Intrarectal Electromotive Botulinum Toxin Type A Administration in Children With Intractable Constipation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Treatments for intractable constipation in childhood

BACKGROUND

Constipation that is prolonged and does not resolve with conventional therapeutic measures is called intractable constipation. The treatment of intractable constipation is challenging, involving pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies, as well as surgical approaches. Unresolved constipation can negatively impact quality of life, with additional implications for health systems. Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify treatments that are efficacious and safe.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments used for intractable constipation in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 23 June 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies for relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or surgical treatment to placebo or another active comparator, in participants aged between 0 and 18 years with functional constipation who had not responded to conventional medical therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were symptom resolution, frequency of defecation, treatment success, and adverse events; secondary outcomes were stool consistency, painful defecation, quality of life, faecal incontinence frequency, abdominal pain, hospital admission for disimpaction, and school absence. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 RCTs with 1278 children who had intractable constipation. We assessed one study as at low risk of bias across all domains. There were serious concerns about risk of bias in six studies. One study compared the injection of 160 units botulinum toxin A (n = 44) to unspecified oral stool softeners (n = 44). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 37.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.31 to 257.94; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Frequency of defecation was reported only for the botulinum toxin A injection group (mean interval of 2.6 days). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared erythromycin estolate (n = 6) to placebo (n = 8). The only primary outcome reported was adverse events, which were 0 in both groups. The evidence is of very low certainty due to concerns with risk of bias and serious imprecision. One study compared 12 or 24 μg oral lubiprostone (n = 404) twice a day to placebo (n = 202) over 12 weeks. There may be little to no difference in treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.92; low certainty evidence). We also found that lubiprostone probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared three-weekly rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas (n = 51) to 0.5 g/kg/day polyethylene glycol laxatives (n = 51) over a 52-week period. We are very uncertain whether rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas improve treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.14; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Results of defecation frequency per week was reported only as modelled means using a linear mixed model. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared biofeedback therapy (n = 12) to no intervention (n = 12). We are very uncertain whether biofeedback therapy improves symptom resolution (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.79; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 20 minutes of intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A using 2800 Hz frequency and botulinum toxin A dose 10 international units/kg (n = 30) to 10 international units/kg botulinum toxin A injection (n = 30). We are very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A improves symptom resolution (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22; very low certainty evidence) or if it increases the frequency of defecation (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.87; very low certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A has an improved safety profile (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; very low certainty evidence). The evidence for these results is of very low certainty due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision. The study did not report data on treatment success. One study compared the injection of 60 units botulinum toxin A (n = 21) to myectomy of the internal anal sphincter (n = 21). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were recorded. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 0.04 mg/kg oral prucalopride (n = 107) once daily to placebo (n = 108) over eight weeks. Oral prucalopride probably results in little or no difference in defecation frequency (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.06; moderate certainty evidence); treatment success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72; moderate certainty evidence); and adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.39; moderate certainty evidence). The study did not report data on symptom resolution. One study compared transcutaneous electrical stimulation to sham stimulation, and another study compared dietitian-prescribed Mediterranean diet with written instructions versus written instructions. These studies did not report any of our predefined primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified low to moderate certainty evidence that oral lubiprostone may result in little to no difference in treatment success and adverse events compared to placebo. Based on moderate certainty evidence, there is probably little or no difference between oral prucalopride and placebo in defecation frequency, treatment success, or adverse events. For all other comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for our predefined primary outcomes is very low due to serious concerns with study limitations and imprecision. Consequently, no robust conclusions could be drawn.

How do we define therapy-resistant constipation in children aged 4-18 years old? A systematic review with meta-narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Therapy-resistant constipation often is a frustrating clinical entity recognised by the persistence of infrequent and painful bowel movements faecal incontinence and abdominal pain despite intensive treatment. It is important to clearly define therapy-resistant constipation before children are subjected to invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review determining how paediatric interventional studies define therapy-resistant constipation.

METHOD

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTR and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that included patients with therapy-resistant constipation were identified. Data were extracted on criteria used for defining therapy-resistant constipation and reported using a meta-narrative approach highlighting areas of convergence and divergence in the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 1553 abstracts were screened in duplicate, and 47 studies were included in the review. There were at least seven definitions used in the paediatric literature to define medically resistant constipation. The term intractable was used in 24 articles and 21 used the term refractory to describe therapy-resistant constipation. Out of them, only 14 articles have attempted to provide an explicit definition including a predefined time and prior therapy. There were 10 studies without a clear definition for therapy-resistant constipation. The duration before being diagnosed as therapy-resistant constipation varied from 1 months to 2 years among studies. Seven studies employed the Rome criteria (Rome III or Rome IV) to characterising constipation while five adopted the Rome III and European and North American paediatric societies definition of paediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition guideline of management of constipation in children.

CONCLUSION

The current literature has no explicit definition for therapy-resistant constipation in children. There is a need for a detailed consensus definition to ensure consistency of future research and to avoid unnecessary and maybe even harmful, invasive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Management of Intractable Functional Constipation in Children by Interferential Therapy: Transabdominal or Pelvic Floor

BACKGROUND

To compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor interferential (IF) therapy with trans-abdominal IF therapy in children with intractable functional constipation.

METHODS

Information of 64 children (38 boys, 26 girls; mean age: 6.6 ± 2.2) with functional constipation who had been treated with IF therapy were considered for this retrospective study. Group A (n = 32) underwent pelvic IF electrical stimulation + pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercises while the group B (n = 32) received transabdominal IF therapy + PFM exercises. A complete bowel habit diary, a constipation score questionnaire and a seeable pain scores had been recorded before, after the ending of treatment courses and six months later for children in both groups. Additionally, children had been assessed with a constipation-related quality of life questionnaire before and six months after treatment.

RESULTS

The number of patients who compiled the diagnostic criteria for constipation significantly decreased in both groups after treatment, in which 27/32 (84.3%) of patients in each group had no constipation after the ending of therapy courses (P = 1). Fecal soiling episodes reduced in both groups after treatment, this finding was significantly higher in group A than in group B after the ending of therapy courses (P = 0.05) and six months later (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed that using IF therapy both pelvic floor and transabdominal significantly boosts the effects of treatment among patients with functional constipation. Pelvic floor IF therapy is more effective in patients who had concomitant fecal soiling.