Background Long-term data for digital therapeutics in urinary incontinence are scarce. We assessed whether improvements with app-based multimodal therapy are sustained over 48 weeks, and outcomes after a 12-week delay in initiation. Methods In this prespecified 48-week follow-up of the DINKS (Digital Incontinence Study) randomised waitlist-controlled trial, women (≥18 years) with stress, urge, or mixed urinary incontinence recruited between April 30 and September 2 2024 across Germany received app-based therapy immediately or after a 12-week waitlist, alongside standard care. The primary outcome was change from baseline in ICIQ-UI-SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Urinary Incontinence Short Form) score at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Trial registration: NCT06389838. Findings Data availability declined progressively from 186 of 194 participants (95.9%) at week 12–66 (34.0%) at week 48. Pooled improvements exceeded the minimal clinically important difference at 12, 24, and 36 weeks after therapy start (ICIQ-UI-SF at 36 weeks −4.13, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) −4.80 to −3.47), and 73–77% of participants met the responder threshold. Differences between immediate and delayed initiation were small (ICIQ-UI-SF at 36 weeks 0.08, −1.09 to 1.25). The week-48 estimate (−3.88, −4.74 to −3.03) was intervention-group only, from 27 of 96. No adverse events were reported. Interpretation App-based multimodal therapy was associated with clinically meaningful improvements sustained through at least 36 weeks after intervention start. Differences between immediate and 12-week-delayed initiation were small relative to the minimal important difference, but no non-inferiority margin was prespecified and only one delay was tested; symptoms were unchanged while waiting, so waiting times should still be minimised. Confirmation in larger trials with active comparators is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frey et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: