Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies.

Protocol to measure validity and reliability of colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancer screening questions from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey: Methodology and design.

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Interruptions in bladder cancer care during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

BACKGROUND: Academic and community urology centers participating in a pragmatic clinical trial in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer completed monthly surveys assessing restrictions in aspects of bladder cancer care due to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Our objective was to describe pandemic-related restrictions on bladder cancer care. METHODS: We invited 32 sites participating in a multicenter pragmatic bladder cancer trial to complete monthly surveys distributed through REDCap beginning in May 2020. These surveys queried sites on whether they were experiencing restrictions in the use of elective surgery, transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT), radical cystectomy, office cystoscopy, and intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) availability. Responses were collated with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 32 eligible sites, 21 sites had at least a 50% monthly response rate over the study period and were included in the analysis. Elective surgery was paused at 76% of sites in May 2020, 48% of sites in January 2021, and 52% of sites in January 2022. Over those same periods, coinciding with COVID-19 incidence waves, TURBT was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 14% of sites, respectively, radical cystectomy was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 19% of sites, respectively, and cystoscopy was restricted at 33%, 0%, and 10% of sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder cancer care was minimally restricted compared with more pronounced restrictions seen in general elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Protocol of the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options (CISTO) study: a pragmatic, prospective multicenter observational cohort study of recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer poses a significant public health burden, with high recurrence and progression rates in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Current treatment options include bladder-sparing therapies (BST) and radical cystectomy, both with associated risks and benefits. However, evidence supporting optimal management decisions for patients with recurrent high-grade NMIBC remains limited, leading to uncertainty for patients and clinicians. The CISTO (Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options) Study aims to address this critical knowledge gap by comparing outcomes between patients undergoing BST and radical cystectomy. METHODS: The CISTO Study is a pragmatic, prospective observational cohort trial across 36 academic and community urology practices in the US. The study will enroll 572 patients with a diagnosis of recurrent high-grade NMIBC who select management with either BST or radical cystectomy. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (QOL) at 12 months as measured with the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes include bladder cancer-specific QOL, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and financial toxicity. The study will also assess patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Statistical analyses will employ targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to address treatment selection bias and confounding by indication. DISCUSSION: The CISTO Study is powered to detect clinically important differences in QOL and cancer-specific survival between the two treatment approaches. By including a diverse patient population, the study also aims to assess outcomes across the following patient characteristics: age, gender, race, burden of comorbid health conditions, cancer severity, caregiver status, social determinants of health, and rurality. Treatment outcomes may also vary by patient preferences, health literacy, and baseline QOL. The CISTO Study will fill a crucial evidence gap in the management of recurrent high-grade NMIBC, providing evidence-based guidance for patients and clinicians in choosing between BST and radical cystectomy. The CISTO study will provide an evidence-based approach to identifying the right treatment for the right patient at the right time in the challenging clinical setting of recurrent high-grade NMIBC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03933826. Registered on May 1, 2019.

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.

Association of Weight Loss in Ambulatory Care Settings With First Diagnosis of Lung Cancer in the US.

