High Clinical and Genetic Similarity Between Chronic Pancreatitis Associated With Light-to-Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Classical Alcoholic Chronic Pancreatitis

Post-healing perceptions and experiences of alcohol withdrawal and life management in men with alcoholic pancreatitis: a qualitative study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to examine the perceptions and experiences of male patients with alcoholic pancreatitis after healing regarding alcohol withdrawal and life management.

Methods

This study used a qualitative descriptive design, and participants were selected by purposive sampling from two tertiary care hospitals in Shandong Province, China. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 18 male patients discharged from the gastroenterology department who had recovered from alcoholic pancreatitis. Colaizzi's method was used to analyze the interview data, and the findings were reported using COREQ criteria.

Results

By analyzing the interview data, we summarized five themes, (1) the dilemma of sobriety, (2) role change, (3) illness status, (4) family influence, and (5) life management.

Conclusion

By profiling the perceptions and experiences of post-healing alcoholic pancreatitis patients' alcohol cessation and life management in men, it helps to grasp the details of alcohol cessation and health direction of patients' home management, which provides more directional guidance to help patients maintain positive and good lifestyle habits and active management awareness, followed by targeted personalized interventions to provide patients with knowledge of disease care and health management.

Classification of PRSS1 variants responsible for chronic pancreatitis: An expert perspective from the Franco-Chinese GREPAN study group

BACKGROUND

PRSS1 was the first reported chronic pancreatitis (CP) gene. The existence of both gain-of-function (GoF) and gain-of-proteotoxicity (GoP) pathological PRSS1 variants, together with the fact that PRSS1 variants have been identified in CP subtypes spanning the range from monogenic to multifactorial, has made the classification of PRSS1 variants very challenging.

METHODS

All currently reported PRSS1 variants (derived primarily from two databases) were manually reviewed with respect to their clinical genetics, functional analysis and population allele frequency. They were classified by variant type and pathological mechanism within the framework of our recently proposed ACMG/AMP guidelines-based seven-category system.

RESULTS

The total number of distinct germline PRSS1 variants included for analysis was 100, comprising 3 copy number variants (CNVs), 12 5' and 3' variants, 19 intronic variants, 5 nonsense variants, 1 frameshift deletion variant, 6 synonymous variants, 1 in-frame duplication, 3 gene conversions and 50 missense variants. Based upon a combination of clinical genetic and functional analysis, population data and in silico analysis, we classified 26 variants (all 3 CNVs, the in-frame duplication, all 3 gene conversions and 19 missense) as "pathogenic", 3 variants (missense) as "likely pathogenic", 5 variants (four missense and one promoter) as "predisposing", 13 variants (all missense) as "unknown significance", 2 variants (missense) as "likely benign", and all remaining 51 variants as "benign".

CONCLUSIONS

We describe an expert classification of the 100 PRSS1 variants reported to date. The results have immediate implications for reclassifying many ClinVar-registered PRSS1 variants as well as providing optimal guidelines/standards for reporting PRSS1 variants.