User login
Molecularly guided therapy in pancreatic cancer: Untapped potential and the ‘bright future’ ahead
, according to a retrospective analysis of almost 2,000 patients in the Know Your Tumor registry.
While patients with actionable alterations remain in the minority, experts suggest the study’s results provide a ray of hope for treating a cancer that has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and disappointing clinical trials.
Patients with actionable molecular alterations who received matched therapies had a median overall survival of 2.58 years, compared with 1.51 years for those who received unmatched therapies, reported lead author Michael J. Pishvaian, MD, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues.
“Our study provides strong rationale that tumor-based molecular profiling for patients with pancreatic cancer should be routinely performed and encourages prospective clinical trials based on this or similar platforms,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.
In an accompanying comment, Jörg Kleeff, MD, and Christoph W. Michalski, MD, of Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany, supported this conclusion, calling the study “an encouraging starting point for a structured investigation of molecularly matched therapies.”
The authors also highlighted the untapped potential the trial uncovered, noting that only 4% of patients received a molecularly matched therapy, even though one-quarter had actionable alterations.
“These findings are important in that they define an estimation of the current number of potentially actionable targets and in that they provide a – rather disappointing – real-world assessment of the number of patients who actually received molecularly targeted treatment,” Dr. Kleeff and Dr. Michalski wrote.
They went on to describe a list of unanswered questions in the field, ranging from ethical dilemmas that may be encountered when choosing between targeted trials and chemotherapy for patients with targetable alterations, to more tangible subjects, such as genome sequencing techniques and therapeutic timing.
Their comment and the related study were published simultaneously with a series of pancreatic cancer articles in Lancet journals, which includes:
- A review outlining current and emerging therapies (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:e135-e145).
- A review of information on the metastatic cascade (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102662. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102662).
- A review of disease biology (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102655. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102655).
- A review of early detection strategies (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 2. pii: S2468-1253[19]30416-9).
According to the authors of the therapeutic review, treatments for pancreatic cancer have “a bright future.”
“There is more optimism now than ever before that advances will be made by combining chemotherapy more effectively with agents that target the unique features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors,” the authors wrote. “The next 5-10 years should deliver major improvements in outcomes through the use of novel agents that specifically target pathological signaling pathways and genetic alterations.”
In an interview, Dana B. Cardin, MD, of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., shared this favorable outlook, which she said is particularly needed for a condition that has generally been left behind by the new era of personalized oncology treatments.
“There’s been a lot of frustration on the part of patients and doctors and everyone in the research community that there have been a lot of other tumor types [in which] learning about genetic changes in cancer cells has really revolutionized how patients are being treated,” Dr. Cardin said. “That is something that has really been elusive in pancreas cancer.”
The retrospective study by Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues serves as proof-of-concept by showing that large-scale genomic testing can also identify personalized treatments for patients with pancreatic cancer, Dr. Cardin said.
“When you do find them, even when it’s a small percentage of patients that may have actionable mutations, it really can make a huge difference in the outcomes for those patients,” she said. “We have to get rid of this sense of futility. If you’re not trying to look for those things, then you’re not ever going to find them.”
Regardless of whether a personalized treatment is available for a particular patient, Dr. Cardin emphasized the importance of a positive and active clinical mindset, as data suggest that existing supportive strategies can have a significant impact on patient health.
“We can make a difference for these patients,” Dr. Cardin said, “but we’re only going to make a difference if we try.”
Dr. Cardin, a National Comprehensive Cancer Network panelist for pancreatic cancer, went on to explain how outcomes in the control arm of pancreatic cancer clinical trials have been improving over the past decade, even though the standard control drug, gemcitabine, has stayed the same.
“It doesn’t mean that gemcitabine is better than it used to be,” Dr. Cardin said. “It probably means that we’re treating more patients, and we’re also doing a better job of supporting those patients.” She identified growth factors, nutritional support, and enzyme supplements as key ancillary treatments for those who need them.
Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues’ study was funded by Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and Perthera. The investigators disclosed relationships with Perthera and other companies. Dr. Kleeff, Dr. Michalski, and Dr. Cardin declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Pishvaian MJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30074-7; Kleeff J et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30148-0; Christenson ES et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30795-8.
, according to a retrospective analysis of almost 2,000 patients in the Know Your Tumor registry.
While patients with actionable alterations remain in the minority, experts suggest the study’s results provide a ray of hope for treating a cancer that has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and disappointing clinical trials.
Patients with actionable molecular alterations who received matched therapies had a median overall survival of 2.58 years, compared with 1.51 years for those who received unmatched therapies, reported lead author Michael J. Pishvaian, MD, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues.
“Our study provides strong rationale that tumor-based molecular profiling for patients with pancreatic cancer should be routinely performed and encourages prospective clinical trials based on this or similar platforms,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.
In an accompanying comment, Jörg Kleeff, MD, and Christoph W. Michalski, MD, of Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany, supported this conclusion, calling the study “an encouraging starting point for a structured investigation of molecularly matched therapies.”
The authors also highlighted the untapped potential the trial uncovered, noting that only 4% of patients received a molecularly matched therapy, even though one-quarter had actionable alterations.
“These findings are important in that they define an estimation of the current number of potentially actionable targets and in that they provide a – rather disappointing – real-world assessment of the number of patients who actually received molecularly targeted treatment,” Dr. Kleeff and Dr. Michalski wrote.
They went on to describe a list of unanswered questions in the field, ranging from ethical dilemmas that may be encountered when choosing between targeted trials and chemotherapy for patients with targetable alterations, to more tangible subjects, such as genome sequencing techniques and therapeutic timing.
Their comment and the related study were published simultaneously with a series of pancreatic cancer articles in Lancet journals, which includes:
- A review outlining current and emerging therapies (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:e135-e145).
- A review of information on the metastatic cascade (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102662. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102662).
- A review of disease biology (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102655. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102655).
- A review of early detection strategies (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 2. pii: S2468-1253[19]30416-9).
According to the authors of the therapeutic review, treatments for pancreatic cancer have “a bright future.”
“There is more optimism now than ever before that advances will be made by combining chemotherapy more effectively with agents that target the unique features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors,” the authors wrote. “The next 5-10 years should deliver major improvements in outcomes through the use of novel agents that specifically target pathological signaling pathways and genetic alterations.”
In an interview, Dana B. Cardin, MD, of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., shared this favorable outlook, which she said is particularly needed for a condition that has generally been left behind by the new era of personalized oncology treatments.
“There’s been a lot of frustration on the part of patients and doctors and everyone in the research community that there have been a lot of other tumor types [in which] learning about genetic changes in cancer cells has really revolutionized how patients are being treated,” Dr. Cardin said. “That is something that has really been elusive in pancreas cancer.”
The retrospective study by Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues serves as proof-of-concept by showing that large-scale genomic testing can also identify personalized treatments for patients with pancreatic cancer, Dr. Cardin said.
“When you do find them, even when it’s a small percentage of patients that may have actionable mutations, it really can make a huge difference in the outcomes for those patients,” she said. “We have to get rid of this sense of futility. If you’re not trying to look for those things, then you’re not ever going to find them.”
Regardless of whether a personalized treatment is available for a particular patient, Dr. Cardin emphasized the importance of a positive and active clinical mindset, as data suggest that existing supportive strategies can have a significant impact on patient health.
“We can make a difference for these patients,” Dr. Cardin said, “but we’re only going to make a difference if we try.”
Dr. Cardin, a National Comprehensive Cancer Network panelist for pancreatic cancer, went on to explain how outcomes in the control arm of pancreatic cancer clinical trials have been improving over the past decade, even though the standard control drug, gemcitabine, has stayed the same.
“It doesn’t mean that gemcitabine is better than it used to be,” Dr. Cardin said. “It probably means that we’re treating more patients, and we’re also doing a better job of supporting those patients.” She identified growth factors, nutritional support, and enzyme supplements as key ancillary treatments for those who need them.
Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues’ study was funded by Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and Perthera. The investigators disclosed relationships with Perthera and other companies. Dr. Kleeff, Dr. Michalski, and Dr. Cardin declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Pishvaian MJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30074-7; Kleeff J et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30148-0; Christenson ES et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30795-8.
, according to a retrospective analysis of almost 2,000 patients in the Know Your Tumor registry.
While patients with actionable alterations remain in the minority, experts suggest the study’s results provide a ray of hope for treating a cancer that has historically been associated with a poor prognosis and disappointing clinical trials.
Patients with actionable molecular alterations who received matched therapies had a median overall survival of 2.58 years, compared with 1.51 years for those who received unmatched therapies, reported lead author Michael J. Pishvaian, MD, PhD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues.
“Our study provides strong rationale that tumor-based molecular profiling for patients with pancreatic cancer should be routinely performed and encourages prospective clinical trials based on this or similar platforms,” the investigators wrote in Lancet Oncology.
In an accompanying comment, Jörg Kleeff, MD, and Christoph W. Michalski, MD, of Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany, supported this conclusion, calling the study “an encouraging starting point for a structured investigation of molecularly matched therapies.”
The authors also highlighted the untapped potential the trial uncovered, noting that only 4% of patients received a molecularly matched therapy, even though one-quarter had actionable alterations.
“These findings are important in that they define an estimation of the current number of potentially actionable targets and in that they provide a – rather disappointing – real-world assessment of the number of patients who actually received molecularly targeted treatment,” Dr. Kleeff and Dr. Michalski wrote.
