No abstract

Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trials are typically analyzed using models that assume the full effect of the treatment is achieved instantaneously. We provide an analytical framework for scenarios in which the treatment effect varies as a function of exposure time (time since the start of treatment) and define the “effect curve” as the magnitude of the treatment effect on the linear predictor scale as a function of exposure time. The “time‐averaged treatment effect” (TATE) and “long‐term treatment effect” (LTE) are summaries of this curve. We analytically derive the expectation of the estimator trueδ^$$ \hat{\delta} $$ resulting from a model that assumes an immediate treatment effect and show that it can be expressed as a weighted sum of the time‐specific treatment effects corresponding to the observed exposure times. Surprisingly, although the weights sum to one, some of the weights can be negative. This implies that trueδ^$$ \hat{\delta} $$ may be severely misleading and can even converge to a value of the opposite sign of the true TATE or LTE. We describe several models, some of which make assumptions about the shape of the effect curve, that can be used to simultaneously estimate the entire effect curve, the TATE, and the LTE. We evaluate these models in a simulation study to examine the operating characteristics of the resulting estimators and apply them to two real datasets.

IMPORTANCEIn the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. OBJECTIVE To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25

Writing Group for the CODA Collaborative IMPORTANCE Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVETo assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES Appendectomy vs antibiotics.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTSOf 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Background Stepped-wedge designs (SWD) are increasingly used to evaluate the impact of changes to the process of care within health care systems. However, to generate definitive evidence, a correct sample size calculation is crucial to ensure such studies are properly powered. The seminal work of Hussey and Hughes (Contemp Clin Trials 28(2):182–91, 2004) provides an analytical formula for power calculations with normal outcomes using a linear model and simple random effects. However, minimal development and evaluation have been done for power calculation with non-normal outcomes on their natural scale (e.g., logit, log). For example, binary endpoints are common, and logistic regression is the natural multilevel model for such clustered data. Methods We propose a power calculation formula for SWD with either normal or non-normal outcomes in the context of generalized linear mixed models by adopting the Laplace approximation detailed in Breslow and Clayton (J Am Stat Assoc 88(421):9–25, 1993) to obtain the covariance matrix of the estimated parameters. Results We compare the performance of our proposed method with simulation-based sample size calculation and demonstrate its use on a study of patient-delivered partner therapy for STI treatment and a study that assesses the impact of providing additional benchmark prevalence information in a radiologic imaging report. To facilitate adoption of our methods we also provide a function embedded in the R package “swCRTdesign” for sample size and power calculation for multilevel stepped-wedge designs. Conclusions Our method requires minimal computational power. Therefore, the proposed procedure facilitates rapid dynamic updates of sample size calculations and can be used to explore a wide range of design options or assumptions.

Objective: To 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 Data: The 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. Methods: We 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Overall, 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 Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

ImportanceA patient’s belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials.ObjectiveTo examine the association between patients’ baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis.InterventionsParticipants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThree outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors.ResultsOf the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13–percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, −13.49; 95% CI, −24.57 to −2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was −5.68 (95% CI, −16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, −15.72; 95% CI, −29.71 to −1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, −15.14; 95% CI, −30.56 to 0.28).Conclusions and RelevancePositive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785

No abstract