Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. DESIGN: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). CONCLUSION: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

Assessment of pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: An international consensus guideline.

Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP.

The diagnostic work-up and outcomes of 'presumed' idiopathic acute pancreatitis: A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre observational cohort.

INTRODUCTION: After standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16-27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled 'presumed' IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in 'presumed' IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment. RESULTS: Out of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of 'presumed' IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT (n = 124, diagnostic yield 8%), EUS (n = 62, yield 35%), MRI/MRCP (n = 56, yield 33%), repeat ultrasound (n = 97, yield 21%), IgG4 (n = 54, yield 9%) and ERCP (n = 15, yield 47%). In 64 of 176 patients (36%) an aetiological diagnosis was established, mostly biliary (n = 39). In 13 out of 176 of patients (7%) a neoplasm was diagnosed. If additional diagnostic workup revealed an aetiology, the recurrence rate was lower in the treated patients than in the patients without a definite aetiology (15% versus 43%, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Additional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of 'presumed' IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence.

Pregabalin and placebo responders show different effects on central pain processing in chronic pancreatitis patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain control in chronic pancreatitis is a major challenge; the mechanisms behind analgesic treatment are poorly understood. This study aims to investigate the differences in pain sensitivity and modulation in chronic pancreatitis patients, based on their clinical response (responders vs nonresponders) to placebo or pregabalin treatment. METHODS: This study was part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the analgesic effects of pregabalin and placebo in chronic pancreatitis. Post hoc, patients were assigned to one of four groups, ie, responders and nonresponders to pregabalin (n=16; n=15) or placebo (n=12; n=17) treatment. Responders were defined as patients with >30% pain reduction after 3 weeks of treatment. We measured change in pain sensitivity before and after the treatment using electric pain detection thresholds (ePDT) in dermatomes C5 (generalized effects) and Ventral T10 (segmental effects). Descending endogenous pain modulation was quantified via conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm. RESULTS: Sixty patients were analyzed in a per-protocol analysis. ePDT change in C5 was significant vs baseline and greater in pregabalin (1.3 mA) vs placebo responders (-0.1 mA; P=0.015). This was not so for ePDT in Ventral T10. CPM increased more in pregabalin (9%) vs placebo responders (-17%; P<0.001). CPM changed significantly vs baseline only for pregabalin responders (P=0.006). CONCLUSION: This hypothesis-generating study provides the first evidence that pain relief with pregabalin is associated with anti-hyperalgesic effects and increased endogenous inhibitory modulation. No such effects were observed in patients experiencing pain relief with the placebo treatment. The mechanisms underlying analgesic response to placebo vs drug treatments are different and, together with their interactions, deserve further study.