The effects of loperamide on continence problems and anorectal function in obese subjects taking orlistat

Japanese Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence Part 2-Examination and Conservative Treatment for Fecal Incontinence- English Version

Examination for fecal incontinence is performed in order to evaluate the condition of each patient. As there is no single method that perfectly assesses this condition, there are several tests that need to be conducted. These are as follows: anal manometry, recto anal sensitivity test, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, electromyogram, anal endosonography, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and defecography. In addition, the mental and physical stress most patients experience during all these examinations needs to be taken into consideration. Although some of these examinations mostly apply for patients with constipation, we hereby describe these tests as tools for the assessment of fecal incontinence. Conservative therapies for fecal incontinence include diet, lifestyle, and bowel habit modification, pharmacotherapy, pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback therapy, anal insert device, trans anal irrigation, and so on. These interventions have been identified to improve the symptoms of fecal incontinence by determining the mechanisms resulting in firmer stool consistency; strengthening the pelvic floor muscles, including the external anal sphincter; normalizing the rectal sensation; or periodic emptying of the colon and rectum. Among these interventions, diet, lifestyle, and bowel habit modifications and pharmacotherapy can be performed with some degree of knowledge and experience. These two therapies, therefore, can be conducted by all physicians, including general practitioners and other physicians not specializing in fecal incontinence. However, patients with fecal incontinence who did not improve following these initial therapies should be referred to specialized institutions. Contrary to the initial therapies, specialized therapies, including pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback therapy, anal insert device, and trans anal irrigation, should be conducted in specialized institutions as these require patient education and instructions based on expert knowledge and experience. In general, conservative therapies should be performed for fecal incontinence before surgery because its pathophysiologies are mostly attributed to benign conditions. All Japanese healthcare professionals who take care of patients with fecal incontinence are expected to understand the characteristics of each conservative therapy, so that appropriate therapies will be selected and performed. Therefore, in this chapter, the characteristics of each conservative therapy for fecal incontinence are described.

Constipation and Fecal Incontinence in the Elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, and management of primary constipation and fecal incontinence in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among elderly people, 6.5%, 1.7%, and 1.1% have functional constipation, constipation-predominant IBS, and opioid-induced constipation. In elderly people, the number of colonic enteric neurons and smooth muscle functions is preserved; decreased cholinergic function with unopposed nitrergic relaxation may explain colonic motor dysfunction. Less physical activity or dietary fiber intake and postmenopausal hormonal therapy are risk factors for fecal incontinence in elderly people. Two thirds of patients with fecal incontinence respond to biofeedback therapy. Used in combination, loperamide and biofeedback therapy are more effective than placebo, education, and biofeedback therapy. Vaginal or anal insert devices are another option. In the elderly, constipation and fecal incontinence are common and often distressing symptoms that can often be managed by addressing bowel disturbances. Selected diagnostic tests, prescription medications, and, infrequently, surgical options should be considered when necessary.

Impact of treatment for fecal incontinence on constipation symptoms

OBJECTIVE

Defecatory symptoms, such as a sense of incomplete emptying and straining with bowel movements, are paradoxically present in women with fecal incontinence. Treatments for fecal incontinence, such as loperamide and biofeedback, can worsen or improve defecatory symptoms, respectively. The primary aim of this study was to compare changes in constipation symptoms in women undergoing treatment for fecal incontinence with education only, loperamide, anal muscle exercises with biofeedback or both loperamide and biofeedback. Our secondary aim was to compare changes in constipation symptoms among responders and nonresponders to fecal incontinence treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 first-line therapies for fecal incontinence in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women with at least monthly fecal incontinence and normal stool consistency were randomized to 4 groups: (1) oral placebo plus education only, (2) oral loperamide plus education only, (3) placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and (4) loperamide plus biofeedback. Defecatory symptoms were measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms consists of 12 items that contribute to a global score and 3 subscales: stool characteristics/symptoms (hardness of stool, size of stool, straining, inability to pass stool), rectal symptoms (burning, pain, bleeding, incomplete bowel movement), and abdominal symptoms (discomfort, pain, bloating, cramps). Scores for each subscale as well as the global score range from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (maximum score), with negative change scores representing improvement in defecatory symptoms. Responders to fecal incontinence treatment were defined as women with a minimally important clinical improvement of ≥5 points on the St Mark's (Vaizey) scale between baseline and 24 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using a longitudinal mixed model, controlling for baseline scores, to estimate changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores from baseline through 24 weeks.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, there were small changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms global scores in all 4 groups: oral placebo plus education (-0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1), loperamide plus education (-0.1, 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to0.0), oral placebo plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2), and loperamide plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2). No differences were observed in change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores between women randomized to placebo plus education and those randomized to loperamide plus education (P = .17) or placebo plus biofeedback (P = .82). Change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores in women randomized to combination loperamide plus biofeedback therapy was not different from that of women randomized to treatment with loperamide or biofeedback alone. Responders had greater improvement in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores than nonresponders (-0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.3 vs -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to -0.0, P < .01, mean difference, 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.4).

