Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Predictors of appendiceal perforation in an equal access system.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies in socioeconomic factors have been associated with higher rates of perforated appendicitis. As an equal-access health care system theoretically removes these barriers, we aimed to determine if remaining differences in demographics, education, and pay result in disparate outcomes in the rate of perforated appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis (November 2004-October 2009) at a tertiary care equal access institution were categorized by demographics and perioperative data. Rank of the sponsor was used as a surrogate for economic status. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to determine patient and clinical characteristics associated with perforated appendicitis. RESULTS: A total of 680 patients (mean age 30±16 y; 37% female) were included. The majority were Caucasian (56.4% [n=384]; African Americans 5.6% [n=38]; Asians 1.9% [n=13]; and other 48.9% [n=245]) and enlisted (87.2%). Overall, 6.4% presented with perforation, with rates of 6.6%, 5.8%, and 6.7% (P=0.96) for officers, enlisted soldiers, and contractors, respectively. There was no difference in perforation when stratified by junior or senior status for either officers or enlisted (9.3% junior versus 4.40% senior officers, P=0.273; 6.60% junior versus 5.50% senior enlisted, P=0.369). On multivariate analysis, parameters such as leukocytosis and temperature, as well as race and rank were not associated with perforation (P=0.7). Only age had a correlation, with individuals aged 66-75 y having higher perforation rates (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In an equal-access health care system, older age, not socioeconomic factors, correlated with increased appendiceal perforation rates.