They went on to describe a list of unanswered questions in the field, ranging from ethical dilemmas that may be encountered when choosing between targeted trials and chemotherapy for patients with targetable alterations, to more tangible subjects, such as genome sequencing techniques and therapeutic timing.
Their comment and the related study were published simultaneously with a series of pancreatic cancer articles in Lancet journals, which includes:
- A review outlining current and emerging therapies (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:e135-e145).
- A review of information on the metastatic cascade (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102662. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102662).
- A review of disease biology (EBioMedicine. 2020 Feb 28:102655. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102655).
- A review of early detection strategies (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 2. pii: S2468-1253[19]30416-9).
According to the authors of the therapeutic review, treatments for pancreatic cancer have “a bright future.”
“There is more optimism now than ever before that advances will be made by combining chemotherapy more effectively with agents that target the unique features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors,” the authors wrote. “The next 5-10 years should deliver major improvements in outcomes through the use of novel agents that specifically target pathological signaling pathways and genetic alterations.”
In an interview, Dana B. Cardin, MD, of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., shared this favorable outlook, which she said is particularly needed for a condition that has generally been left behind by the new era of personalized oncology treatments.
“There’s been a lot of frustration on the part of patients and doctors and everyone in the research community that there have been a lot of other tumor types [in which] learning about genetic changes in cancer cells has really revolutionized how patients are being treated,” Dr. Cardin said. “That is something that has really been elusive in pancreas cancer.”
The retrospective study by Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues serves as proof-of-concept by showing that large-scale genomic testing can also identify personalized treatments for patients with pancreatic cancer, Dr. Cardin said.
“When you do find them, even when it’s a small percentage of patients that may have actionable mutations, it really can make a huge difference in the outcomes for those patients,” she said. “We have to get rid of this sense of futility. If you’re not trying to look for those things, then you’re not ever going to find them.”
Regardless of whether a personalized treatment is available for a particular patient, Dr. Cardin emphasized the importance of a positive and active clinical mindset, as data suggest that existing supportive strategies can have a significant impact on patient health.
“We can make a difference for these patients,” Dr. Cardin said, “but we’re only going to make a difference if we try.”
Dr. Cardin, a National Comprehensive Cancer Network panelist for pancreatic cancer, went on to explain how outcomes in the control arm of pancreatic cancer clinical trials have been improving over the past decade, even though the standard control drug, gemcitabine, has stayed the same.
“It doesn’t mean that gemcitabine is better than it used to be,” Dr. Cardin said. “It probably means that we’re treating more patients, and we’re also doing a better job of supporting those patients.” She identified growth factors, nutritional support, and enzyme supplements as key ancillary treatments for those who need them.
Dr. Pishvaian and colleagues’ study was funded by Pancreatic Cancer Action Network and Perthera. The investigators disclosed relationships with Perthera and other companies. Dr. Kleeff, Dr. Michalski, and Dr. Cardin declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Pishvaian MJ et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30074-7; Kleeff J et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30148-0; Christenson ES et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30795-8.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
APPRENTICE registry: Wide variation exists in acute pancreatitis treatment, outcomes
Etiologies, demographics, management, and outcomes vary widely among patients with acute pancreatitis around the world, according to an analysis of data from the prospective, international APPRENTICE patient registry.
In some cases – particularly in regard to therapeutic interventions – the differences are “strikingly divergent” and demonstrate a “lag behind current evidence,” Bassem Matta, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Findings of a disproportionately higher rate of opioid prescribing during hospitalization and at discharge at North American sites are especially alarming, the investigators said.
Demographics and etiologies
The most common etiologies among 1,612 patients in the registry, which collects data from individuals with acute pancreatitis at six centers in Europe, three centers in India, five centers in Latin America, and eight centers in North America, were biliary (45%) and alcoholic (21%), and severity was mild in 65% of patients, moderate in 23%, and severe in 12%, they noted.
The predominant etiology in Latin America was biliary (78%), whereas the predominant etiology in India was alcoholic (45%).
The mean age of patients in Europe was 58 years, which is older than the mean age of 46 years for all regions represented in the registry, and comorbid conditions were also more common among patients in Europe (73% vs. 50% overall), the investigators found.
In addition to age differences, significant geographic differences were seen with respect to sex, ethnicity, and race distributions. Patients from Indian sites, for example, were mostly men (75%), were younger in age (median, 39 years), and were more likely to have alcoholic etiology (45% vs. 14% in the other areas). Most of the Latin American patients were women (67%), were young (median, 43 years), and most often had biliary etiology (78% vs. 37% elsewhere).
In contrast, European and North American subjects had a relatively equal sex distribution and an overall older age (median, 58 years).
“Observed differences in etiology and demographics likely reflect a tight interconnection between age, sex, and etiology,” the investigators wrote.
Management
Analgesic utilization was “markedly variable” across the world, they said, explaining that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the mainstay of pain management in Europe (68%), whereas Indian sites used tramadol in 91% of patients.