CONCLUSION

Change in constipation symptoms following treatment of fecal incontinence in women are small and are not significantly different between groups. Loperamide treatment for fecal incontinence does not worsen constipation symptoms among women with normal consistency stool. Women with clinically significant improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms report greater improvement in constipation symptoms.

Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Well designed, large comparative effectiveness trials assessing the efficacy of primary interventions for faecal incontinence are few in number. The objectives of this study were to compare different combinations of anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide, education, and oral placebo.

METHODS

In this randomised factorial trial, participants were recruited from eight clinical sites in the USA. Women with at least one episode of faecal incontinence per month in the past 3 months were randomly assigned 0·5:1:1:1 to one of four groups: oral placebo plus education only, placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide plus education only, and loperamide plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback. Participants received 2 mg per day of loperamide or oral placebo with the option of dose escalation or reduction. Women assigned to biofeedback received six visits, including strength and sensory biofeedback training. All participants received a standardised faecal incontinence patient education pamphlet and were followed for 24 weeks after starting treatment. The primary endpoint was change in St Mark's (Vaizey) faecal incontinence severity score between baseline and 24 weeks, analysed by intention-to-treat using general linear mixed modelling. Investigators, interviewers, and outcome evaluators were masked to biofeedback assignment. Participants and all study staff other than the research pharmacist were masked to medication assignment. Randomisation took place within the electronic data capture system, was stratified by site using randomly permuted blocks (block size 7), and the sizes of the blocks and the allocation sequence were known only to the data coordinating centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008565.

FINDINGS

Between April 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, 377 women were enrolled, of whom 300 were randomly assigned to placebo plus education (n=42), placebo plus biofeedback (n=84), loperamide plus education (n=88), and the combined intervention of loperamide plus biofeedback (n=86). At 24 weeks, there were no differences between loperamide versus placebo (model estimated score change -1·5 points, 95% CI -3·4 to 0·4, p=0·12), biofeedback versus education (-0·7 points, -2·6 to 1·2, p=0·47), and loperamide and biofeedback versus placebo and biofeedback (-1·9 points, -4·1 to 0·3, p=0·092) or versus loperamide plus education (-1·1 points, -3·4 to 1·1, p=0·33). Constipation was the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event and was reported by two (2%) of 86 participants in the loperamide and biofeedback group and two (2%) of 88 in the loperamide plus education group. The percentage of participants with any serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Only one serious adverse event was considered related to treatment (small bowel obstruction in the placebo and biofeedback group).

INTERPRETATION

In women with normal stool consistency and faecal incontinence bothersome enough to seek treatment, we were unable to find evidence against the null hypotheses that loperamide is equivalent to placebo, that anal exercises with biofeedback is equivalent to an educational pamphlet, and that loperamide and biofeedback are equivalent to oral placebo and biofeedback or loperamide plus an educational pamphlet. Because these are common first-line treatments for faecal incontinence, clinicians could consider combining loperamide, anal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and a standard educational pamphlet, but this is likely to result in only negligible improvement over individual therapies and patients should be counselled regarding possible constipation.

FUNDING

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health.

Are Obese Patients at an Increased Risk of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Compared to Non-obese Patients?

PURPOSE

Factors associated with increased intra-abdominal pressure such as chronic cough, morbid obesity, and constipation may be related to pelvic floor dysfunction. In this study, we compared anorectal manometry values and clinical data of class II and III morbidly obese patients referred to bariatric surgery with that of non-obese patients.

METHODS

We performed a case-matched study between obese patients referred to bariatric surgery and non-obese patients without anorectal complaints. The groups were matched by age and gender. Men and nulliparous women with no history of abdominal or anorectal surgery were included in the study. Anorectal manometry was performed by the stationary technique, and clinical evaluation was based on validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44.8 ± 12.5 years (mean ± SD) in the obese group and 44.1 ± 11.8 years in the non-obese group (p = 0.829). In the obese group, 65.4% of patients had some degree of fecal incontinence. Mean squeeze pressure was significantly lower in obese than in non-obese patients (155.6 ± 64.1 vs. 210.1 ± 75.9 mmHg, p = 0.004), and there was no significant difference regarding mean rest pressure in obese patients compared to non-obese ones (63.7 ± 23.1 vs. 74.1 ± 21.8 mmHg, p = 0.051). There were no significant differences in anorectal manometry values between continent and incontinent obese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of fecal incontinence among obese patients was high regardless of age, gender, and body mass index. Anal squeeze pressure was significantly lower in obese patients compared to non-obese controls.