Importance: Lung cancer, the US's leading cause of cancer death, is often diagnosed following presentation to health care settings with symptoms, and many patients present with late-stage disease. Objective: To investigate the association between weight loss and subsequent diagnosis of incident lung cancer in an ambulatory care population and to assess whether recorded weight change had higher odds of lung cancer diagnosis than objective measurements. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study included patients visiting a US academic medical center between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. Data were derived from US ambulatory care electronic health records from the University of Washington Medical Center linked to the local Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry. Cases were identified from patients who had a primary lung cancer diagnosis between 2012 and 2019; controls were matched on age, sex, smoking status, and presenting to the same type of ambulatory clinic as cases. Data were analyzed from March 2022 through January 2023. Exposure: Continuous and categorical weight change were assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds ratios estimating the likelihood of a diagnosis of lung cancer were calculated using univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression. Results: A total of 625 patients aged 40 years or older with a first primary lung cancer diagnosis and 4606 matched controls were included (1915 [36.6%] ages 60 to 69 years; 418 [8.0%] Asian, 389 [7.4%] Black, 4092 [78.2%] White). In unadjusted analyses, participants with weight loss of 1% to 3% (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.88-1.41), 3% to 5% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.99-1.88), or 5% to 10% (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.82-1.85) over a 2-year period did not have statistically significantly increased risk of lung cancer diagnosis compared with those who maintained a steady weight. However, participants with weight loss of 10% to 50% had more than twice the odds of a lung cancer diagnosis (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.27-4.05). Most categories of weight loss showed significant associations with an increased risk of lung cancer diagnosis for at least 6 months prior to diagnosis. Patients who had weight loss both recorded in clinicians' notes and measured had higher odds of lung cancer compared with patients who had only recorded (OR, 1.26; odds; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52) or measured (OR, 8.53; 95% CI, 6.99-10.40) weight loss. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, weight loss in the prior 6 months was associated with incident lung cancer diagnosis and was present whether weight loss was recorded as a symptom by the clinician or based on changes in routinely measured weight, demonstrating a potential opportunity for early diagnosis. The association between measured and recorded weight loss by clinicians presents novel results for the US.

Evaluation of an experiential training program in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research for diverse researcher communities and health care organizations.

Background/Objective: The goal of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Partnership was to prepare health care professionals and researchers to conduct patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Substantial evidence gaps, heterogeneous health care systems, and decision-making challenges in the USA underscore the need for evidence-based strategies. Methods: We engaged five community-based health care organizations that serve diverse and underrepresented patient populations from Hawai'i to Minnesota. Each partner nominated two in-house scholars to participate in the 2-year program. The program focused on seven competencies pertinent to patient-centered outcomes and CER. It combined in-person and experiential learning with asynchronous, online education, and created adaptive, pragmatic learning opportunities and a Summer Institute. Metrics included the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), a tool designed to assess research self-efficacy and clinical research skills across 10 domains. Results: We trained 31 scholars in 3 cohorts. Mean scores in nine domains of the CRAI improved; greater improvement was observed from the beginning to the midpoint than from the midpoint to conclusion of the program. Across all three cohorts, mean scores on 52 items (100%) increased (p ≤ 0.01), and 91% of scholars reported the program improved their skills moderately/significantly. Satisfaction with the program was high (91%). Conclusions: Investigators that conduct patient-centered outcomes and CER must know how to collaborate with regional health care systems to identify priorities; pose questions; design, conduct, and disseminate observational and experimental research; and transform knowledge into practical clinical applications. Training programs such as ours can facilitate such collaborations.

Symptoms and signs of lung cancer prior to diagnosis: case-control study using electronic health records from ambulatory care within a large US-based tertiary care centre.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the USA. While most patients are diagnosed following symptomatic presentation, no studies have compared symptoms and physical examination signs at or prior to diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) in the USA. We aimed to identify symptoms and signs in patients prior to diagnosis in EHR data. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinics at a large tertiary care academic health centre in the USA. PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOMES: We studied 698 primary lung cancer cases in adults diagnosed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019, and 6841 controls matched by age, sex, smoking status and type of clinic. Coded and free-text data from the EHR were extracted from 2 years prior to diagnosis date for cases and index date for controls. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with lung cancer at time of diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months before the diagnosis/index dates. RESULTS: Eleven symptoms and signs recorded during the study period were associated with a significantly higher chance of being a lung cancer case in multivariable analyses. Of these, seven were significantly associated with lung cancer 6 months prior to diagnosis: haemoptysis (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.3), cough (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), chest crackles or wheeze (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.1), bone pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), back pain (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2), weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8) and fatigue (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer appear to have symptoms and signs recorded in the EHR that distinguish them from similar matched patients in ambulatory care, often 6 months or more before diagnosis. These findings suggest opportunities to improve the diagnostic process for lung cancer.

Understanding the effect of new U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines and modalities on patients' comprehension and reporting of their cervical cancer screening behavior.

