimulation 4/39 (10.3%) participants]. At least one postoperative complication was experienced by 33 out of 45 (73.3%) participants in the FENIX group and 9 out of 40 (22.5%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group. A total of 15 out of 50 (30%) participants in the FENIX group ultimately had to have their device explanted. Slightly higher costs and quality-adjusted life-years (incremental = £305.50 and 0.005, respectively) were observed in the FENIX group than in the sacral nerve stimulation group. This was reversed over the lifetime horizon (incremental = -£1306 and -0.23 for costs and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively), when sacral nerve stimulation was the optimal option (net monetary benefit = -£3283), with only a 45% chance of FENIX being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The SaFaRI study was terminated in 2017, having recruited 99 participants of the target sample size of 350 participants. The study is, therefore, substantially underpowered to detect differences between the treatment groups, with significant uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The SaFaRI study revealed inefficiencies in the treatment pathways for faecal incontinence, particularly for sacral nerve stimulation. The success of both FENIX and sacral nerve stimulation was much lower than previously reported, with high postoperative morbidity in the FENIX group.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is needed to clarify the treatment pathways for sacral nerve stimulation and to determine its true clinical and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16077538.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A novel combined anorectal biofeedback and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation protocol for treating fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a common, debilitating condition that causes major impact on quality of life for those affected. Non-surgical treatment options include anorectal biofeedback therapy (BF) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), usually performed separately. The aims of the current study were to determine the feasibility, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of performing a combined BF and PTNS treatment protocol.

METHODS

Female patients with urge FI were offered a novel pilot program combining BF with PTNS. The treatment protocol consisted of 13 weekly sessions: an educational session, followed by 5 combined BF and PTNS sessions, 6 PTNS and a final combined session. Anorectal physiology and clinical outcomes were assessed throughout the program. For efficacy, patients were compared with BF only historical FI patients matched for age, parity, and severity of symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 12/13 (93%) patients completed the full program. Overall attendance rate was 93% (157/169 sessions). Patient comfort score with treatment was rated high at 9.8/10 (SD 0.7) for PTNS and 8.6/10 (SD 1.7) for the BF component. No major side effects were reported. A reduction of at least 50% in FI episodes/week was achieved by 58% of patients by visit 6, and 92% by visit 13. No physiology changes were evident immediately following PTNS compared with before, but pressure during sustained anal squeeze improved by the end of the treatment course. Comparing outcomes with historical matched controls, reductions in weekly FI episodes were more pronounced in the BF only group at visit 6, but not week 13.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, concurrent PTNS and anorectal biofeedback therapy has been shown to be feasible, comfortable, and low risk. The combined protocol is likely to be an effective treatment for FI, but future research could focus on optimizing patient selection.