Latin American centers frequently used opioids (59%), NSAIDs (48%), and tramadol (34%).
However, opioid analgesics were used in 93% of patients in North America, compared with 27% of patients in the other regions, and 64% vs. 2.7% of patients in North American vs. the other regions were discharged on opioid analgesics.
This is of particular concern in light of a meta-analysis showing no difference in efficacy between opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain control in acute pancreatitis, the investigators said, noting that “[i]t is not entirely clear why such divergences exist between North American centers compared to the rest of the world.
“Notably, no clear statements are included in the current societal guidelines addressing optimal strategies for analgesia in [acute pancreatitis],” they added.
Also of note, the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – which guidelines based on strong evidence say should be limited to urgent cases among biliary acute pancreatitis patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction – was much higher at North American sites (44.7% vs. 21.9% overall) and post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly more common at North American sites (19% vs. 2.8% in the other geographic areas), they said.
However, these differences were mostly driven by two North American sites, which classified 50 out of 90 and 22 out of 62 enrolled patients, respectively, as having post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Further, cholecystectomies were performed at the time of hospital admission in 60% of patients in Latin America, compared with 15% overall.
Another notable difference in management related to intravenous fluid use; similar amounts were administered during the first 24 hours in India and Latin America (3-3.2 liters), but in Europe the average was 2.5 liters, and while lactated Ringers and normal saline were the main types of fluid used, lactated Ringers was the dominant type used in India (92%), but was rarely used in Latin America (7%).
Outcomes
The overall median length of stay was 8 days, and overall mortality during hospitalization was 2.8%. In patients with mild disease, the shortest lengths of stay were in North America (4 vs. 7 days in other regions), and severe disease was more common in India (23% vs. 9% elsewhere).
Intensive care unit admissions were highest at Indian centers, and in-hospital mortality was highest in Europe (5.7%), compared with 3.3% in India, 2.3% in Latin America, and 0.6% in North America, they said.
Mortality during the initial hospital stay among patients with severe acute pancreatitis was 44% in Europe, compared with 15% in the other three regions.
Multivariable regression analyses adjusting for potential confounders such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson score, etiology, and transfer status showed that the odds of severe acute pancreatitis were 11.2 times higher in Europe, 7 times higher in India, and 5.6 times higher in Latin America, compared with North America.
The odds ratios for mortality during hospitalization among patients with severe disease were 10.4 in Europe, 4.2 in India, and 8.3 in Latin America, compared with North America.
Implications of the findings
Around the world, acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of gastrointestinal-related hospital admissions, and incidence is reportedly increasing in the United States and Europe, the investigators said, noting that about 20% of patients develop severe disease with relatively high morbidity and mortality.
Multiple advances in management have emerged over the last decade, but it is unclear whether those recent advances have gained traction worldwide, they added.
The APPRENTICE registry was created as a response to the lack of prospective, multinational data and the current study aimed to assess the geographic differences in patient characteristics, management, and outcomes across four geographic areas.
The findings, which represent “a bird’s eye view” of regional variation, underscore a need for “adequately powered, multicenter, randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of different fluid resuscitation protocols” in acute pancreatitis patients, the investigators said.
Further, “the interventions specific to each region are in certain aspects strikingly divergent, and in many occasions lag behind current evidence,” they wrote, noting the largely variable length-of-stay outcomes and mortality rates.
“In addition to depicting key features of [acute pancreatitis], the results from this study may serve as a reference guide for designing future clinical trials,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Matt B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.017.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education to help your patients understand acute versus chronic pancreatitis, testing, treatment, and potential complications at https://www.gastro.org/
Etiologies, demographics, management, and outcomes vary widely among patients with acute pancreatitis around the world, according to an analysis of data from the prospective, international APPRENTICE patient registry.
In some cases – particularly in regard to therapeutic interventions – the differences are “strikingly divergent” and demonstrate a “lag behind current evidence,” Bassem Matta, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Findings of a disproportionately higher rate of opioid prescribing during hospitalization and at discharge at North American sites are especially alarming, the investigators said.
Demographics and etiologies
The most common etiologies among 1,612 patients in the registry, which collects data from individuals with acute pancreatitis at six centers in Europe, three centers in India, five centers in Latin America, and eight centers in North America, were biliary (45%) and alcoholic (21%), and severity was mild in 65% of patients, moderate in 23%, and severe in 12%, they noted.
The predominant etiology in Latin America was biliary (78%), whereas the predominant etiology in India was alcoholic (45%).
The mean age of patients in Europe was 58 years, which is older than the mean age of 46 years for all regions represented in the registry, and comorbid conditions were also more common among patients in Europe (73% vs. 50% overall), the investigators found.
