Loperamide-induced recurrent acute pancreatitis

Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis: An Evidence-Based Classification (Revised)

INTRODUCTION

Drug induced acute pancreatitis is a difficult diagnosis for clinicians. We previously published an "Evidence-Based Classification System" on Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis widely used by clinicians to assist in the identification of drugs. Unfortunately, this prior analysis based only on published case reports has been misunderstood. The prior review did not include studies with higher evidentiary value, such as randomized trials, case-control studies, and/or pharmacoepidemiologic studies. The use of the prior classification system has led to many patients being inappropriately labeled as having drug-induced acute pancreatitis. We now propose a "Revised" Evidence- Based Classification System for the purpose of determining which drugs cause acute pancreatitis based on the Grading of Recommendations, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

METHODS

A search of the English Language literature was performed to identify all case reports with medication and/or drug induced acute pancreatitis. We divided the drugs implicated as causing acute pancreatitis into four groups based on the quality of evidence as defined by GRADE quality parameters.

RESULTS

Although 141 drugs were identified in the literature as causing acute pancreatitis, only 106 drugs published in the literature as causing acute pancreatitis were high quality case reports. Only 3 drugs had evidence as causing acute pancreatitis from randomized controlled clinical trials, including 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine.

DISCUSSION

The vast majority of drugs implicated as causing acute pancreatitis in the literature have low or very low quality of evidence supporting those claims.

Postmarketing cases of eluxadoline-associated pancreatitis in patients with or without a gallbladder

BACKGROUND

Cases of pancreatitis were identified in the eluxadoline clinical development program, reflected in initial product labelling, and the subject of postmarketing reports.

AIM

To analyse postmarketing cases of eluxadoline-associated pancreatitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed all US adverse event reports of pancreatitis associated with eluxadoline reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from May 27, 2015 through February 15, 2017.

RESULTS

The analysis included 119 cases of pancreatitis associated with eluxadoline; one resulted in death and 75 in hospitalisation. Sixty-seven cases reported the presence (n = 12) or absence (n = 55) of the patient's gallbladder. The eluxadoline dose received in the 55 cases of patients without gallbladders was 75 mg (n = 43), 100 mg (n = 5), or not reported (n = 7). Of the 119 cases, 37 reported the patient did not abuse alcohol and 82 did not report the alcohol abuse status. The single fatal case occurred in a patient without a gallbladder who received eluxadoline 75 mg and did not abuse alcohol. Forty-seven cases reported development of pancreatitis within the first or second dose of eluxadoline initiation. The median time to onset for the development of pancreatitis (n = 83) was 1 day, ranging from 1 to 56 days of continued use of eluxadoline.

CONCLUSION

The FAERS cases suggest that patients with or without a gallbladder receiving eluxadoline are at risk for the development of pancreatitis. However, patients without a gallbladder, despite receiving the recommended lower dose of eluxadoline 75 mg and screening for alcohol abuse, appear to be overrepresented among patients who developed eluxadoline-associated pancreatitis.

Risk of Pancreatitis Following Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Eluxadoline

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Food and Drug Administration approved eluxadoline for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome despite cases of pancreatitis in early stage trials. We investigated the frequency of pancreatitis attributed to eluxadoline in postmarketing surveillance.

METHODS

We extracted reports on eluxadoline submitted to the Federal Adverse Event Reporting System from January through September 2016. We collected data on patient age and sex, event date, reporting entity (consumer, physician, pharmacist, legal worker, or other), medications, dosages, presumed role in the event (coinciding, primary, or secondary suspect), treatment indication, and outcome (death, life threatening, hospitalization, disability, or other).We compared data for eluxadoline with data from antidiarrheals, oxycodone, and rifaximin using the κ² test, Kruskal-Wallis rank test, and analysis of variance; findings with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Pancreatitis accounted for 16.4% of the 597 reports of adverse events linked to eluxadoline; 53 cases required hospitalization. Pancreatitis was listed as treatment complication of other agents in significantly lower proportions of cases (loperamide, 0.3%; diphenoxylate, 0.4%; oxycodone, 0.2%; rifaximin, 0.5%), with 75% of these submissions not considering the agent as causal.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of reports on eluxadoline submitted to the Federal Adverse Event Reporting System, we confirmed a previously reported risk of pancreatitis associated with eluxadoline. The need for hospitalization in at least half of these instances and a recent report of 2 fatalities should prompt reassessments of the agent's risk-benefit ratio.

Systematic review of loperamide: No proof of antibiotics being superior to loperamide in treatment of mild/moderate travellers' diarrhoea

Looking at the worldwide emergency of antimicrobial resistance, international travellers appear to have a central role in spreading the bacteria across the globe. Travellers' diarrhoea (TD) is the most common disease encountered by visitors to the (sub)tropics. Both TD and its treatment with antibiotics have proved significant independent risk factors of colonization by resistant intestinal bacteria while travelling. Travellers should therefore be given preventive advice regarding TD and cautioned about taking antibiotics: mild or moderate TD does not require antibiotics. Logical alternatives are medications with effects on gastrointestinal function, such as loperamide. The present review explores literature on loperamide in treating TD. Adhering to manufacturer's dosage recommendations, loperamide offers a safe and effective alternative for relieving mild and moderate symptoms. Moreover, loperamide taken singly does no predispose to contracting MDR bacteria. Most importantly, we found no proof that would show antibiotics to be significantly more effective than loperamide in treating mild/moderate TD.