Search

ObjectiveTo compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.Summary background dataThe Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.MethodsWe focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.ResultsThe pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.ConclusionsOverall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:In this prospective case-control study we tested the hypothesis that, while long-term improvements in insulin sensitivity (SI) accompanying weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) would be similar in obese individuals with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, stimulated-islet-cell insulin responses would differ, increasing (recovering) in those with diabetes but decreasing in those without. We investigated whether these changes would occur in conjunction with favourable alterations in meal-related gut hormone secretion and insulin processing. METHODS:Forty participants with type 2 diabetes and 22 participants without diabetes from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS-2) study were enrolled in a separate, longitudinal cohort (LABS-3 Diabetes) to examine the mechanisms of postsurgical diabetes improvement. Study procedures included measures of SI, islet secretory response and gastrointestinal hormone secretion after both intravenous glucose (frequently-sampled IVGTT [FSIVGTT]) and a mixed meal (MM) prior to and up to 24 months after RYGB. RESULTS:Postoperatively, weight loss and SI-FSIVGTT improvement was similar in both groups, whereas the acute insulin response to glucose (AIRglu) decreased in the non-diabetic participants and increased in the participants with type 2 diabetes. The resulting disposition indices (DIFSIVGTT) increased by three- to ninefold in both groups. In contrast, during the MM, total insulin responsiveness did not significantly change in either group despite durable increases of up to eightfold in postprandial glucagon-like peptide 1 levels, and SI-MM and DIMM increased only in the diabetes group. Peak postprandial glucagon levels increased in both groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:For up to 2 years following RYGB, obese participants without diabetes showed improvements in DI that approach population norms. Those with type 2 diabetes recovered islet-cell insulin secretion response yet continued to manifest abnormal insulin processing, with DI values that remained well below population norms. These data suggest that, rather than waiting for lifestyle or medical failure, RYGB is ideally considered before, or as soon as possible after, onset of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00433810.

IntroductionSeveral European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy.ObjectivesThe Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy.Methods/analysisCODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02800785.

ImportanceAmong women and men with severe obesity, evidence for improvement in urinary incontinence beyond the first year after bariatric surgery-induced weight loss is lacking.ObjectivesTo examine change in urinary incontinence before and after bariatric surgery and to identify factors associated with improvement and remission among women and men in the first 3 years after bariatric surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThe Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery 2 is an observational cohort study at 10 US hospitals in 6 geographically diverse clinical centers. Participants were recruited between February 21, 2005, and February 17, 2009. Adults undergoing first-time bariatric surgical procedures as part of clinical care by participating surgeons between March 14, 2006, and April 24, 2009, were followed up for 3 years (through October 24, 2012).InterventionParticipants undergoing bariatric surgery completed research assessments before the procedure and annually thereafter.Main outcomes and measuresThe frequency and type of urinary incontinence episodes in the past 3 months were assessed using a validated questionnaire. Prevalent urinary incontinence was defined as at least weekly urinary incontinence episodes, and remission was defined as change from prevalent urinary incontinence at baseline to less than weekly urinary incontinence episodes at follow-up.ResultsOf 2458 participants, 1987 (80.8%) completed baseline and follow-up assessments. At baseline, the median age was 47 years (age range, 18-78 years), the median body mass index was 46 kg/m2 (range, 34-94 kg/m2), and 1565 of 1987 (78.8%) were women. Urinary incontinence was more prevalent among women (49.3%; 95% CI, 46.9%-51.9%) than men (21.8%; 95% CI, 18.2%-26.1%) (P

ObjectiveOur goal was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of intravenous (IV)-only versus IV + enteral contrast in computed tomographic (CT) scans performed for patients undergoing appendectomy across a diverse group of hospitals.BackgroundSmall randomized trials from tertiary centers suggest that enteral contrast does not improve diagnostic performance of CT for suspected appendicitis, but generalizability has not been demonstrated. Eliminating enteral contrast may improve efficiency, patient comfort, and safety.MethodsWe analyzed data for adult patients who underwent nonelective appendectomy at 56 hospitals over a 2-year period. Data were obtained directly from patient charts by trained abstractors. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to adjust for potential confounding. The main outcome measure was concordance between final radiology interpretation and final pathology report.ResultsA total of 9047 adults underwent appendectomy and 8089 (89.4%) underwent CT, 54.1% of these with IV contrast only and 28.5% with IV + enteral contrast. Pathology findings correlated with radiographic findings in 90.0% of patients who received IV + enteral contrast and 90.4% of patients scanned with IV contrast alone. Hospitals were categorized as rural or urban and by their teaching status. Regardless of hospital type, there was no difference in concordance between IV-only and IV + enteral contrast. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbid conditions, weight, hospital type, and perforation, odds ratio of concordance for IV + enteral contrast versus IV contrast alone was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72-1.25).ConclusionsEnteral contrast does not improve CT evaluation of appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy. These broadly generalizable results from a diverse group of hospitals suggest that enteral contrast can be eliminated in CT scans for suspected appendicitis.

Background: As more patients with appendicitis are treated with antibiotics, factors associated with recurrence may help inform individualized prognostication and decision-making. Methods: This cohort study, using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial, examined patients treated with antibiotics who did not undergo appendicectomy in the first 30 days. Patients who had appendicectomy between 30 days and 1 year were compared with those who did not. Marginalized logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted risk differences (RDs) to estimate the association between baseline patient factors and the risk of undergoing an appendicectomy between 30 days and 1 year. Results: Of 601 patients treated with antibiotics who did not undergo appendicectomy within 30 days (mean age 38.0 years; 217 women (36.1 per cent)), 144 had an appendicectomy and 56 were lost to follow-up between 30 days and 1 year. The estimated rate of appendicectomy between 30 days and 1 year was 28.6 (95 per cent c.i. 25.0 to 32.8) per cent. After adjustment for other factors, nausea, vomiting, or anorexia at baseline presentation was associated with an increased rate of appendicectomy between 30 days and 1 year (adjusted RD 17.52, 95 per cent c.i. 8.64 to 26.40). The presence of an appendicolith (adjusted RD 3.64, -6.08 to 13.36), or an abscess, perforation, or fat stranding on initial imaging (adjusted RD -7.23, -17.41 to 2.95) was not strongly associated with appendicectomy between 30 days and 1 year. Conclusion: Most factors commonly associated with appendicitis severity were not strongly associated with an increased risk of undergoing appendicectomy in the longer term after treatment with antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]