In addition to age differences, significant geographic differences were seen with respect to sex, ethnicity, and race distributions. Patients from Indian sites, for example, were mostly men (75%), were younger in age (median, 39 years), and were more likely to have alcoholic etiology (45% vs. 14% in the other areas). Most of the Latin American patients were women (67%), were young (median, 43 years), and most often had biliary etiology (78% vs. 37% elsewhere).
In contrast, European and North American subjects had a relatively equal sex distribution and an overall older age (median, 58 years).
“Observed differences in etiology and demographics likely reflect a tight interconnection between age, sex, and etiology,” the investigators wrote.
Management
Analgesic utilization was “markedly variable” across the world, they said, explaining that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the mainstay of pain management in Europe (68%), whereas Indian sites used tramadol in 91% of patients.
Latin American centers frequently used opioids (59%), NSAIDs (48%), and tramadol (34%).
However, opioid analgesics were used in 93% of patients in North America, compared with 27% of patients in the other regions, and 64% vs. 2.7% of patients in North American vs. the other regions were discharged on opioid analgesics.
This is of particular concern in light of a meta-analysis showing no difference in efficacy between opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain control in acute pancreatitis, the investigators said, noting that “[i]t is not entirely clear why such divergences exist between North American centers compared to the rest of the world.
“Notably, no clear statements are included in the current societal guidelines addressing optimal strategies for analgesia in [acute pancreatitis],” they added.
Also of note, the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – which guidelines based on strong evidence say should be limited to urgent cases among biliary acute pancreatitis patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction – was much higher at North American sites (44.7% vs. 21.9% overall) and post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly more common at North American sites (19% vs. 2.8% in the other geographic areas), they said.
However, these differences were mostly driven by two North American sites, which classified 50 out of 90 and 22 out of 62 enrolled patients, respectively, as having post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Further, cholecystectomies were performed at the time of hospital admission in 60% of patients in Latin America, compared with 15% overall.
Another notable difference in management related to intravenous fluid use; similar amounts were administered during the first 24 hours in India and Latin America (3-3.2 liters), but in Europe the average was 2.5 liters, and while lactated Ringers and normal saline were the main types of fluid used, lactated Ringers was the dominant type used in India (92%), but was rarely used in Latin America (7%).
Outcomes
The overall median length of stay was 8 days, and overall mortality during hospitalization was 2.8%. In patients with mild disease, the shortest lengths of stay were in North America (4 vs. 7 days in other regions), and severe disease was more common in India (23% vs. 9% elsewhere).
Intensive care unit admissions were highest at Indian centers, and in-hospital mortality was highest in Europe (5.7%), compared with 3.3% in India, 2.3% in Latin America, and 0.6% in North America, they said.
Mortality during the initial hospital stay among patients with severe acute pancreatitis was 44% in Europe, compared with 15% in the other three regions.
Multivariable regression analyses adjusting for potential confounders such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson score, etiology, and transfer status showed that the odds of severe acute pancreatitis were 11.2 times higher in Europe, 7 times higher in India, and 5.6 times higher in Latin America, compared with North America.
The odds ratios for mortality during hospitalization among patients with severe disease were 10.4 in Europe, 4.2 in India, and 8.3 in Latin America, compared with North America.
Implications of the findings
Around the world, acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of gastrointestinal-related hospital admissions, and incidence is reportedly increasing in the United States and Europe, the investigators said, noting that about 20% of patients develop severe disease with relatively high morbidity and mortality.
Multiple advances in management have emerged over the last decade, but it is unclear whether those recent advances have gained traction worldwide, they added.
The APPRENTICE registry was created as a response to the lack of prospective, multinational data and the current study aimed to assess the geographic differences in patient characteristics, management, and outcomes across four geographic areas.
The findings, which represent “a bird’s eye view” of regional variation, underscore a need for “adequately powered, multicenter, randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of different fluid resuscitation protocols” in acute pancreatitis patients, the investigators said.
Further, “the interventions specific to each region are in certain aspects strikingly divergent, and in many occasions lag behind current evidence,” they wrote, noting the largely variable length-of-stay outcomes and mortality rates.
“In addition to depicting key features of [acute pancreatitis], the results from this study may serve as a reference guide for designing future clinical trials,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Matt B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.017.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education to help your patients understand acute versus chronic pancreatitis, testing, treatment, and potential complications at https://www.gastro.org/
Etiologies, demographics, management, and outcomes vary widely among patients with acute pancreatitis around the world, according to an analysis of data from the prospective, international APPRENTICE patient registry.
In some cases – particularly in regard to therapeutic interventions – the differences are “strikingly divergent” and demonstrate a “lag behind current evidence,” Bassem Matta, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Findings of a disproportionately higher rate of opioid prescribing during hospitalization and at discharge at North American sites are especially alarming, the investigators said.
Demographics and etiologies
The most common etiologies among 1,612 patients in the registry, which collects data from individuals with acute pancreatitis at six centers in Europe, three centers in India, five centers in Latin America, and eight centers in North America, were biliary (45%) and alcoholic (21%), and severity was mild in 65% of patients, moderate in 23%, and severe in 12%, they noted.
The predominant etiology in Latin America was biliary (78%), whereas the predominant etiology in India was alcoholic (45%).
The mean age of patients in Europe was 58 years, which is older than the mean age of 46 years for all regions represented in the registry, and comorbid conditions were also more common among patients in Europe (73% vs. 50% overall), the investigators found.
In addition to age differences, significant geographic differences were seen with respect to sex, ethnicity, and race distributions. Patients from Indian sites, for example, were mostly men (75%), were younger in age (median, 39 years), and were more likely to have alcoholic etiology (45% vs. 14% in the other areas). Most of the Latin American patients were women (67%), were young (median, 43 years), and most often had biliary etiology (78% vs. 37% elsewhere).
In contrast, European and North American subjects had a relatively equal sex distribution and an overall older age (median, 58 years).
“Observed differences in etiology and demographics likely reflect a tight interconnection between age, sex, and etiology,” the investigators wrote.
Management
Analgesic utilization was “markedly variable” across the world, they said, explaining that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the mainstay of pain management in Europe (68%), whereas Indian sites used tramadol in 91% of patients.
Latin American centers frequently used opioids (59%), NSAIDs (48%), and tramadol (34%).
However, opioid analgesics were used in 93% of patients in North America, compared with 27% of patients in the other regions, and 64% vs. 2.7% of patients in North American vs. the other regions were discharged on opioid analgesics.
This is of particular concern in light of a meta-analysis showing no difference in efficacy between opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain control in acute pancreatitis, the investigators said, noting that “[i]t is not entirely clear why such divergences exist between North American centers compared to the rest of the world.
“Notably, no clear statements are included in the current societal guidelines addressing optimal strategies for analgesia in [acute pancreatitis],” they added.
Also of note, the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – which guidelines based on strong evidence say should be limited to urgent cases among biliary acute pancreatitis patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction – was much higher at North American sites (44.7% vs. 21.9% overall) and post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly more common at North American sites (19% vs. 2.8% in the other geographic areas), they said.
However, these differences were mostly driven by two North American sites, which classified 50 out of 90 and 22 out of 62 enrolled patients, respectively, as having post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Further, cholecystectomies were performed at the time of hospital admission in 60% of patients in Latin America, compared with 15% overall.
Another notable difference in management related to intravenous fluid use; similar amounts were administered during the first 24 hours in India and Latin America (3-3.2 liters), but in Europe the average was 2.5 liters, and while lactated Ringers and normal saline were the main types of fluid used, lactated Ringers was the dominant type used in India (92%), but was rarely used in Latin America (7%).
Outcomes
The overall median length of stay was 8 days, and overall mortality during hospitalization was 2.8%. In patients with mild disease, the shortest lengths of stay were in North America (4 vs. 7 days in other regions), and severe disease was more common in India (23% vs. 9% elsewhere).
Intensive care unit admissions were highest at Indian centers, and in-hospital mortality was highest in Europe (5.7%), compared with 3.3% in India, 2.3% in Latin America, and 0.6% in North America, they said.
Mortality during the initial hospital stay among patients with severe acute pancreatitis was 44% in Europe, compared with 15% in the other three regions.
Multivariable regression analyses adjusting for potential confounders such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson score, etiology, and transfer status showed that the odds of severe acute pancreatitis were 11.2 times higher in Europe, 7 times higher in India, and 5.6 times higher in Latin America, compared with North America.
The odds ratios for mortality during hospitalization among patients with severe disease were 10.4 in Europe, 4.2 in India, and 8.3 in Latin America, compared with North America.
Implications of the findings
Around the world, acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of gastrointestinal-related hospital admissions, and incidence is reportedly increasing in the United States and Europe, the investigators said, noting that about 20% of patients develop severe disease with relatively high morbidity and mortality.
Multiple advances in management have emerged over the last decade, but it is unclear whether those recent advances have gained traction worldwide, they added.
The APPRENTICE registry was created as a response to the lack of prospective, multinational data and the current study aimed to assess the geographic differences in patient characteristics, management, and outcomes across four geographic areas.
The findings, which represent “a bird’s eye view” of regional variation, underscore a need for “adequately powered, multicenter, randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of different fluid resuscitation protocols” in acute pancreatitis patients, the investigators said.
Further, “the interventions specific to each region are in certain aspects strikingly divergent, and in many occasions lag behind current evidence,” they wrote, noting the largely variable length-of-stay outcomes and mortality rates.
“In addition to depicting key features of [acute pancreatitis], the results from this study may serve as a reference guide for designing future clinical trials,” they concluded.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Matt B et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.017.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education to help your patients understand acute versus chronic pancreatitis, testing, treatment, and potential complications at https://www.gastro.org/
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin contributes to carcinogenesis
Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.