With recent shifts in guideline-recommended cervical cancer screening in the U.S., it is important to accurately measure screening behavior. Previous studies have indicated the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a resource for measuring self-reported screening adherence, has lower validity among non-White racial/ethnic groups and non-English speakers. Further, measuring diverse population groups' comprehension of items and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling merits investigation as it is a modality likely to be recommended in the U.S. soon. This study cognitively tested NHIS items assessing recency of and reasons for receiving cervical cancer screening and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling. We conducted cognitive interviews between April 2021 - April 2022 in English and Spanish with individuals screened in the past two years by either a medical center in metropolitan Seattle, Washington or a safety-net healthcare system in Dallas, Texas. Interviews probed understanding of reasons for screening, experiences with abnormal results, and interest in HPV self-sampling. We completed 32 interviews in Seattle and 42 interviews in Dallas. A majority of participants were unaware that two different tests for cervical cancer screening exist (Pap and HPV). Many did not know which type(s) of test they received. Dallas participants had more limited and inaccurate knowledge of HPV compared to Seattle participants, and fewer responded favorably toward HPV self-sampling (32% vs. 55%). To improve comprehension and accurate reporting of cervical cancer screening, we suggest specific refinements to currently used survey questions. Attitudes toward self-sampling should be explored further as differences may exist by region and/or sociodemographic factors.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

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.

How Timely Is Diagnosis of Lung Cancer? Cohort Study of Individuals with Lung Cancer Presenting in Ambulatory Care in the United States.

The diagnosis of lung cancer in ambulatory settings is often challenging due to non-specific clinical presentation, but there are currently no clinical quality measures (CQMs) in the United States used to identify areas for practice improvement in diagnosis. We describe the pre-diagnostic time intervals among a retrospective cohort of 711 patients identified with primary lung cancer from 2012-2019 from ambulatory care clinics in Seattle, Washington USA. Electronic health record data were extracted for two years prior to diagnosis, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to identify symptoms/signs from free text clinical fields. Time points were defined for initial symptomatic presentation, chest imaging, specialist consultation, diagnostic confirmation, and treatment initiation. Median and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for intervals spanning these time points. The mean age of the cohort was 67.3 years, 54.1% had Stage III or IV disease and the majority were diagnosed after clinical presentation (94.5%) rather than screening (5.5%). Median intervals from first recorded symptoms/signs to diagnosis was 570 days (IQR 273-691), from chest CT or chest X-ray imaging to diagnosis 43 days (IQR 11-240), specialist consultation to diagnosis 72 days (IQR 13-456), and from diagnosis to treatment initiation 7 days (IQR 0-36). Symptoms/signs associated with lung cancer can be identified over a year prior to diagnosis using NLP, highlighting the need for CQMs to improve timeliness of diagnosis.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To 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 Participants: This 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. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three 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. Results: Of 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 Relevance: Positive 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

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. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 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. RESULTS: Of 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.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

Impact of guideline-recommended dietitian assessments on weight gain in infants with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF)-specialized nutrition care strives to meet normal infant growth, but the relationship of dietitian assessments to weight outcomes is unknown. We characterize nutrition management for inadequate weight gain and assess association of dietitian assessments and center-level weight-for-age Z-scores (WAZ). METHODS: We used encounter data from 226 infants across 28 US CF Centers from the Baby Observational Nutritional study between January 2012 through December 2017. We identified dietitian assessments and consensus guideline-recommended responses to inadequate weight gain: calorie increases, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) increases, or shortened time to next visit. We compared center assessments by funnel plot and summarize median WAZ by center. RESULTS: Of 2,527 visits, 808 (32%) visits had identified inadequate weight gain, distributed in 216 infants. Assessments occurred in 1953 visits (77%), but varied widely between centers (range 17% - 98%). For inadequate weight gain, most and least common responses were calorie increase (64%) and PERT increase (21%). Funnel plot analysis identified 4 high-performers for frequent dietitian assessments (range 92% - 98%) and 4 under-performers (range 17% - 56%). High-performers treated inadequate weight gain more often with adequate calories (24/30, 80% v. 12/23, 52%) and closer follow up (104/164, 63% v. 60/120, 49%) compared to under-performers. Three of 4 high-performing sites met center nutrition goals for positive median WAZ at 2 years old unlike 3 under-performers (WAZHigh 0.33 v. WAZLow -0.15), despite similar patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: We characterized multicenter variation in dietitian assessments, identifying opportunities to improve care delivery to target early nutrition outcomes.