State of the Art Review: Long-term Pharmacotherapy for Overweight and Obesity: A Review of Sibutramine, Orlistat, and Rimonabant

The objective of this review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapy for long-term maintenance of weight loss in overweight and obese patients. Literature was obtained through a MEDLINE (1966 to July 2006) search and a bibliographic review of published articles. Key terms used included overweight, obesity, sibutramine, orlistat, and rimonabant. The search was further limited to clinical trials in humans and in the English language. Obesity is a chronic condition requiring long-term therapy. Two agents, sibutramine and orlistat, are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the long-term treatment of obesity. Rimonabant, marketed in Europe as Accomplia, has demonstrated efficacy for long term weight loss, however an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel voted against its approval in June 2007 due to safety concerns (psychiatric effects). For clinically meaningful results, these agents must be used in conjunction with lifestyle therapy, including a hypocaloric diet, increased physical activity, and behavioral modification. This article reviews clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sibutramine, orlistat, and rimonabant in reducing weight and examines other health benefits and risks associated with these agents.

Controlling anal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide (CAPABLe) trial: Design and methods

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.

Treatments of faecal incontinence: recommendations from the French national society of coloproctology

Faecal incontinence is common and significantly affects quality of life. Its treatment involves dietary manipulation, medical treatments, perineal rehabilitation or surgery. In this paper, the French National Society of Coloproctology offers recommendations based on the data in the current literature, including those on recently developed treatments. There is a lack of high quality data and most of the recommendations are therefore based either on grade of recommendation B or expert recommendation (Level 4). However, the literature supports the construction of an algorithm based on the available scientific evidence and expert recommendation which may be useful in clinical practice. The French National Society of Coloproctology proposes a decision-making algorithm that includes recent developments of treatment. The current recommendations support sacral nerve modulation as the key treatment for faecal incontinence. They do not support the use of sphincter substitutions except in certain circumstances. Transanal irrigation is a novel often successful treatment of faecal incontinence due to neurological disorders.

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence (leakage of bowel motions or stool) is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduces quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of Trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 June 2012) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials were identified, including 558 participants. Eleven trials were of cross-over design. Eleven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea, following ileoanal pouch or rectal surgery, or due to use of a weight-reducing drug). Two trials were amongst people with weak anal sphincters, one in participants with faecal impaction and bypass leakage, and one in geriatric patients. In one trial there was no specific cause for faecal incontinence.Seven trials tested anti-diarrhoeal drugs to reduce faecal incontinence and other bowel symptoms (loperamide, diphenoxylate plus atropine, and codeine). Six trials tested drugs that enhance anal sphincter function (phenylepinephrine gel and sodium valproate). Two trials evaluated osmotic laxatives (lactulose) for the treatment of faecal incontinence associated with constipation in geriatric patients. One trial assessed the use of zinc-aluminium ointment for faecal incontinence. No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified.There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs that enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. Loperamide was associated with more adverse effects (such as constipation, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headache and nausea) than placebo. However, the dose may be titrated to the patient's symptoms to minimise side effects while achieving continence. The drugs acting on the sphincter sometimes resulted in local dermatitis, abdominal pain or nausea. Laxative use in geriatric patients reduced faecal soiling and the need for help from nurses.Zinc-aluminium ointment was associated with improved quality of life, with no reported adverse effects. However, the observed improvement in quality of life was seen in the placebo group as well as the treatment group.It should be noted that all the included trials in this review had small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. 'Risk of bias' assessment was unclear for most of the domains as there was insufficient information. There were no data suitable for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which use the recommendations and principles set out in the CONSORT statement, and include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

Fecal incontinence in the elderly: FAQ

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a common gastrointestinal (GI) complaint in patients aged 65 years and older. This evidence-based review article discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, evaluation, and management of FI in the geriatric population. We emphasize aging-related changes leading to and impacting evaluation and treatment of this symptom while incorporating the core geriatric principles of functional status and management aligned with patient preference and goals of care.

Treatment of chronic diarrhoea

The treatment of chronic diarrhoea can be challenging. While Oral Rehydration Solution is an important step in treating diarrhoeal illnesses, various medications can be used to alleviate the symptoms while the patient is undergoing diagnostic work up or to target the underlying mechanism responsible for their diarrhoea. Medications are also being prescribed in cases when there is a strong suspicious about a diagnosis or when there is no specific treatment for an underlying aetiology. This chapter discusses the treatment options for diarrhoeal disorders.

