Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
From the Editor

A clinical trial and another clinical practice bites the dust, or should there not be an appendix?

Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine June 2022, 89 (6) 288-289; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.89b.06022
Brian F. Mandell
Roles: Editor in Chief
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Find this author on Cleveland Clinic
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded Image

There are clinical directives that I recall reiterated in multiple settings from medical school onwards. On medical school pediatric rotations, general surgery rotations, and during my time in the emergency ward as a resident and attending physician, the patient with potential acute appendicitis was evaluated by a surgeon and, without an alternative explanation for the symptoms and physical examination findings, the patient was admitted to the surgical service with the expectation of going to the operating room (OR). The dictum was that some patients without appendicitis need to go to the OR to avoid “missing” the opportunity to appropriately surgically treat every patient with acute appendicitis. Perhaps from naivete, it never really struck me to question the general underpinnings of this practice. Yet over the past 2 decades, several studies have assessed an alternative approach to acute appendicitis: treatment with systemic antibiotics and observation.

In this issue of the Journal, DeRoss and Fathalizadeh1 offer a commentary with their perspective on the clinical practice implications of the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial,2 which demonstrated short-term noninferiority of antibiotic therapy vs surgical therapy for patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis.

Several challenges confront the prospective evaluation of surgical and other physical interventions. There can be significant placebo and “nocebo” effects that can only be teased out with the use of sham procedural interventions, and sometimes only incompletely. These are particularly troublesome when using subjective outcome measures like pain. For instance, there may be a 40% to 50% pain-relief response to intra-articular saline (placebo) injection into the knees of patients with osteoarthritis. This makes it extremely difficult to ascribe great benefit to the intra-articular injection of hyaluronate or corticosteroid when compared with the saline control. But in patients with acute appendicitis, unless there is a marked nocebo response associated with surgery that could muddle the interpretation, this seems not to be an issue with analysis of data from the current study.

Another challenge interpreting surgical studies like CODA is the difficulty of selecting for analysis small subsets of patients who may behave differently from the study mean and derive benefit from early surgical intervention—and detriment from an alternative approach. There have been several randomized clinical trial (RCT) evaluations of (previously) well-accepted, frequently performed surgical procedures over the past few years. These have included arthroscopic intervention for degenerative knee arthritis with or without a “torn” meniscus,3 vertebroplasty for painful vertebral fractures,4 and surgical decompression with or without fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.5 A common reaction from surgeons to the results of these trials, which indicated little if any benefit of the studied procedures, was that patient selection and the clinical acumen and skill of the surgeon truly make a difference. Hence, it is argued that the procedures can still be of benefit in appropriately selected patients. It is tempting to dismiss this as professional hubris, but there is undoubtedly some truth in their critique of the trials.

As internists, we can espouse that we practice based on trial data and evidence-based guidelines, but population practice metrics do not bear this out. And we frequently hark to the limitations of guidelines and RCTs when it comes to individual patient treatment decisions, citing the limited external validity of the clinical trial data when applied to the very specific patient in front of us.

There is no reason to believe that the same premise would not apply for surgical interventions. And I would offer that surgeons in particular “have a lot of skin in the game” when taking a patient to the OR—ie, they are uniquely and individually associated with the surgical outcome. Their assessment requires more than cursory assessment of imaging, physical examination, and clinical history. Recognition of this supports the argument for publicizing outcome data for individual surgeons.

The CODA trial was reasonably sized and, unlike several earlier studies, was broadly inclusive of a diverse patient population, respresentative of general practice. Nonetheless, it was not powered to perform discrete subset analysis. The short-term (30-day) results indicating noninferiority of antibiotics vs surgery jibe with older observations and suggest that the fear of imminent appendix perforation, sepsis, and possibly death for the “missed” case of acute appendicitis may have been overblown.

DeRoss and Fathalizadeh discuss details of the CODA trial and the impact they feel it should have on practice. To me, a striking part of the study—an appendix, if you will—is presented in the long-term CODA follow-up,6 which showed that more patients in the antibiotic-treatment group subsequently visited the emergency room, and nearly 50% of patients in this group ultimately underwent appendectomy, 30% within 90 days.

I wonder if there will ultimately be a way—other than a particularly skilled surgeon’s hand and clinical gestalt—that those 50% could be recognized early on.

But again, trial data cannot yet completely replace clinical judgment.

  • Copyright © 2022 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. DeRoss A,
    2. Fathalizadeh A
    . Appendicitis management: is it time for a change? Cleve Clin J Med 2022; 89(6):309–313. doi:10.3949/ccjm.89a.21012
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. CODA Collaborative,
    2. Flum DR,
    3. Davidson GH, et al
    . A randomized trial comparing antibiotics with appendectomy for appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2020; 383(20):1907–1919. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2014320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Brignardello-Petersen R,
    2. Guyatt GH,
    3. Buchbinder R, et al
    . Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017; 7(5):e016114. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016114
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Buchbinder R,
    2. Osborne RH,
    3. Ebeling PR, et al
    . A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361(6):557–568. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0900429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Austevoll IM,
    2. Hermansen E,
    3. Fagerland MW, et al
    . Decompression with or without fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2021; 385(6):526–538. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2100990
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. CODA Collaborative,
    2. Davidson GH,
    3. Flum DR, et al
    . Antibiotics versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: longer-term outcomes. N Engl J Med 2021; 385(25):2395–2397. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2116018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 89 (6)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 89, Issue 6
1 Jun 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A clinical trial and another clinical practice bites the dust, or should there not be an appendix?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A clinical trial and another clinical practice bites the dust, or should there not be an appendix?
Brian F. Mandell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jun 2022, 89 (6) 288-289; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.89b.06022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A clinical trial and another clinical practice bites the dust, or should there not be an appendix?
Brian F. Mandell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jun 2022, 89 (6) 288-289; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.89b.06022
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Viruses change; we can, too
  • Myasthenia gravis: An update for internists
  • Some complexities of diabetes and the heart
Show more From the Editor

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Surgery/Surgery Subspecialties
  • Hospital Medicine
  • Gastroenterology

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2023 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire