Duloxetine for the Treatment of Patients with Suspected Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: A Pilot Study

Current treatment of biliary Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction

The sphincter of Oddi is a delicate neuromuscular structure located at the junction of the biliary-pancreatic system and the duodenum. Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (SOD) can result in various clinical manifestations, including biliary-type pain and recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis. The management of SOD has been challenging. With the publication of the landmark Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (EPISOD) trial and the Rome IV consensus, our clinical practice in the treatment of SOD has changed significantly in recent years. Currently, the management of type II SOD remains controversial and there is a lack of non-invasive therapy options, particularly for patients not responding to endoscopic treatment. In this mini review, we aimed to discuss the current knowledge on the treatment of biliary SOD.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy for adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The sphincter of Oddi comprises a muscular complex encircling the distal part of the common bile duct and the pancreatic duct regulating the outflow from these ducts. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction refers to the abnormal opening and closing of the muscular valve, which impairs the circulation of bile and pancreatic juices.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS

We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence from the trials included in this review, we do not know if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy increases, reduces, or makes no difference to the number of people with treatment success; if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation increases, reduces, or makes no difference to serious adverse events; or if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham improves, worsens, or makes no difference to health-related quality of life and liver function tests in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Evidence on the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with sham, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation,or dual endoscopic sphincterotomyon all-cause mortality, non-serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay is lacking. We found no trials comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy versus a placebo drug or versus any other pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination. All four trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. We lack randomised clinical trials assessing clinically and patient-relevant outcomes to demonstrate the effects of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

Dysfunction of Biliary Sphincter of Oddi-Clinical, Diagnostic and Treatment Challenges

Biliary Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) is one of the main causes of post-cholecystectomy pain. In this review, we aimed to provide an update on the current knowledge on biliary SOD, with an emphasis on diagnostics and therapy. Overall, current but scarce data support biliary sphincterotomy for patients with type 1 and 2 SOD, but not for type 3. However, sphincterotomy is associated with post-treatment pancreatitis rates of from 10% to 15%, thus calling for improved diagnostics, patient selection and treatment modalities for SOD. The role of pharmacologic therapy for patients with SOD is poorly explored and only two randomized controlled trials are available. Currently, studies comparing treatment outcomes are few. There is an unmet need for randomized sham/placebo-controlled clinical trials related to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of SOD.

Update on Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: A Review

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) encompasses a spectrum of clinical syndromes that are not fully understood, and various diagnostic and therapeutic methods have had varying results depending on the type of dysfunction. This review explored various mechanisms that might play a role in SOD and methods of diagnosis and management. It is important to rule out other causes of abdominal pain with laboratory testing, imaging studies, and endoscopic procedures. Medications that affect sphincter motility should be identified as well. Manometry is the gold standard for diagnosis but it is not always required. For example, patients with type I SOD may have symptomatic improvement with sphincterotomy without need for a diagnostic manometry. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy and fatty meal sonography may also have diagnostic utility. Sphincterotomy is not always effective for symptomatic improvement in type II and III SOD. Alternate therapies with calcium channel blockers and botulinum toxin have been studied and might be considered as options after discussing the risks and benefits with the patients.

Intra-sphincteric botulinum toxin in the management of functional biliary pain

Background and study aims  The management of functional biliary-type pain remains a clinical challenge. Intra sphincteric botulinum toxin putatively exerts an anti-spasmodic and anti-nociceptive effect. The objective of this study was to examine the clinical response to intra sphincteric botulinum toxin in patients with functional biliary-type pain. Patients and methods  This was a cross-sectional (hypothesis-generating) study of prospectively collected data from patients referred to a tertiary center from 2014 to 2019. The efficacy of ampullary botulinum toxin injection for relief of pain was recorded at post-procedure outpatient review. Opioid analgesia, neuromodulatory medication, and frequency of hospital admissions were recorded. Results  A total of 119 consecutive patients (109 women, 10 men, mean age 45 years; range 17-77) underwent 411 intra-sphincteric botulinum toxin injection procedures (mean 2 procedures; range 1-15). A total of 103 patients (87 %) had a significant improvement in pain on post-procedure review and 77 % and 76 % of patients were opioid and admission free, respectively. Of the patients, 59 % were prescribed tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline), 18 % duloxetine, 13 % pregabalin, and 3 % mirtazapine. Loss of response with the initial dose of botulinum toxin occurred in 56 % of patients. Pain control was reestablished in 80 % of patients in this cohort following botulinum toxin injection at a higher dose. Conclusions  These data suggest that botulinum toxin may improve outcomes in patients with functional biliary pain. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify the role of Botox and neuromodulatory agents.

Clinical features and management of painless biliary type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

Objective

The objective of this study was to clarify the characteristics and management of painless biliary type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD).

Methods

From June 2002 to July 2018, 12 patients who had recurrent liver dysfunction with a dilated bile duct or acute cholestasis of unknown cause without biliary pain (painless SOD) were included in this study. These patients’ characteristics were compared with those of 36 patients with biliary type SOD based on the conventional definition (criteria-based SOD).

Results

Patients with painless SOD had significantly more prominent bile duct dilation than patients with criteria-based SOD (13.9 vs. 12.2 mm, respectively). Prophylactic biliary drainage was performed significantly more often in patients with painless SOD than criteria-based SOD (67% vs. 11%, respectively). The short-term effectiveness rate of endoscopic sphincterotomy, the symptom recurrence rate, and the incidence of adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Painless SOD is a specific subtype of biliary SOD that causes recurring liver dysfunction or acute cholestasis without biliary pain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was effective in the present study, but the relapse rate was as high as that in typical SOD.

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: sphincter of Oddi dysfunction or discordance? What is the state of the art in 2018?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review important manuscripts published over the previous 2 years relative to sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD).

RECENT FINDINGS

The long-term outcomes of the Evaluating Predictors and Interventions of SOD (EPISOD) trial further substantiated results from the initial EPISOD study, reinforcing that neither endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-manometry nor endoscopic sphincterotomy are appropriate for SOD type III. Pain management in the latter patients has reverted to neuromodulating agents, and recent studies have suggested a role for duloxetine and potentially acupuncture. The functional role of the sphincter of Oddi has been reiterated with a report demonstrating a higher clinically significant pancreatic fistula rate in distal pancreatectomy patients treated with higher doses of postoperative narcotics. Moreover, the injection of periampullary botulinum toxin preoperatively has been shown to decrease these fistulas in a pilot trial. Additional studies have reinforced that eluxadoline can cause sphincter of Oddi spasm and pancreatitis. In contrast to approaching patients with acute relapsing pancreatitis using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and manometry, previous and current studies suggest that endoscopic ultrasound should be done first and the role of SOD in idiopathic acute relapsing pancreatitis remains controversial. Finally, there remain widespread disparities in practice patterns in the approach to patients currently classified as SOD type II.

SUMMARY

In contrast to historical manuscripts which stress the classical definitions of three types of SOD and their consequences, more recent manuscripts on this topic have focused on improving surgical outcomes based on the physiologic role of sphincter of Oddi, as well as the pharmacologic causes and treatments of SOD. The simplistic view that SOD, however it has been diagnosed, requires biliary or dual sphincterotomy is just that, simplistic and potentially misguided.

Post-cholecystectomy syndrome and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: past, present and future

Post-cholecystectomy syndrome and the concept of a causal relationship to sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, despite the controversy, has presented a clinically relevant conflict for decades. Historically surgeons, and now gastroenterologists have expended tremendous efforts towards trying to better understand the dilemma that is confounded by unique patient phenotypes. Areas covered: This review encompasses the literature from a century of experience on the topic of post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Relevant historical and anecdotal experiences are examined in the setting of insights from evaluation of recently available controlled data. Expert commentary: Historical observations and recent data suggest that patients with post-cholecystectomy syndrome can be categorized as follows. Patients with sphincter of Oddi stenosis will most often benefit from treatment with sphincterotomy. Patients with classic biliary pain and some objective evidence of biliary obstruction may have a sphincter of Oddi disorder and should be considered for endoscopic evaluation and therapy. Patients with atypical post-cholecystectomy pain, without any evidence consistent with biliary obstruction, and/or with evidence for another diagnosis or dysfunction should not undergo ERCP.