Management of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

BACKGROUND: People with neurological disease have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two conditions, with any management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical with a limited research base. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of management strategies for faecal incontinence and constipation in people with neurological diseases affecting the central nervous system. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 26 January 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2005), EMBASE (January 1998 to May 2005) and all reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating any types of conservative or surgical measure for the management of faecal incontinence and constipation in people with neurological diseases were selected. Specific therapies for the treatment of neurological diseases that indirectly affect bowel dysfunction were also considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and two reviewers independently extracted data from included trials using a range of pre-specified outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were identified by the search strategy, most were small and of poor quality. Oral medications for constipation were the subject of four trials. Cisapride does not seem to have clinically useful effects in people with spinal cord injuries (three trials). Psyllium was associated with increased stool frequency in people with Parkinson's disease but did not alter colonic transit time (one trial). Prucalopride, an enterokinetic did not demonstrate obvious benefits in this patient group (one study). Some rectal preparations to initiate defaecation produced faster results than others (one trial). Different time schedules for administration of rectal medication may produce different bowel responses (one trial). Mechanical evacuation may be more effective than oral or rectal medication (one trial). There appears to be a benefit to patients in one-off educational interventions from nurses. The clinical significance of any of these results is difficult to interpret. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is still remarkably little research on this common and, to patients, very significant condition. It is not possible to draw any recommendation for bowel care in people with neurological diseases from the trials included in this review. Bowel management for these people must remain empirical until well-designed controlled trials with adequate numbers and clinically relevant outcome measures become available.

Management of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

BACKGROUND: People with neurological disease have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine dividing line between the two conditions, with any management intended to ameliorate, one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical with a limited research base. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of management strategies for faecal incontinence and constipation in people with neurological diseases affecting the central nervous system. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and all reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent searches: May 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating any types of conservative, or surgical measure for the management of faecal incontinence and constipation in people with neurological diseases were selected. Specific therapies for the treatment of neurological diseases that indirectly affect bowel dysfunction have also been considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and two reviewers independently extracted data from included trials using a range of pre-specified outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Only seven trials were identified by the search strategy and all were small and of poor quality. Oral medications for constipation were the subject of four trials. Cisapride does not seem to have clinically useful effects in people with spinal cord injuries (two trials). Psyllium was associated with increased stool frequency in people with Parkinson's disease but not altered colonic transit time (one trial). Some rectal preparations to initiate defecation produced faster results than others (one trial). Different time schedules for administration of rectal medication may produce different bowel responses (one trial). Mechanical evacuation may be more effective than oral or rectal medication (one trial). The clinical significance of any of these results is difficult to interpret. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw any recommendation for bowel care in people with neurological diseases from the trials included in this review. Bowel management for these people must remain empirical until well-designed controlled trials with adequate numbers and clinically relevant outcome measures become available.

Effect of drug utilization reviews on the quality of in-hospital prescribing: a quasi-experimental study

Affiliation: Louise Potvin: Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en santé, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal

Systemic prokinetic pharmacologic treatment for postoperative adynamic ileus following abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adynamic bowel atony interferes with recovery following abdominal surgery. Prokinetic pharmacologic drugs are widely used to accelerate postoperative recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic acting prokinetic drugs to treat postoperative adynamic ileus in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register. The reference lists of included trials and review articles were tracked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled parallel-group trials (RCT) comparing the effect of systemically acting prokinetic drugs against placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information if needed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria contributing a total of 4615 participants. Most trials enrolled a small number of patients and showed moderate to poor (reporting of) methodological quality, in particular regarding allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis. Fifteen systemic acting prokinetic drugs were investigated and ten comparisons could be summarized. Six RCTs support the effect of Alvimopan, a novel peripheral mu receptor antagonist. However, the trials do not meet reporting guidelines and the drug is still in an investigational stage. Erythromycin showed homogenous and consistent absence of effect across all included trials and outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of cholecystokinin-like drugs, cisapride, dopamine-antagonists, propranolol or vasopressin. Effects are either inconsistent across outcomes, or trials are too small and often of poor methodological quality. Cisapride has been withdrawn from the market due to adverse cardiac events in many countries. Intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine might show a potential effect, but more evidence on clinically relevant outcomes is needed. Heterogeneity among included trials was seen in 10 comparisons. No major adverse drug effects were evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan may prove to be beneficial but proper judgement needs adherence to reporting standards. Further trials are needed on intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine. The remaining drugs can not be recommended due to lack of evidence or absence of effect.