Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis

Background

For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random‐effects meta‐analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference −2·6 (95 per cent c.i. –6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low‐quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference −7·2 (−18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low‐quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high‐quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high‐quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non‐perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year.

Conclusion

The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value‐ and preference‐dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision‐making is necessary.

Limitations of each evolving

Associations of coeliac disease with coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Clinical experience suggests that atherosclerotic disease is common in individuals with coeliac disease, but epidemiological studies have had contradicting findings. To summarise the currently available evidence, we systematically reviewed and analysed observational studies of the association of coeliac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis with coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We searched for studies comparing CHD or stroke outcomes with individuals with and without coeliac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis. Three investigators independently searched electronic databases, identified relevant studies and extracted data. Study-specific results were combined in random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was quantified using the I(2) statistic and meta-regression. Twenty-one studies were included in our systematic review and 18 in the meta-analyses. For CHD, the pooled hazard ratio for incident disease was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 1.19) and the overall standardised mortality ratio was 1.21 (0.99, 1.49). For stroke and brain haemorrhage, the corresponding estimates were 1.10 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.21) and 1.43 (0.97, 2.10), respectively. There was moderate to considerable heterogeneity among the study-specific estimates. In addition, many estimates were based on small numbers of outcomes and they had limitations in terms of adjustment for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses lend some support to an association between coeliac disease and CHD or cerebrovascular disease, but the evidence base was heterogeneous and had limitations. Our systematic review highlighted a need in this area for adequately powered prospective studies with appropriate adjustment for potentially confounding factors.