In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.
Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.
To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.
“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.
Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.
Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.
“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.
Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.
E-cadherins have remained an enigma in cancer biology. Initially thought to be modulators of organism growth, studies in the past several years have established their role in tumor growth and metastasis. Cadherins are a large family of glycoproteins that mediate specific cell-cell adhesion in a calcium-dependent manner. Among this family, E-cadherins were among the first ones to be discovered almost 50 years back. During embryonic development, the spatiotemporal regulation of E-cadherin regulates cell migration and morphogenesis. In malignant cells, loss of E-cadherin leads to metastasis.
This has spurred studying of E-cadherin as a tumor suppressor. Loss of E-cadherin–mediated cell adhesion often correlates with loss of epithelial morphology and acquisition of metastatic properties. In the pancreas specific context as described by Kaneta et al, loss of E-cadherin leads to loss of acinar cells, elevated serum amylase accompanied with increased inflammation, showing a pancreatitis like phenotype. In the presence of activated oncogenic K-Ras, however, deletion of E-cadherin showed abundant desmoplasia resembling aggressive tumors in the early postnatal stage.
This is also reflected in the patient population. Studies have shown that 43% of the pancreatic adenocarcinomas analyzed had partial or complete loss of E-cadherin expression. Patients with a complete loss of this protein showed ~5.5 months median survival whereas those with partial loss had a survival of 12.7 months, indicating that loss of E-cadherin had a trend toward correlating with poor outcome (Modern Pathol. 2011;24:1237-47). Similarly, Epithelial-mesenchymal transition orchestrated by loss of E-cadherin has been shown to be a driver of tumor initiation (Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13:97-110). Thus, the study by Kaneta et al. demonstrating the loss of E-cadherin is a step forward in understanding the role of this protein in light of not only pancreatic carcinogenesis but pancreatic pathology in general.
Sulagna Banerjee, PhD is associate professor, department of surgery, University of Miami. She is a consultant with Minneamrita Therapeutics LLC.
E-cadherins have remained an enigma in cancer biology. Initially thought to be modulators of organism growth, studies in the past several years have established their role in tumor growth and metastasis. Cadherins are a large family of glycoproteins that mediate specific cell-cell adhesion in a calcium-dependent manner. Among this family, E-cadherins were among the first ones to be discovered almost 50 years back. During embryonic development, the spatiotemporal regulation of E-cadherin regulates cell migration and morphogenesis. In malignant cells, loss of E-cadherin leads to metastasis.
This has spurred studying of E-cadherin as a tumor suppressor. Loss of E-cadherin–mediated cell adhesion often correlates with loss of epithelial morphology and acquisition of metastatic properties. In the pancreas specific context as described by Kaneta et al, loss of E-cadherin leads to loss of acinar cells, elevated serum amylase accompanied with increased inflammation, showing a pancreatitis like phenotype. In the presence of activated oncogenic K-Ras, however, deletion of E-cadherin showed abundant desmoplasia resembling aggressive tumors in the early postnatal stage.
This is also reflected in the patient population. Studies have shown that 43% of the pancreatic adenocarcinomas analyzed had partial or complete loss of E-cadherin expression. Patients with a complete loss of this protein showed ~5.5 months median survival whereas those with partial loss had a survival of 12.7 months, indicating that loss of E-cadherin had a trend toward correlating with poor outcome (Modern Pathol. 2011;24:1237-47). Similarly, Epithelial-mesenchymal transition orchestrated by loss of E-cadherin has been shown to be a driver of tumor initiation (Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13:97-110). Thus, the study by Kaneta et al. demonstrating the loss of E-cadherin is a step forward in understanding the role of this protein in light of not only pancreatic carcinogenesis but pancreatic pathology in general.
Sulagna Banerjee, PhD is associate professor, department of surgery, University of Miami. She is a consultant with Minneamrita Therapeutics LLC.
E-cadherins have remained an enigma in cancer biology. Initially thought to be modulators of organism growth, studies in the past several years have established their role in tumor growth and metastasis. Cadherins are a large family of glycoproteins that mediate specific cell-cell adhesion in a calcium-dependent manner. Among this family, E-cadherins were among the first ones to be discovered almost 50 years back. During embryonic development, the spatiotemporal regulation of E-cadherin regulates cell migration and morphogenesis. In malignant cells, loss of E-cadherin leads to metastasis.
This has spurred studying of E-cadherin as a tumor suppressor. Loss of E-cadherin–mediated cell adhesion often correlates with loss of epithelial morphology and acquisition of metastatic properties. In the pancreas specific context as described by Kaneta et al, loss of E-cadherin leads to loss of acinar cells, elevated serum amylase accompanied with increased inflammation, showing a pancreatitis like phenotype. In the presence of activated oncogenic K-Ras, however, deletion of E-cadherin showed abundant desmoplasia resembling aggressive tumors in the early postnatal stage.
