Tibial nerve stimulation compared with sham to reduce incontinence in care home residents: ELECTRIC RCT.
ABSORBENT PADS
COGNITION
COST–CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
ELECTRIC STIMULATION
FRAIL ELDERLY
NURSING HOMES
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
TIBIAL NERVE
URINARY INCONTINENCE
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
entrez:
25
6
2021
pubmed:
26
6
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment.
DESIGN
A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.
SETTING
A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes.
PARTICIPANTS
Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance.
INTERVENTIONS
Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use.
RESULTS
A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation,
CONCLUSIONS
The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context.
LIMITATIONS
Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data.
FUTURE WORK
Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34167637
doi: 10.3310/hta25410
pmc: PMC8273680
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN98415244']
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03248362']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-110Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
World J Urol. 2014 Feb;32(1):179-84
pubmed: 23749315
Age Ageing. 2010 Sep;39(5):549-54
pubmed: 20631404
Med Decis Making. 2018 Aug;38(6):699-707
pubmed: 29957107
J Gerontol Nurs. 2016 Jun 03;:1-5
pubmed: 27263538
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Sep;21(9):1065-70
pubmed: 20458465
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Jan;38(1):261-268
pubmed: 30311692
Value Health. 2006 Jul-Aug;9(4):272-4
pubmed: 16903997
Nurs Older People. 2006 Mar;18(2):20-2
pubmed: 16538991
J Urol. 2000 Sep;164(3 Pt 1):698-701
pubmed: 10953128
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Jan 13;17(1):17
pubmed: 28086759
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Nov;63(11):2298-307
pubmed: 26503458
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Jul-Aug;55(1):49-54
pubmed: 21601929
J Adv Nurs. 2011 Feb;67(2):228-50
pubmed: 21105895
Trials. 2019 Dec 16;20(1):723
pubmed: 31843002
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Feb;37(2):528-541
pubmed: 28731583
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Jun;15(3):399-412
pubmed: 27882528
Springerplus. 2016 Jan 15;5:35
pubmed: 26835217
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Feb;17(5):v-xv, 1-140
pubmed: 23402232
Maturitas. 2020 May;135:40-46
pubmed: 32252963
Age Ageing. 2005 May;34(3):242-8
pubmed: 15863409
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Feb;37(2):842-848
pubmed: 28792105
J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2210-5
pubmed: 12771752
BMJ Open. 2013 Jun 20;3(6):
pubmed: 23794542
Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):89-95
pubmed: 19463079
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Sep;50(9):1476-83
pubmed: 12383143
Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(4):288-94
pubmed: 19191259
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Mar;24(16):1-172
pubmed: 32216870
Clin Interv Aging. 2012;7:45-50
pubmed: 22334767
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 May;56(5):847-53
pubmed: 18384584
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Jun;16(3):224-9
pubmed: 17545351
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(10):1-93, iii-iv
pubmed: 15774233
Eur Urol. 2006 Jun;49(6):1079-86
pubmed: 16460875
JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1066-1076
pubmed: 31529007
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;208(2):146.e1-7
pubmed: 23159696
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Feb;38(2):433-477
pubmed: 30681183
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 17;12(11):e0188225
pubmed: 29149198
PLoS Med. 2013 Aug;10(8):e1001505
pubmed: 24015113
Psychol Med. 2007 May;37(5):737-46
pubmed: 17176501
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Jan;196:6-10
pubmed: 26645117
BJU Int. 2011 Jan;107(2):303-9
pubmed: 20394612
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Dec;43(12):1356-62
pubmed: 7490386
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Sep;54(9):1325-33
pubmed: 16970638
Age Ageing. 1997 Sep;26(5):367-74
pubmed: 9351481
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012 Oct;12(4):600-11
pubmed: 22672329
Neurourol Urodyn. 2020 Jun;39(5):1363-1370
pubmed: 32227651
J Tissue Viability. 2017 Feb;26(1):47-56
pubmed: 26949126
Int J Clin Pract. 2011 Oct;65(10):1026-36
pubmed: 21923844
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Apr;14(4):270-4
pubmed: 23206722
Stat Med. 2003 Dec 15;22(23):3571-81
pubmed: 14652861
Physiotherapy. 2019 Dec;105(4):469-475
pubmed: 30862384
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Sep;10(9):513-21
pubmed: 23817408
Urol J. 2018 Jul 10;15(4):186-192
pubmed: 29781068
Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Aug;25(8):1065-9
pubmed: 24599180
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
Climacteric. 2019 Jun;22(3):217-222
pubmed: 30572737
Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 Jul;14(7):E297-E303
pubmed: 32017693