Health care costs related to home spirometry in the eICE randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Home spirometry with regular symptom assessment is one strategy to track lung health to intervene early in episodes of pulmonary exacerbations (PE). In a multi-center randomized controlled trial home spirometry and symptom tracking demonstrated no significant differences regarding the primary clinical endpoint, FEV1, compared to usual care, but did identify differences in healthcare utilization. We used data from the Early Intervention in Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbation (eICE) study to evaluate whether home monitoring of PE is a cost-minimizing intervention in the context of this randomized trial. METHODS: We reviewed healthcare resource utilization of all 267 eICE participants, including outpatient visits, antibiotics and hospitalizations. Prices were identified in the IBM/Watson MarketScanⓇ Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases and averaged over the 2014-2017 period. Using total healthcare utilization costs, we generated summary statistics by intervention and protocol arm (total cost, mean cost, standard deviation). We performed Welch Two Sample t-tests to determine if total costs and cost by type of utilization differed significantly between groups. RESULTS: Outpatient visit costs were significantly higher by 13% in the Early Intervention (EI) than in the usual care (UC) arm ($3,345 vs. $2,966). We found no significant differences in outpatient antibiotic, hospitalization, or total health care costs between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of the eICE trial, outpatient visits were significantly higher in those with experimental home spirometry care, but that did not translate into statistically significant differences of overall health care costs between the two arms.

Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.

Home testing for infectious disease has come to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is now considerable commercial interest in developing complete home tests for a variety of viral and bacterial pathogens. However, the regulatory science around home infectious disease test approval and procedures that test manufacturers and laboratory professionals will need to follow have not yet been formalized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the exception of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) guidance for COVID-19 tests. We describe the state of home-based testing for influenza with a focus on sample-to-result home tests, discuss the various regulatory pathways by which these products can reach populations, and provide recommendations for study designs, patient samples, and other important features necessary to gain market access. These recommendations have potential application for home use tests being developed for other viral respiratory infections, such as COVID-19, as guidance moves from EUA designation into 510(k) requirements.

Nephrology Nurses' Perspectives for the Designs of Mobile Hemodialysis Devices: A Human Factors Engineering Approach.

The goal of this study was to guide the early conceptual designs of two devices intended to improve the quality of life for patients on hemodialysis: a portable hemodialysis device and a wearable hemodialysis device. Thirty-two nephrology nurses were interviewed using a mixed approach of open-ended, rating, and rank-order questions. Results show most nurses try to persuade patients to try a modality of treatment that offers them the best clinical outcome and highest quality of life. Many nurses, however, indicate that patients are often not given the opportunity to choose their preferred modality of treatment, and that current hemodialysis treatments are one-size-fits-all and should be more individualized. Nurses also believe high-frequency home-based, portable, or wearable hemodialysis treatments are better for patients than in-center treatments, and patients can learn to safely connect and disconnect a hemodialysis device to their catheter. Using content analysis, we identified six categories of potential benefits a patient may experience using either a portable or a wearable hemodialysis device. We also identified six categories of potential barriers that may hinder nephrology nurses in recommending either a portable or a wearable hemodialysis device to their patients and seven categories of ideal features for the designs of the devices. Statistical analysis of rank-order questions shows nephrology nurses prefer a wearable hemodialysis device in the form of a belt compared to other designs (p < 0.05). Findings from this study provide valuable information guiding the design process of mobile hemodialysis devices that nephrology nurses will feel comfortable recommending to their patients.