Bowel habits and fecal incontinence in patients with obesity undergoing evaluation for weight loss: the importance of stool consistency

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is highly prevalent in the general population and especially in risk groups. Obesity is also common and is associated with comorbidities that impair general health and interfere with daily activities. Identifying mutable factors for fecal incontinence, such as stool consistency, is of paramount importance to improve quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of fecal incontinence in patients with obesity undergoing evaluation for weight loss, its relationship with bowel habits, and its impact on quality of life.

DESIGN

This investigation is a cross-sectional observational study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in patients with obesity who were undergoing evaluation for weight loss.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Fecal incontinence was defined as loss of flatus or liquid/solid stool occurring at least monthly. Data on comorbidities, BMI, quality of life, bowel habits including stool consistency measured with the Bristol Stool Form Scale, and symptoms of fecal incontinence were collected.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included, with a mean BMI of 39.6 kg/m2. Symptoms of fecal incontinence were found in 17 patients (32.7%): flatus in 9 of 17 (52.9%), liquid stool in 6 of 17 (35.2%), and solid stool in 2 of 17 (11.7%). No differences were found between patients with and without fecal incontinence in age, sex, comorbidities, or BMI. Health-related quality of life was lower in patients with fecal incontinence than in those without, but this difference was not significant, with the exception of the dimensions of role-physical (p = 0.03) and social functioning (p = 0.04). Patients with incontinence reported significantly higher percentages of altered bowel habits with nonformed stools (p = 0.004).

LIMITATIONS

The cross-sectional design hampered identification of the time at which the impact of obesity occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal incontinence is common in patients with obesity. Stool consistency was significantly different in these patients. This study supports the possibility of improving incontinence during weight loss by modifying stool consistency.

Fecal incontinence and biofeedback therapy

Biofeedback as delivered in most clinical settings in Western medicine has been consistently reported to improve symptoms of fecal incontinence. Closer scrutiny of the elements of the intervention and controlled studies, however, have consistently failed to find any benefit of the biofeedback element of this complex package of care; nor has any superiority been found for one modality over another. There is a need for further well-designed and adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Meanwhile, there can be little doubt that conservative interventions improve many patients with fecal incontinence to the point where most report satisfaction with treatment and do not wish to consider more invasive options, such as surgery.

Orlistat-associated adverse effects and drug interactions: a critical review

Orlistat, an anti-obesity drug, is a potent and specific inhibitor of intestinal lipases. In light of the recent US FDA approval of the over-the-counter sale of orlistat (60 mg three times daily), clinicians need to be aware that its use may be associated with less well known, but sometimes clinically relevant, adverse effects. More specifically, the use of orlistat has been associated with several mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal adverse effects, such as oily stools, diarrhoea, abdominal pain and faecal spotting. A few cases of serious hepatic adverse effects (cholelithiasis, cholostatic hepatitis and subacute liver failure) have been reported. However, the effects of orlistat on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are beneficial. Orlistat-induced weight loss seems to have beneficial effects on blood pressure. No effect has been observed on calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, copper or zinc balance or on bone biomarkers. Interestingly, the use of orlistat has been associated with rare cases of acute kidney injury, possibly due to the increased fat malabsorption resulting from the inhibition of pancreatic and gastric lipase by orlistat, leading to the formation of soaps with calcium and resulting in increased free oxalate absorption and enteric hyperoxaluria. Orlistat has a beneficial effect on carbohydrate metabolism. No significant effect on cancer risk has been reported with orlistat.Orlistat interferes with the absorption of many drugs (such as warfarin, amiodarone, ciclosporin and thyroxine as well as fat-soluble vitamins), affecting their bioavailability and effectiveness. This review considers orlistat-related adverse effects and drug interactions. The clinical relevance and pathogenesis of these effects is also discussed.

