A new intravaginal device for stress incontinence in women

A Novel Incisionless Disposable Vaginal Device for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: Efficacy and Quality of Life

PURPOSE

This clinical study sought to evaluate the possible clinical effectiveness and practicality of URINO, an innovative, incisionless, and disposable intravaginal device, designed for patients suffering from stress urinary incontinence.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial was carried out, involving women diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence who used a self-inserted, disposable intravaginal pessary device. Comparisons were made between the results of the 20-minute pad-weight gain (PWG) test at baseline and visit 3, where the device was applied. After 1 week of device usage, compliance, satisfaction, the sensation of a foreign body, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

Out of 45 participants, 39 completed the trial and expressed satisfaction within the modified intention-to-treat group. The average 20-minute PWG of participants was 17.2±33.6 g at baseline and significantly dropped to 5.3±16.2 g at visit 3 with device application. A total of 87.2% of participants exhibited a reduction ratio of PWG by 50% or more, surpassing the clinical trial success benchmark of 76%. The mean compliance was recorded as 76.6%±26.6%, the average visual analogue scale score for patient satisfaction was 6.4±2.6, and the sensation of a foreign body, measured on a 5-point Likert scale, was 3.1±1.2 after 1 week of device use. No serious adverse events were reported; there was 1 instance of microscopic hematuria and 2 cases of pyuria, all of which recovered.

CONCLUSION

The investigated device demonstrated significant clinical effectiveness and safety for patients with stress urinary incontinence. It was easy to use, showing favorable patient compliance. We propose that these disposable intravaginal pessaries could potentially be an alternative treatment for patients with stress urinary incontinence who are seeking nonsurgical options or are unable to undergo surgery. Trial Registration: The study was registered as a clinical trial (KCT0008369).

A Vaginal Inlay for Reduction of Stress Urinary Incontinence: Outcome of a Randomized Clinical Trial and Four User Acceptance Studies

A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial and four postmarket user acceptance investigations were carried out to document the safety, performance, and user acceptance of Efemia Bladder Support, a novel vaginal inlay for the temporary reduction of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The clinical investigation enrolled 97 women diagnosed with SUI, randomized 3 : 1 to either treatment or standard care (control). The primary endpoint was reduction of urine leakage, measured as change in pad weight baseline week compared with treatment week. Secondary endpoints were treatment success, calculated as the percentage of subjects with >70% reduction in pad weight, reduction in incontinence episodes, and quality of life (QoL). 75 women (77%) completed the clinical investigation. No serious adverse events occurred. The treatment group reached a 55% (p < 0.001) mean reduction of total leakage compared to the control arm. A subanalysis, involving only leakage during provocation testing (coughing and jumping), showed a 67% (p < 0.001) mean reduction of leakage. No significant effect on QoL could be observed. 51% of the women answered “yes” to the question if they would use the device to reduce SUI. The user acceptance of the device was further investigated in four postmarket studies, using an improved device design with a slimmer centerpiece and a thinner handle, while keeping the effect achieving parts of the device unchanged. An average of 74% of the 102 participants in the postmarket studies reported that they were likely to continue using Efemia. The highest user satisfaction was seen in the two studies evaluating the use of Efemia during exercise, where 83% and 88% of the women were likely to continue using Efemia. It can be concluded that Efemia is a safe, well-tolerated, and effective alternative for reducing SUI, both in everyday life and during physical exercise.

A feasibility study with a novel, dynamic, and disposable over-the-counter device for the management of stress urinary incontinence

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the initial efficacy, safety, and usability of a novel, dynamic, and disposable intravaginal device in women suffering from stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

METHODS

Twenty-six women with SUI were recruited to perform a modified 1-h Pad Weight Gain (PWG) test. In this test, women drank 250-500 ml of water, were given a pre-weighed pad, and asked to perform a set of incontinence-inducing activities. At the end of the activities session, the pad was removed and weighed. This test was performed both with and without the Nolix device. Three efficacy endpoints measured were continuous percent reduction in urine leakage, dryness (defined as pad weight increase by no more than 1 g), and improvement in pad weight (measured as continuous percent reduction in PWG ≥ 50%). Any adverse events, reported by subjects during the device use were recorded. The usability and user's satisfaction were assessed using the Benefit, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Continue and Nolix Satisfaction questionnaires.

