Mishra, Rahul

AbstractBackgroundDiarrhea and rectal urgency are risk factors for fecal incontinence (FI). The effectiveness of bowel modifiers for improving FI is unclear.MethodsIn this double‐blind, parallel‐group, randomized trial, women with urge FI were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a combination of oral clonidine (0.1 mg twice daily) with colesevelam (1875 mg twice daily) or two inert tablets for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was a ≥50% decrease in number of weekly FI episodes.Key ResultsFifty‐six participants were randomly assigned to clonidine–colesevelam (n = 24) or placebo (n = 32); 51 (91%) completed 4 weeks of treatment. At baseline, participants had a mean (SD) of 7.5 (8.2) FI episodes weekly. The primary outcome was met for 13 of 24 participants (54%) treated with clonidine–colesevelam versus 17 of 32 (53%) treated with placebo (p = 0.85). The Bristol stool form score decreased significantly, reflecting more formed stools with clonidine–colesevelam treatment (mean [SD], 4.5 [1.5] to 3.2 [1.5]; p = 0.02) but not with placebo (4.2 [1.9] to 4.1 [1.9]; p = 0.47). The proportion of FI episodes for semiformed stools decreased significantly from a mean (SD) of 76% (8%) to 61% (10%) in the clonidine–colesevelam group (p = 0.007) but not the placebo group (61% [8%] to 67% [8%]; p = 0.76). However, these treatment effects did not differ significantly between groups. Overall, clonidine–colesevelam was well tolerated.Conclusions and InferencesCompared with placebo, clonidine–colesevelam did not significantly improve FI despite being associated with more formed stools and fewer FI episodes for semiformed stools.

AbstractBackground and AimsAlthough high‐resolution manometry (HR_ARM) is commonly used to diagnose defecatory disorders, its intraindividual day‐to‐day reproducibility is unknown. Since these measurements entail voluntary effort, this study aimed to evaluate the intraindividual day‐to‐day reproducibility of HR_ARM.MethodsIn 22 healthy women (35 years [14] mean [SD]) and 53 constipated patients (42 years [13], 46 women), the rectal balloon expulsion time (BET), and anorectal pressures were measured with HR_ARM on 2 days separated by a median (interquartile range) of 15 days (11–53) in healthy and 40 days (8–75) in constipated patients. Anorectal pressures were evaluated at rest (20 s), during squeeze, and during evacuation. Rectal sensation was also evaluated in constipated patients. The agreement between both measurements was evaluated with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and other tests.ResultsAmong constipated patients, the anal resting (mean CCC [95%CI] 0.62 [0.43–0.76]) and squeeze pressures (CCC 0.65 [0.47–0.79]), rectoanal gradient during evacuation (CCC 0.42 [0.17–0.62]), and rectal sensory thresholds (CCC for urgency 0.72 [0.52–0.84]) were concordant. Between days 1 and 2, one or more outcomes, characterized as normal or abnormal, differed in 79% of constipated patients, i.e., anal resting and squeeze pressures, the gradient, and the rectal BET differed in, respectively, 25%, 19%, 36%, and 10% of constipated patients. The rectal BET was prolonged in three healthy persons (both days) and either on 1 day (six patients) or 2 days (33 patients) in constipated patients.ConclusionsWhile HR_ARM variables and the BET are reproducible within healthy and constipated persons, the outcome on repeat testing differed in 79% of constipated patients.

AbstractBackgroundDuring high‐resolution anorectal manometry (HR_ARM), the raw data are converted into software‐derived summary variables (e.g., rectoanal gradient during evacuation) that capture only a snapshot of the data collected during HR_ARM and are less useful than newer indices, which are also derived from the raw data, for diagnosing defecatory disorders (DD). However, it is cumbersome and time‐consuming to extract raw data from the program and calculate such indices. This study aimed to devise a user‐friendly approach to extract anorectal pressures measured with HR_ARM.MethodsAnorectal pressures at rest, during anal squeeze, and evacuation were measured with HR_ARM in 180 women, among whom 60 each were healthy, had DD, or fecal incontinence. A reverse engineering approach extracted pressure values from color images in HR_ARM reports. The summary variables generated by the software and a reverse engineering approach were compared with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), pairedt‐tests, and Bland–Altman's tests.ResultsAnorectal pressures summarized by the software and a reverse engineering method were highly concordant for anal resting (CCC [95% CI], 0.98 [0.97, 0.99]) and squeeze pressures (0.99 [0.99, 0.99) and the rectoanal gradient during evacuation with an empty (0.98 [0.97, 0.98]) and a filled balloon (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]). For most variables, the paired t and Bland–Altman comparisons were not significant.ConclusionsAnorectal pressures can be accurately determined from pressure topography images in HR_ARM reports. In future, this reverse engineering approach can be harnessed to compile large HR_ARM datasets across centers and to uncover newer, potentially more useful summary rectoanal pressure variables.