Effect of a prebiotic mixture on intestinal comfort and general wellbeing in health

Specific carbohydrates, i.e. prebiotics such as fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS), are not digested in the small intestine but fermented in the colon. Besides beneficial health effects of an enhanced bifidobacteria population, intestinal gas production resulting from fermentation can induce abdominal symptoms. Partial replacement with slowly fermented acacia gum may attenuate side effects. The aim was to compare the effects of FOS with those of a prebiotic mixture (50 % FOS and 50 % acacia gum; BLEND) and a rapidly absorbed carbohydrate (maltodextrin) on general intestinal wellbeing, abdominal comfort and anorectal sensory function. Twenty volunteers (eight male and twelve female; age 20-37 years) completed this double-blind, randomised study with two cycles of a 2-week run-in phase (10 g maltodextrin) followed by 5 weeks of 10 g FOS or BLEND once daily, separated by a 4-week wash-out interval. Abdominal symptoms and general wellbeing were documented by telephone interview or Internet twice weekly. Rectal sensations were assessed by a visual analogue scale during a rectal barostat test after FOS and BLEND treatment. Both FOS and BLEND induced more side effects than maltodextrin. Belching was more pronounced under FOS compared with BLEND (P = 0.09 for females; P = 0.01 for males), and for self-reported general wellbeing strong sex differences were reported (P = 0.002). Urgency scores during rectal barostat were higher with FOS than BLEND (P = 0.01). Faced with a growing range of supplemented food products, consumers may benefit from prebiotic mixtures which cause fewer abdominal side effects. Sex differences must be taken in consideration when food supplements are used.

State of the Art Review: Long-term Pharmacotherapy for Overweight and Obesity: A Review of Sibutramine, Orlistat, and Rimonabant

The objective of this review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapy for long-term maintenance of weight loss in overweight and obese patients. Literature was obtained through a MEDLINE (1966 to July 2006) search and a bibliographic review of published articles. Key terms used included overweight, obesity, sibutramine, orlistat, and rimonabant. The search was further limited to clinical trials in humans and in the English language. Obesity is a chronic condition requiring long-term therapy. Two agents, sibutramine and orlistat, are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the long-term treatment of obesity. Rimonabant, marketed in Europe as Accomplia, has demonstrated efficacy for long term weight loss, however an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel voted against its approval in June 2007 due to safety concerns (psychiatric effects). For clinically meaningful results, these agents must be used in conjunction with lifestyle therapy, including a hypocaloric diet, increased physical activity, and behavioral modification. This article reviews clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of sibutramine, orlistat, and rimonabant in reducing weight and examines other health benefits and risks associated with these agents.

Barostat measurement of rectal compliance and capacity

PURPOSE

Fecal continence requires relaxation of the rectal wall and a reservoir of adequate capacity. Rectal compliance provides an assessment of rectal wall stiffness; however, compliance is also affected by rectal capacity. We developed and validated a barostat measurement of rectal capacity. By accounting for variation in rectal capacity, we aimed to improve the inconsistent relationship between rectal compliance, sensation, and continence reported in the literature.

METHOD

Barostat measurements of rectal compliance and capacity were validated in 41 healthy, continent subjects. Slow staircase (0-40 mmHg) and rapid phasic (12-40 mmHg) distentions were performed on two separate days, filling sensations were assessed by visual analog score. A stool substitute retention test of rectal filling sensation and continence was performed.

RESULTS

Variance of volume measurements decreased with pressure comparing conditioning vs. index distentions, staircase vs. phasic distentions, and measurements on different days (all P < 0.001). Correction for rectal capacity measured at 40 mmHg reduced the "normal range" of compliance measurements (P < 0.01) but not vice versa. Compared with unadjusted volume measurements, normalized rectal volume (percentage filling relative to rectal capacity) improved the description of rectal sensation visual analog score (P < 0.01). Rectal capacity correlated with filling sensations and the volume retained on retention testing (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Barostat measurements of rectal capacity at 40 mmHg are highly reproducible and not affected by distention protocol. The assessment of rectal capacity complements that of rectal compliance. Correction for rectal capacity provides an assessment of rectal wall stiffness independent of rectal geometry and improves the association of barostat volume measurements with rectal sensitivity and continence.

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduction in quality of life. Available treatment options for faecal incontinence include conservative treatments (biofeedback, pelvic floor muscle training, dietary manipulation or drug therapy) or surgical treatments (e.g. sphincter repair, post anal repair, neosphincter). Drug treatment is often given either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (January 2003) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: January 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, reviewers selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of each trial, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Nine trials were of cross-over design. Seven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea or following ileoanal pouch surgery). Three trials (total 58 participants) compared topical phenylephrine gel with placebo. Two trials (56 participants) compared loperamide with placebo. One trial (11 participants) compared loperamide oxide with placebo. One trial (15 participants) compared diphenoxylate plus atropine with placebo. One trial (17 participants) compared sodium valproate with placebo. One trial (30 participants) compared loperamide with codeine with diphenoxylate plus atropine. Two further trials (total 265 participants) assessed the use of lactulose in elderly people.No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified. There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs which enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. However, the trials were small and of short duration.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which include clinically important outcome measures, are required.