RESULTS

The average reduction in PWG was 79.4%. The average reduction in urine leakage while using the device was at least 70%. In addition, in 79.5% of tests, the clinically meaningful level of improvement in PWG was achieved. Use of the device produced substantial improvement in the patient's perceived quality of life. No adverse events were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

The Nolix device served as a noninvasive, effective, and well-tolerated treatment option for reducing SUI in a modified 1-h PWG test with a set of incontinence-inducing activities.

Evaluation of the IncoStress device for urinary incontinence: a feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruitment to and outcomes from a pilot randomised study of the IncoStress device as an adjunct to conservative treatment for urinary incontinence.

Methods

Women with urinary incontinence were randomised on a 2:1 basis to usual care (control) or usual care plus use of the IncoStress device (intervention). Process outcomes (retention and compliance) were recorded plus symptom outcomes (IQOL and ICIQ-FLUTS questionnaires). A sample of participants took part in an interview to understand the frequency of use of the device and satisfaction.

Results

Eighty women (51 intervention, 29 control) were recruited. Follow-up responses were obtained from 34 intervention group (66.7%) and 17 (58.6%) control patients. Women used the device for a median 3 days a week (0–7), 18 out of 34 (53%) found it easy to use and 21 (61.8%) were satisfied with the device. Median IQOL score in the intervention group improved from a baseline of 42.4 (0–94) to 68.2 (5–98) at follow-up and in the control group from 45.5 (0–88) to 53.0 (0–94). Median ICIQ-FLUTS score in the intervention group improved from 14.5 (6–35) to 12.5 (4–26) and in the control group from 15.0 (5–35) to 14.0 (6–38).

Conclusions

Recruitment and randomisation were feasible and robust. This study demonstrates that a large-scale RCT is feasible and the IncoStress has potential value.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether mechanical devices are useful in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 August 2014), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2014 Week 34), CINAHL (January 1982 to 25 August 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined by symptom, sign or urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).

MAIN RESULTS

One new trial was identified and included in this update bringing the total to eight trials involving 787 women. Three small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Four trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. One trial compared three groups: a mechanical device alone, behavioural therapy (pelvic floor muscle training) alone and behavioural therapy combined with a mechanical device. While at three months there were more withdrawals from the device-only group, at 12 months differences between the groups were not sustained on any measure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and large well-conducted trials are required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and little evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

User's acceptability of OvuSense: a novel vaginal temperature sensor for prediction of the fertile period

Measuring changes in core body temperature provides a valid method to detect ovulation and increase fertility. 'OvuSense' is a novel vaginal sensor that can predict the fertility window by recording and analysing the changes in intravaginal temperature records. This study aimed to determine patients 'acceptability and satisfaction after using OvuSense'. We approached 13 women to complete a patient satisfaction survey after using OvuSense in a prospective, longitudinal, comparative study, to test its validity and accuracy in detecting ovulation over a minimum period of three cycles. All 13 women agreed to participate in this survey. The majority of the participants found the usage of the reader to be very easy; 76.9% of the women said it was extremely comfortable to use the device during the night and 76.9% found the idea of using the intravaginal reader to be very convenient. Overall, 69.2% of women were extremely satisfied using the device. The idea of detecting intravaginal core body temperature changes appears to be highly acceptable by women.

Microbicide dosage forms

Microbicides are topically applied, user controlled dosage forms that are being developed to prevent the transmission of HIV during coitus. Early candidates focused on coitally dependent dosage forms such as gels and creams. More recent development has focused on broadening the coitally dependent options through the introduction of films and fast dissolving tablets. Additionally, it has become important to have longer acting products to minimize the burden of user compliance and thus vaginal rings have been developed providing sustained delivery of antiretroviral drugs. This chapter discusses the history of microbicides along with a detailed description of coitally dependent products, gels, films, tablets diaphragms, as well as coitally independent dosage forms such as vaginal rings and the introduction of a new technology, electrospun fibers.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

ncontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 23 June 2010), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2010 Week 24), CINAHL (January 1982 to 11 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined by symptom, sign or urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.0.25).

MAIN RESULTS

One new trial was identified and included in this update bringing the total to seven trials involving 732 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Four trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. One new trial compared three groups: a mechanical device alone, behavioural therapy (pelvic floor muscle training) alone and behavioural therapy combined with a mechanical device. While at three months, there were more withdrawals from the device-only group, at 12 months group differences between the groups were not sustained on any measure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and large well-conducted trials are required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and little evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of a novel disposable intravaginal device for treating stress urinary incontinence

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel disposable intravaginal device for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women.

STUDY DESIGN

Sixty women with severe SUI were recruited from 2 sites in Israel to wear preweighed pads during a 7-day control period followed by a 28-day device usage period in which the device and preweighed pads were worn daily for 8 hours. The primary endpoint was the percentage of women who achieved a > or = 70% reduction in pad weight gain (PWG) from the control period to the last 14 days of device usage.

RESULTS

Sixty women who enrolled into the study and used the device for any period of time were included in the intent to treat (ITT) population. Eighty-five percent of them achieved a > or = 70% reduction in PWG (P = .01). Improvements in overall quality of life, subjective perception of incontinence, and satisfaction with the device were observed.

CONCLUSION

The intravaginal device is easy to use, well-tolerated, and effective in reducing SUI.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management. The latter more so when a person did not want surgery or when considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (7 December 2005). The register contains trials identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined either by symptom classification or by urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and methodological quality and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 4.2).

MAIN RESULTS

There were six trials involving a total of 286 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Five trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. There were no trials comparing a mechanical device with another type of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and a large well-conducted trial is required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and no evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management. The latter more so when a person did not want surgery or when considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (7 December 2005). The register contains trials identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined either by symptom classification or by urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and methodological quality and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 4.2).

MAIN RESULTS

There were six trials involving a total of 286 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Five trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. There were no trials comparing a mechanical device with another type of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and a large well-conducted trial is required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and no evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Treatment options for female urinary incontinence

Contrary to the belief of some patients and physicians, urinary incontinence in women should not be accepted as a natural and inevitable part of aging. Indeed, it is a costly problem, psychologically, physically, and economically, and can have a considerable impact on a woman's quality of life. Accurate diagnosis of the type of incontinence is important to implement appropriate and successful treatment. In general, a focused medical and symptom-oriented history and physical examination is all that is needed to establish the correct diagnosis. UI, SUI, and mixed incontinence are the most common types seen in women. Most patients with urge incontinence respond to behavioral treatments, PFEs, medication, or some combination thereof. Recalcitrant cases should be referred to a specialist. Patients with SUI may respond to PFEs, but many require surgical intervention for a satisfactory outcome. The successful treatment of urinary incontinence in a woman can lead to a substantial improvement in her overall quality of life, and for the physician, can be as professionally rewarding as the successful management of various other chronic disease states.

Trends toward less invasive treatment of female stress urinary incontinence

Recent improvements in our understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women have led to the development of innovative new surgical methods. Many are less invasive than previous techniques and appear to offer improved safety and shorter hospital stays, while maintaining the efficacy of traditional open incontinence surgery. Procedures using injectable periurethral bulking agents, laparoscopic colposuspension, and insertion of tension-free vaginal tape characterize this current trend toward less invasive surgical treatments. The increasing range of available procedures allows surgical treatment of SUI to be individualized for the patient. Women of diverse ages and levels of medical fitness can increasingly be offered a choice of safe, effective treatment for SUI.

Treatment of stress urinary incontinence: recent developments in the role of urethral injection

Stress urinary incontinence is prevalent in adult women and has a considerable impact on quality of life. However, it often remains undiagnosed and therefore untreated. Non-invasive treatment is likely to be offered in mild cases and may entail physiotherapy, minimally invasive devices or pharmacotherapy. Surgical intervention is widely considered as the only effective option for more severe cases. These strategies are not suitable for all patients, and urethral injection represents an alternative, minimally invasive procedure. The choice of the bulking agent is the key to the success of this treatment: the most extensively studied are silicone, polytetrafluoroethylene and bovine collagen. However, doubts regarding the safety and efficacy of these materials has led to the development of carbon-coated zirconium beads, calcium hydroxylapatite and dextranomer/hyaluronic acid (Dx/HA) copolymer. Of these, the most clinical experience has been gained with Dx/HA copolymer. Until 2 years ago, urethral injection could only be administered endoscopically. The recent development of devices for 'blind' injection has increased the speed and convenience of urethral injection, removing the need for surgical facilities. Although few data are yet available, it is conceivable that urethral injection administered 'blind' may in future be considered as an option for all patients failing non-invasive treatment.