Results. Median recovery time for observational treatment was not inferior to antibiotic treatment (14 days vs 12 days; P=.15; hazard ratio [HR] for functional recovery=0.91; lower limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.78). Observation was not inferior to antibiotics for any of the secondary endpoints at 6 and 12 months of follow-up (complicated diverticulitis, 3.8% vs 2.6%, respectively; P=.377), recurrent diverticulitis (3.4% vs 3%; P=.494), readmission (17.6% vs 12%; P=.148), or adverse events (48.5% vs 54.5%; P=.221). Initial hospitalization length of stay was shorter in the observation group (2 vs 3 days; P=.006). The researchers conducted a 24-month telephone follow-up, but no differences from the 12-month follow-up were noted.1
WHAT’S NEW
A study that looks at a true patient-oriented outcome
Previous studies of treatment options for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis looked at short-term outcomes, or at readmission, recurrence, and surgical intervention rate, or requirement for percutaneous drainage.7,8 This study is the first one to look at functional return to work (a true patient-oriented outcome). And it is the only study to look out to 24 months to gauge long-term outcomes with observational treatment.
CAVEATS
Can’t generalize findings to patients with worse forms of diverticulitis
It is worth noting that the findings of this study apply only to the mildest form of CT-proven acute diverticulitis (those patients classified as having Hinchey 1a disease), and is not generalizable to patients with more severe forms. Not enough patients with Hinchey 1b acute diverticulitis were enrolled in the study to reach any conclusions about treatment.
Various guidelines issued outside the United States recommend antibiotics for uncomplicated diverticulitis; however, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) indicates that antibiotics should be used selectively.1,9,10 This recommendation was based on an emerging understanding that diverticulitis maybe more inflammatory than infectious in nature. The AGA guideline authors acknowledge that their conclusion was based on low-quality evidence.9
Continuet to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
