Does transition of urinary incontinence from one subtype to another represent progression of the disease?

  • Vatché A. Minassian
  • Xiaowei Yan
  • Anna L. Pilzek
  • Raisa Platte
  • Walter F. Stewart
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Mixed urinary incontinence (UI) is, on average, more severe than urgency UI or stress UI. We tested the hypothesis that mixed UI is a more advanced stage of UI by comparing transition probabilities among women with stress, urgency, and mixed UI.

Methods

We used data from the General Longitudinal Overactive Bladder Evaluation Study-UI, which included community-dwelling women, aged 40+ years, with UI at baseline. Study participants completed two or more consecutive bladder health surveys every 6 months for up to 4 years. Using sequential 6-month surveys, transition probabilities among UI subtypes were estimated using the Cox-proportional hazards model, with the expectation that probabilities from stress or urgency UI to mixed UI would be substantially greater than probabilities in the reverse direction.

Results

Among 6,993 women 40+ years of age at baseline, the number (prevalence) of women with stress, urgency, and mixed UI was 481 (6.9%), 557 (8.0%), and 1488 (21.3%) respectively. Over a 4-year period, the transition probabilities from stress UI (34%) and urgency UI (27%) to mixed UI was significantly higher than probabilities from mixed to stress UI (6%) or to urgency UI (rate = 9%). The adjusted transition hazard ratio for stress UI and urgency UI was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.73-2.92) and 1.85 (95% CI: 1.63-2.57) respectively compared with mixed UI.

Conclusion

The substantially higher transition from stress UI and urgency UI to mixed UI supports the hypothesis that mixed UI might represent a more advanced stage of UI that may have implications for understanding disease progression.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence Urgency urinary incontinence Mixed urinary incontinence Transition Progression Epidemiology 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Minassian VA, Stewart WF, Hirsch AG. Why do stress and urge incontinence co-occur much more often than expected? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1429–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyne KS, Zhou Z, Thompson C, Versi E. The impact on health-related quality of life of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2003;92:731–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frick AC, Huang AJ, Van den Eeden SK, Knight SK, Creasman JM, Yang J. Mixed urinary incontinence: greater impact on quality of life. J Urol. 2009;182:596–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dooley Y, Lowenstein L, Kenton K, FitzGerald M, Brubaker L. Mixed incontinence is more bothersome than pure incontinence subtypes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1359–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart WF, Minassian VA, Hirsch AG, Kolodner K, Fitzgerald M, Burgio K, et al. Predictors of variability in urinary incontinence and overactive bladder symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:328–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Svardsudd KF. Five-year incidence and remission rates of female urinary incontinence in a Swedish population less than 65 years old. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:568–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donaldson MM, Thompson JR, Matthews RJ, Dallosso HM, McGrother CW. Leicestershire MRC incontinence study group. The natural history of overactive bladder and stress urinary incontinence in older women in the community: a 3-year prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25:709–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hagglund D, Walker-Engstrom ML, Larsson G, Leppert J. Changes in urinary incontinence and quality of life after four years. A population-based study of women aged 22-50 years. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004;22:112–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nygaard IE, Lemke JH. Urinary incontinence in rural older women: prevalence, incidence and remission. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:1049–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waetjen LE, Liao S, Johnson WO, Sampselle CM, Sternfield B, Harlow SD, et al. Factors associated with prevalent and incident urinary incontinence in a cohort of midlife women: a longitudinal analysis of data: study of women’s health across the nation. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:309–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Komesu YM, Schrader RM, Ketai LH, Rogers RG, Dunivan GC. Epidemiology of mixed, stress, and urgency urinary incontinence in middle-aged/older women: the importance of incontinence history. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:763–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hirsch AG, Minassian VA, Dilley A, Sartorius J, Stewart WF. Parity is not associated with urgency with or without urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1095–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minassian VA, Yan XS, Sun H, Platte RO, Stewart WF. Clinical validation of the bladder health survey for urinary incontinence in a population sample of women. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:453–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, Abrams P, Herzog AR, Corey R, et al. Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol. 2003;20:327–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandvik H, Seim A, Vanvik A, Hunskaar S. A severity index for epidemiological surveys of female urinary incontinence: comparison with 48-hour pad-weighing tests. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19:137–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandvik H, Espuna M, Hunskaar S. Validity of the incontinence severity index: comparison with pad-weighing tests. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:520–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lunceford KJ, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effect: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004;23:2937–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Little RJ, Vartivarian S. On weighting the rates in non-response weights. Stat Med. 2003;22:1589–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:171–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minassian VA, Yan XS, Pitcavage J, Stewart WF. Mixed incontinence masked as stress induced urgency urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016;196:1190–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cook SF, Bies RR. Disease progression modeling: key concepts and recent developments. Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2016;2:221–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minassian VA, Yan X, Lichtenfeld MJ, Sun H, Stewart WF. The iceberg of health care utilization in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:1087–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eaker S, Bergstrom R, Bergstrom A, Adami HO, Nyren O. Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: a population based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:74–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dallosso HM, Matthews RJ, McGrother CW, Clarke M, Perry SI, Shaw C. An investigation into nonresponse bias in a postal survey on urinary symptoms. BJU Int. 2003;91:631–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrogynecologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Sutter Research, Development & DisseminationSutter Health SystemWalnut CreekUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health ResearchGeisinger Health SystemDanvilleUSA
  4. 4.Spectrum HealthGrand RapidsUSA

Personalised recommendations