This is also reflected in the patient population. Studies have shown that 43% of the pancreatic adenocarcinomas analyzed had partial or complete loss of E-cadherin expression. Patients with a complete loss of this protein showed ~5.5 months median survival whereas those with partial loss had a survival of 12.7 months, indicating that loss of E-cadherin had a trend toward correlating with poor outcome (Modern Pathol. 2011;24:1237-47). Similarly, Epithelial-mesenchymal transition orchestrated by loss of E-cadherin has been shown to be a driver of tumor initiation (Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13:97-110). Thus, the study by Kaneta et al. demonstrating the loss of E-cadherin is a step forward in understanding the role of this protein in light of not only pancreatic carcinogenesis but pancreatic pathology in general.
Sulagna Banerjee, PhD is associate professor, department of surgery, University of Miami. She is a consultant with Minneamrita Therapeutics LLC.
Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.
In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.
Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.
To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.
“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.
Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.
Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.
“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.
Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.
Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.
In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.
Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.
To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.
“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.
Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.
Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.
“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.
Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.
The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.
FROM CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Use of PEP prophylaxis techniques may diverge from the evidence
(PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.
“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
A survey of American endoscopists
Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.
The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.
The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
Respondents had years of experience
Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.
All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.
About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.
In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
Results may reflect recall bias
The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.
Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.
Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.
The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.
SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.
AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/
(PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.
“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
A survey of American endoscopists
Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.
The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.
The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
Respondents had years of experience
Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.
All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.
About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.
In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
Results may reflect recall bias
The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.
Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.
Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.
The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.
SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.
AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/
(PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.
“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
A survey of American endoscopists
Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.
The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.
The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
Respondents had years of experience
Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.
All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.
About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.
In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
Results may reflect recall bias
The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.
Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.
Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.
The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.
SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.
AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Disposable duodenoscope shows clinical potential
A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.
At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.
Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.
“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”
According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.
“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.
To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.
Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).
Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.
According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.
As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.
“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.
They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.
“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.
SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.
A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.
At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.
Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.
“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”
According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.
“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.
To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.
Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).
Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.
According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.
As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.
“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.
They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.
“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.
SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.
A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.
At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.
Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.
“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”
According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.
“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.
To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.
Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).
Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.
According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.
As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.
“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.
They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.
“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.
SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
AGA releases clinical practice update for pancreatic necrosis
The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.
Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.
The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.
In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.
“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.
They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.
“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”
Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”
Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.
Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.
As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.
For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.
The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.
Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.
The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.
Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.
The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.
In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.
“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.
They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.
“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”
Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”
Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.
Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.
As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.
For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.
The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.
Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.
The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.
Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.
The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.
In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.
“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.
They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.
“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”
Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”
Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.
Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.
As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.
For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.
The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.
Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Findings confirm link between methimazole and risk for acute pancreatitis
CHICAGO –
After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.
“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.
Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.
However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.
During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.
Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.
To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.
The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).
The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.
Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.
Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.
“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.
Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.
He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.
Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/
SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .
CHICAGO –
After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.
“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.
Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.
However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.
During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.
Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.
To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.
The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).
The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.
Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.
Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.
“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.
Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.
He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.
Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/
SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .
CHICAGO –
After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.
“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.
Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.
However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.
During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.
Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.
To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.
The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).
The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.
Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.
Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.
“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.
Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.
He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.
Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/
SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .
REPORTING FROM ATA 2019
Key clinical point: Patients taking methimazole are at increased risk for acute pancreatitis.
Major finding: After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use of similar duration.
Study details: Danish registry-based, case-control and case-crossover study of 118,649 patients on antithyroid drugs.
Disclosures: Dr. Hegedüs reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
Source: Hegedüs L et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6.
FDA approves Pentax duodenoscope with sterile, disposable elevator
The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.
Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.
FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.
“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.
Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.
FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.
“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.
Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.
FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.
“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Cilofexor passes phase 2 for primary biliary cholangitis
BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.
Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.
Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.
“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.
The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.
Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.
Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.
Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.
Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.
“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.
The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.
SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.
BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.
Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.
Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.
“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.
The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.
Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.
Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.
Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.
Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.
“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.
The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.
SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.
BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.
Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.
Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.
“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.
The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.
Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.
Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.
Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.
Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.
“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.
The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.
SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.
REPORTING FROM THE LIVER MEETING 2019
Indwelling endoscopic biliary stents reduced risk of recurrent strictures in chronic pancreatitis
Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.
The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.
“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”
The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.
Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.
Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.
At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.
Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.
At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.
By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.
About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).
About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.
In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.
“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.
Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.
Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.
The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.
“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”
The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.
Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.
Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.
At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.
Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.
At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.
By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.
About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).
About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.
In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.
“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.
Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.
Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.
The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.
“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”
The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.
Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.
Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.
At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.
Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.
At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.
By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.
About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).
About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.
In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.
“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.
Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY