Buprenorphine or procaine for pain relief in acute pancreatitis. A prospective randomized study

Management of analgesia in acute pancreatitis: Results of a national survey

INTRODUCTION

Acute pancreatitis is one of the main reasons for digestive admissions. Adequate pain treatment is crucial in its management. However, there are hardly any descriptions of the analgesic guidelines used in our setting.

METHODS

On-line survey on analgesic management in acute pancreatitis, aimed at attending physicians and residents practising in Spain.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine physicians from 88 centres responded to the survey. Ninety percent were specialists in gastrointestinal medicine and 69% worked in a tertiary centre. The majority (64.4%) do not routinely use scales to measure pain. When choosing a drug, experience in its use was the most important factor. The most commonly prescribed initial treatments are: combination of paracetamol and metamizole (53.5%), paracetamol alone (19.1%) and metamizole alone (17.4%). As rescue: meperidine (54.8%), tramadol (17.8%), morphine chloride (17.8%) and metamizole (11.5%). Continuous perfusion is used in 8.2% of initial treatments. Physicians with >10 years of service use more metamizole as monotherapy (50%), while residents and attending physicians with <10 years of service prescribe it in combination with paracetamol (85%). If progression is needed, morphine chloride and meperidine are mainly used. The speciality of the respondent, the size of the work centre and the unit/service where the patients were admitted did not influence the analgesia prescribed. Satisfaction with pain management reached 7.8/10 (SD 0.98).

CONCLUSION

In our setting, metamizole and paracetamol are the most commonly used analgesics as initial pain treatment in acute pancreatitis, and meperidine is the most commonly used rescue analgesic.

Buprenorphine Versus Diclofenac for Pain Relief in Acute Pancreatitis: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are used for analgesia in acute pancreatitis (AP), the analgesic of choice is not known. We compared buprenorphine, an opioid, and diclofenac, an NSAID, for analgesia in AP.

METHODS

In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, AP patients were randomized to receive intravenous diclofenac or intravenous buprenorphine. Fentanyl was used as rescue analgesia, delivered through a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Primary outcome was the difference in the dose of rescue fentanyl required. Secondary outcomes were the number of effective and ineffective demands of rescue fentanyl, pain-free interval, reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score, adverse events, and organ failure development.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were randomized to diclofenac and 24 to buprenorphine. The 2 groups were matched at baseline. The total amount of rescue fentanyl required was significantly lower in the buprenorphine group:130 μg, interquartile range (IQR), 80-255 vs 520 μg, IQR, 380-1065 (P < .001). The number of total demands was 32 (IQR, 21-69) in the diclofenac arm vs 8 (IQR, 4-15) in the buprenorphine arm (P < .001). The buprenorphine group had more prolonged pain-free interval (20 vs 4 hours; P < .001), with greater reduction in the VAS score at 24, 48, and 72 hours compared with the diclofenac group. These findings were confirmed in the subgroup of moderately severe/severe pancreatitis. Adverse events profile was similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with diclofenac, buprenorphine appears to be more effective and equally safe for pain management in AP patients, even in the subcohort of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (Trial Registration number: CTRI/2020/07/026914).

Controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis: An update

This review summarized the current controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The controversies in management range from issues involving fluid resuscitation, nutrition, the role of antibiotics and antifungals, which analgesic to use, role of anticoagulation and intervention for complications in AP. The interventions vary from percutaneous drainage, endoscopy or surgery. Active research and emerging data are helping to formulate better guidelines. The available evidence favors crystalloids, although the choice and type of fluid resuscitation is an area of dynamic research. The nutrition aspect does not have controversy as of now as early enteral feeding is preferred most often than not. The empirical use of antibiotics and antifungals are gray zones, and more data is needed for conclusive guidelines. The choice of analgesic is being studied, and the recommendations are still evolving. The position of using anticoagulation is still awaiting consensus. The role of intervention is well established, although the modality is constantly changing and favoring endoscopy or percutaneous drainage rather than surgery. It is evident that more multicenter randomized controlled trials are required for establishing the standard of care in these crucial management issues of AP to improve the morbidity and mortality worldwide.

The Efficacy and Safety of Using Opioids in Acute Pancreatitis: an Update on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Most patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) suffer from abdominal pain that requires immediate pain relief, and there are various medication choices available, with opioids being the most prescribed analgesics.

Objective

Our objective is to compare the use of opioids with other medications in emergency settings for managing pain in patients with AP.

Methods

A systemic search was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase and Google Scholar) from inception to Feb 2023. All statistical analyses were conducted in Review Manager 5.4.1. The study's inclusion criteria was then selected. Only those Randomized Controlled Trials were involved that included patients having AP in an emergency setting. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was seen to pool the studies, and the result was reported in the Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative analysis was conducted for those variables which did not have sufficient data be included in the quantitative analysis.

Results

We include eight Randomized Controlled Trials in our study. The Pooled result showed non-significant differences in adverse effects between the two interventions (OR 1.42 [95% CI 0.62, 3.23]; p value= 0.40; I2= 20%). While overall, significantly additional drugs were used in the control group (OR 0.22 [95% CI 0.06, 0.85]; p value= 0.03; I2= 72%). Pain score and severity levels were also analyzed. We used a narrative approach to analyze the length of stay, mean time to reach significant decrease in pain, and mortality, which were all non-conclusive. We also narratively assessed the Pediatric population.

Conclusion

Opioids do not provide significant superiority over other medications and should be avoided due to their addictive nature.

SERS and EC-SERS detection of local anesthetic procaine using Pd loaded highly reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite substrate

The localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) excitations are critical towards achieving sizable spectral enhancements of the Raman scattered light. Herein, the synthesis of palladium-based highly reduced graphene oxide (Pd-HRG) with LSPR properties as an effective surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) substrate and its utility in the highly sensitive detection of procaine are reported. The concentration detection of procaine samples was optimized by applying a set of pre-concentration parameters. The Pd-HRG nanocomposite showed a remarkable LSPR response with a Raman enhancement factor of 8.7 × 10². The Pd-HRG is employed to modify fluorine doped tin oxide electrode (Pd-HRG/FTO), resulted with an enhancement factor of 7.5 × 10⁴ corresponding to the EC-SERS technique. The electronic and surface properties of synthesized Pd-HRG and functionalized FTO electrode were evaluated using Raman, infrared, EIS, XRD, FESEM and EDX techniques. Quantum chemical calculations were carried out to elaborate on the nature of interaction of procaine molecules with a nanostructured surface model. Pd-HRG, with an efficient and cost-effective fabrication, can be considered as a promising EC-SERS substrate for the detection of organic therapeutic drugs.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia versus intramuscular pethidine in acute pancreatitis: An open-label, randomized controlled trial

Background: Hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides satisfactory postoperative pain therapy, but its effect has not been assessed in acute pancreatitis (AP).

Aim: To assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous hydromorphone PCA for pain relief in AP.

Methods: This open-label trial included AP patients admitted within 72 h of symptom onset, aged 18–70 years old, and with Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity ≥5. They were randomized to receive intravenous hydromorphone PCA (0.05 mg/h with 0.2 mg on-demand) or intramuscular pethidine (50 mg as required) for three consecutive days. Intramuscular dezocine (5 mg on demand) was the rescue analgesia. The primary outcome was the change of VAS score recorded every 4 h for 3 days. Interim analysis was conducted by an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (IDSMC).

Results: From 26 July 2019 to 15 January 2020, 77 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis in the interim analysis (39 in the hydromorphone group and 38 in the pethidine group). Baseline parameters were comparable between groups. No difference in VAS between the two groups was found. Hydromorphone PCA was associated with higher moderately severe to severe cases (82.1% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.011), acute peripancreatic fluid collections (53.9% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.027), more cumulative opioid consumption (median 46.7 vs. 5 mg, p &lt; 0.001), higher analgesia costs (median 85.5 vs. 0.5 $, p &lt; 0.001) and hospitalization costs (median 3,778 vs. 2,273 $, p = 0.007), and more adverse events (20.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.087). The per-protocol analysis did not change the results. Although a sample size of 122 patients was planned, the IDSMC halted further recruitment as disease worsening or worse clinical outcomes between the groups in the interim analysis.

Conclusion: Hydromorphone PCA was not superior to pethidine in relieving pain in AP patients and might have worse clinical outcomes. Therefore, its use is not recommended.

Clinical Trial Registration: Chictr.org.cn. ChiCTR1900025971

Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the management of the intensive care patient with severe acute pancreatitis.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 22 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline construction process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The most recent SFAR and SNFGE guidelines on the management of the patient with severe pancreatitis were published in 2001. The literature now is sufficient for an update. The committee studied 14 questions within 3 fields. Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the relevant evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and their application of the GRADE® method resulted in 24 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 8 have high levels of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have moderate levels of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 4 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. Four questions did not find any response in the literature. After one round of scoring, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts for 24 recommendations to improve practices for the management of intensive care patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

The Association Between Opioid Use and Opioid Type and the Clinical Course and Outcomes of Acute Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Basic science studies suggest that opioids aggravate disease severity and outcomes in acute pancreatitis. We sought to determine the association of opioid use and opioid type with the clinical course and outcome of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center observational study, we included all adult patients admitted with acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2021. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on analgesia type: morphine, noonmorphine opioid, and nonopioid.

RESULTS

We included 2308 patients. Of the patients, 343 (14.9%) were treated with morphine, 733 (31.8%) were treated with nonmorphine opioids, and 1232 (53.4%) patients were in the nonopioid group. The incidence of 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between study groups: 3.9%, 2.9%, and 4.4% in the nonopioid, nonmorphine-opioid, and morphine groups, respectively ( P = 0.366).In multivariate analysis, the composite end point consisting of 30-day mortality, invasive ventilation, emergent abdominal surgery, and need for vasopressors was significantly more likely to occur in the morphine group than in the nonopioid group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.598; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality among acute pancreatitis patients did not differ significantly between patients receiving morphine, nonmorphine opioids, and nonopioids. However, morphine treatment was associated with higher rates of some serious adverse events.

Analgesia in the Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

Pain Management in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP.

Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model.

Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity.

Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Buprenorphine for Pain Management

Health care providers in the United States are facing challenges in selecting appropriate medication for patients with acute and chronic pain in the midst of the current opioid crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. When compared with conventional opioids, the partial µ-opioid receptor agonist buprenorphine has unique pharmacologic properties that may be more desirable for pain management. The formulations of buprenorphine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for pain management include intravenous injection, transdermal patch, and buccal film. A comparison of efficacy and safety data from studies of buprenorphine and conventional opioids suggests that buprenorphine may be a better-tolerated treatment option for many patients that provides similar or superior analgesia. Our benefit-risk assessment in this narrative review suggests that health care providers should consider that buprenorphine may be an appropriate alternative for pain management over other opioids.

Advances in acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With a potentially life-threatening course, acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases requiring hospitalization and often necessitating intensive care. Based on recent insights and recommendations, this review provides an overview on clinical management of AP patients with a focus on intensive care unit care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Possible benefits of percutaneous paracentesis and/or drainage on outcome or inflammation have been further explored. Combined opioid and epidural analgesia for pain management might be a valuable alternative for pain management. Very recent international guidelines now agree on a step-up approach for the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis favoring a minimally invasive approach with either endoscopic or percutaneous drainage first. Studies for the best timing of these interventions are ongoing. In spite of a better understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms mediating AP, specific treatments are still awaited.

SUMMARY

New evidence and recent international consensus direct the current management of AP toward a tailored, multidisciplinary and less invasive therapy with complementary roles for hepatologists, intensivists, radiologists, and surgeons.

Transdermal Buprenorphine for Acute Pain in the Clinical Setting: A Narrative Review

Transdermal buprenorphine is indicated for chronic pain management, but as its role in the clinical management of acute pain is less clear, this narrative review examines studies of the patch for acute pain, mainly in the postoperative setting. Although perhaps better known for its role in opioid rehabilitation programs, buprenorphine is also an effective analgesic that is a Schedule III controlled substance. Although buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the μ-opioid receptor, it is erroneous to think of the agent as a partial analgesic; it has full analgesic efficacy and unique attributes among opioids, such as a ceiling for respiratory depression and low “drug likeability” among those who take opioids for recreational purposes. Transdermal buprenorphine has been most thoroughly studied for acute pain control in postoperative patients. Postoperative pain follows a distinct and predictable trajectory depending on the type of surgery and patient characteristics. Overall, when the patch is applied prior to surgery and left in place for the prescribed seven days, it was associated with reduced postoperative pain, lower consumption of other analgesics, and patient satisfaction. Transdermal buprenorphine has been evaluated in clinical studies of patients undergoing gynecological surgery, hip fracture surgery, knee or hip arthroscopy/arthroplasty, shoulder surgery, and spinal surgery. Transdermal buprenorphine may also be appropriate pain medication for controlling pain during postsurgical orthopedic rehabilitation programs. Transdermal buprenorphine may result in typical opioid-associated side effects but with less frequency than other opioids. Despite clinical reservations about transdermal buprenorphine and its potential role in acute pain management in the clinical setting, clinical acceptance may be hampered by the fact that it is off-label and buprenorphine is better known as an opioid maintenance agent rather than an analgesic.

Current status of diagnosis and Mesenchymal stem cells therapy for acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute gastrointestinal disorder that is the most common and requiring emergency hospitalization. Its incidence is increasing worldwide, thus increasing the burden of medical services. Approximately 20% of the patients develop moderate to severe necrotizing pancreatitis associated with pancreatic or peri-pancreatic tissue necrosis and multiple organ failure. There are many reports about the anti-inflammatory effect of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on pancreatitis and the repair of tissue damage. MSCs cells come from a wide range of sources, autologous MSCs come from bone marrow and allogeneic MSCs such as umbilical cord blood MSCs, placenta-derived MSCs, etc. The wide source is not only an advantage of MSCs but also a disadvantage of MSCs. Because of different cell sources and different methods of collection and preparation, it is impossible to establish a unified standard method for evaluation of efficacy. The biggest advantage of iMSCs is that it can be prepared by a standardized process, and can be prepared on a large scale, which makes it easier to commercialize. This paper reviews the present status of diagnosis and progress of MSCs therapy for AP.

Pentazocine, a Kappa-Opioid Agonist, Is Better Than Diclofenac for Analgesia in Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The ideal analgesic is not known for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). Concerns have been raised about serious adverse effects of opioid analgesics increasing the severity of AP. We hypothesized that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might be better analgesics because of their anti-inflammatory effect. Our objective was to compare pentazocine, an opioid, and diclofenac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, for adequate analgesia in patients with AP.

METHODS

In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, patients with AP were randomized to either intravenous diclofenac 75 mg or pentazocine 30 mg. Fentanyl was given as a rescue analgesic through a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Primary outcome was pain relief measured objectively by the dose of fentanyl required as the rescue analgesic, pain-free period, and numbers of effective and ineffective demands of fentanyl. Secondary outcome was adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were randomized, 24 to the pentazocine group and 26 to the diclofenac group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Pentazocine was found to be better than diclofenac in terms of significantly lower dose of the rescue analgesic (fentanyl) required (126 μg (interquartile range (IQR) 65-218 μg) vs 225.5 μg (IQR 133-427 μg); P = 0.028) and longer pain-free period (31.1 ± 8.2 vs 27.9 ± 6.6 hours, P = 0.047). The number of effective and ineffective demands was lower in the pentazocine group compared with the diclofenac group (11.5 (IQR 8-15) vs 16 (IQR 13-20), P = 0.098) although not statistically significant. Adverse events were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pentazocine, a kappa-opioid receptor agonist, was significantly better than diclofenac for pain relief in AP (Trial registration number: CTRI/2016/09/007326).

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.

Comprehensive exploration of the anticancer activities of procaine and its binding with calf thymus DNA: a multi spectroscopic and molecular modelling study

DNA demethylating agent procaine binds at the minor groove of ct-DNA and increases the anticancer activity of doxorubicin.

Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

Sublingual Buprenorphine Efficacy in Renal Colic Pain Relief: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Introduction

This study was designed to compare the analgesic efficacy of sublingual (SL) buprenorphine and intravenous (IV) ketorolac for renal colic pain relief.

Methods

The present study was carried out as a double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial in patients diagnosed with acute renal colic attending the emergency department. The study subjects were 63 patients with confirmed renal stones. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups. One group, which included 32 patients, received SL buprenorphine tablets (2 mg) with an IV placebo, and another group, including 31 patients, received ketorolac tromethamine (30 mg) with a SL placebo. After medication, the pain of subjects was measured by a standard visual pain analogous scale (VPAS) in minutes 0, 20, 40, and 60 of study. Also, probable adverse effects were recorded.

Results

In 28.1% of patients in the buprenorphine group, the mean pain score decreased from 9.2 to 5.9, 2.8, and 1.5 after 20, 40, and 60 min, respectively, as determined by VPAS. Also, in 38.7% of patients in the ketorolac group, the mean pain score decreased from 9.1 to 5.5, 3.0, and 1.6 after 20, 40, and 60 min, respectively, as determined by VPAS. The two groups did not significantly differ for pain reduction at 20, 40, and 60 min (P value = 0.16, 0.34, and 0.3, respectively). No adverse effects were seen in the ketorolac group, but vomiting (18.8%), nausea (18.8%), and dizziness (21.9%) were detected in the buprenorphine group.

Conclusions

We found no difference between SL buprenorphine and intravenous ketorolac in renal colic pain relief but more adverse effects in the buprenorphine group.

Trial Registration Iranian Registry of Clinical trials identifier, IRCT2015041421773N1.

Early management of acute pancreatitis: A review of the best evidence

In the 20th century early management of acute pancreatitis often included surgical intervention, despite overwhelming mortality. The emergence of high-quality evidence (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) over the past two decades has notably shifted the treatment paradigm towards predominantly non-surgical management early in the course of acute pancreatitis. The present evidence-based review focuses on contemporary aspects of early management (which include analgesia, fluid resuscitation, antibiotics, nutrition, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) with a view to providing clear and succinct guidelines on early management of patients with acute pancreatitis in 2017 and beyond.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

Nutrition, inflammation, and acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is acute inflammatory disease of the pancreas. Nutrition has a number of anti-inflammatory effects that could affect outcomes of patients with pancreatitis. Further, it is the most promising nonspecific treatment modality in acute pancreatitis to date. This paper summarizes the best available evidence regarding the use of nutrition with a view of optimising clinical management of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Opioids for acute pancreatitis pain

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas that may also involve adjacent tissues and/or remote organ systems. Abdominal pain is the main symptom and is usually accompanied by nausea, vomiting and fever. Opoids are commonly used to manage pain in acute pancreatitis but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of opioids for treating acute pancreatitis pain.

SEARCH METHODS

The search strategy included the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1950 to June 2013) and EMBASE (from 1980 to June 2013). There were no restrictions by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any opioid drug used for treating acute pancreatitis pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. We undertook meta-analysis for some outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with a total of 227 participants (age range 23 to 76 years; 65% men) with acute pancreatitis pain. The opioids assessed were intravenous and intramuscular buprenorphine, intramuscular pethidine, intravenous pentazocine, transdermal fentanyl and subcutaneous morphine.One RCT, comparing subcutaneous morphine with intravenous metamizole reported non-significant reduction in the number of participants with improvements in pain intensity (primary outcome) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33). Three studies compared analgesia using opioids with non-opioid treatments. After excluding one study that used opioids through continuous intravenous infusion, there was a decrease in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). In a single study, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia between buprenorphine and pethidine (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10).Pancreatitis complications were not associated with a significant difference between the drugs tested. No clinically serious or life-threatening adverse events occurred related to treatment. No differences for this outcome were found between opioid and non-opioid treatments, or for type of adverse event (nausea-vomiting and somnolence-sedation). One death in the procaine group was reported across all the trials.One RCT comparing pethidine with intramuscular buprenorphine reported non-significant differences of supplementary analgesic, adverse events or deaths. One RCT comparing fentanyl with placebo found no difference in adverse events.The findings of this review are limited by the lack of information to allow full appraisal of the risk of bias, the measurement of relevant outcomes and the small numbers of participants and events covered by the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Opioids may be an appropriate choice in the treatment of acute pancreatitis pain. Compared with other analgesic options, opioids may decrease the need for supplementary analgesia. There is currently no difference in the risk of pancreatitis complications or clinically serious adverse events between opioids and other analgesia options.Future research should focus on the design of trials with larger samples and the measurement of relevant outcomes for decision-making, such as the number of participants showing reductions in pain intensity. The reporting of these RCTs should also be improved to allow users of the medical literature to appraise their results accurately. Large longitudinal studies are also needed to establish the risk of pancreatitis complications and adverse events related to drugs.

Parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review

AIM

To assess the efficiency and safety of parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out an electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, WEIPU, CNKI and CBM and a manual search for eligible studies. The methodological quality of included trials and quality of evidence were examined by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and GRADE, respectively. The data were mainly analyzed descriptively and some were pooled by Review manager 5.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials with a total of 356 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Compared with procaine, pentazocine led to lower pain severity: day 1, Mean Difference (MD), 95%CI: 40.0 [35.3, 44.7]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: 24.00 [20.88, 27.12]; day 3, MD, 95%CI: 5.00 [2.17, 7.83], and it decreased the requirement for additional analgesics, Relative Risk, 95%CI: 2.23 [1.63, 3.05]. The combination of fentanyl, atropine, droperidol and lidocaine rendered lower pain score: day 1, MD, 95%CI: -5.46 [-6.95, -3.97]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: -5.78 [-7.39, -4.17]. Patients treated with metamizole tended to had lower pain than those treated with morphine, MD, 95%CI: -2.60 [-2.95, -2.25]. Nausea, emesis and vomiting were the common adverse events reported and there was almost no significant difference between different agents on safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The systemic review showed that the randomized controlled trials comparing different analgesics were of low quality and did not favor clearly any particular analgesic for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.

Pancreatic nociception--revisiting the physiology and pathophysiology

BACKGROUND

Pain management of many pancreatic diseases remains a major clinical concern. This problem reflects our poor understanding of pain signaling from the pancreas.

OBJECTIVES

This review provides an overview of our current knowledge, with emphasis on current pain management strategies and recent experimental findings.

METHODS

A systematic search of the scientific literature was carried out using EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1965-2011 to obtain access to all publications, especially randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses exploring pain and its management in disease states such as acute pancreatitis (AP), chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer (PC).

RESULTS

Over the last decade, numerous molecular mediators such as nerve growth factor and the transient receptor potential (TRP) cation channel family have been implicated in afferent nerve signaling. More recent animal studies have indicated the location of the receptive fields for the afferent nerves in the pancreas and shown that these are activated by agents including cholecystokinin octapeptide, 5-hydroxytryptamine and bradykinin. Studies with PC specimens have shown that neuro-immune interactions occur and numerous agents including TRP cation channel V1, artemin and fractalkine have been implicated. Experimental studies in the clinical setting have demonstrated impairment of inhibitory pain modulation from supraspinal structures and implicated neuropathic pain mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our knowledge in this area remains incomplete. Characterization of the mediators and receptors/ion channels on the sensory nerve terminals are required in order to facilitate the development of new pharmaceutical treatments for AP and CP.

Effects of systemic administration of a local anesthetic on pain in acute pancreatitis: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous local anesthetics may ameliorate pain and clinical course in patients with major abdominal surgery.

AIM

To investigate their effects in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Forty-six consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis randomly received intravenous procaine (2 g/24 h) or placebo for 72 hours in a double-blind fashion. Pain severity (visual analog scale, 0-100), on-demand pain medication (metamizole and/or buprenorphine), and the clinical course were monitored every 24 hours.

RESULTS

Data of 44 patients were subjected to intention-to-treat analysis. Although there were no differences between groups before treatment, procaine treatment was associated with a stronger decrease in pain compared with placebo (median visual analog scale decrement, -62 vs -39, P = 0.025). Moreover, there was a greater proportion of patients with adequate (≥ 67%) pain reduction (75% vs 43%, P = 0.018), less use of additional analgesics (P = 0.042), and overall analgesic superiority (P = 0.015). Compared with placebo, the proportion of patients hospitalized after 2 weeks was reduced by 80% after procaine treatment (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the hypothesis that systemic administration of local anesthetics might improve pain and accelerate clinical recovery in acute pancreatitis.

NSAIDs and Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

The resulting pain is the main symptom of acute pancreatitis and it should be alleviated as soon as possible. NSAIDs are the first line therapy for pain and they are generally administered to acute pancreatitis patients upon admission to the hospital. In addition, these drugs have also been used to prevent post-endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) acute pancreatitis. On the other hand, there are several reports indicating that NSAIDs may be the actual cause of acute pancreatitis. We carried out a literature search on PubMed/MEDLINE; all full text papers published in from January 1966 to November 2009 on the use of NSAIDs in acute pancreatitis were collected; the literature search was also supplemented by a review of the bibliographies of the papers evaluated. Thus, in this article, we will systematically review the current literature in order to better illustrate the role of NSAIDs in acute pancreatitis, in particular: i) NSAIDs as a cause of acute pancreatitis; ii) their use to prevent post-retrograde ERCP pancreatitis and iii) their efficacy for pain relief in the acute illness of the pancreas.

Fundamental and intensive care of acute pancreatitis

Patients who have been diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis should be, on principle, hospitalized. Crucial fundamental management is required soon after a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis has been made and includes monitoring of the conscious state, the respiratory and cardiovascular system, the urinary output, adequate fluid replacement and pain control. Along with such management, etiologic diagnosis and severity assessment should be conducted. Patients with a diagnosis of severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where intensive respiratory and cardiovascular management as well as interventional treatment, blood purification therapy and nutritional support are available. The disease condition in acute pancreatitis changes every moment and even symptoms that are mild at the time of diagnosis may become severe later. Therefore, severity assessment should be conducted repeatedly at least within 48 h following diagnosis. An adequate dose of fluid replacement is essential to stabilize cardiovascular dynamics and the dose should be adjusted while assessing circulatory dynamics constantly. A large dose of fluid replacement is usually required in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional continuous regional arterial infusion and blood purification therapy.

Treatment strategy for acute pancreatitis

When a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is made, fundamental medical treatment consisting of fasting, intravenous (IV) fluid replacement, and analgesics with a close monitoring of vital signs should be immediately started. In parallel with fundamental medical treatment, assessment of severity based on clinical signs, blood test, urinalysis and imaging tests should be performed to determine the way of treatment for each patient. A repeat evaluation of severity is important since the condition is unstable especially in the early stage of AP. At the time of initial diagnosis, the etiology should be investigated by means of blood test, urinalysis and diagnostic imaging. If a biliary pancreatitis accompanied with acute cholangitis or biliary stasis is diagnosed or suspected, an early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP/ES) is recommended in addition to the fundamental medical treatment. In mild cases, the fundamental medical treatment should be continued until clinical symptom is subsided with normal laboratory data. In cases with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) referral should be considered to medical centers experienced in the treatment of SAP, and intensive care is recommended for preventing both organ failures and infectious complications. Hemodynamic stabilization with vigorous fluid resuscitation, respiratory support and antibiotics are the major parts of intensive care in the early period of SAP. Continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF) and continuous regional arterial infusion (CRAI) of protease inhibitor and/or antibiotics may be effective to improve pathophysiology of AP especially in the early stage of the disease. In the late stage of AP, infectious complications are critical. If an infectious complication is suspected based on clinical signs, blood test and imaging, a fine needle aspiration (FNA) is recommended to establish a diagnosis. The accuracy of FNA is reported to be 89 ~ 100%. For patients with sterile pancreatitis, non-surgical treatment should be indicated. For patients with infected pancreatic necrosis, therapeutic intervention either by percutaneous, endoscopic, laparoscopic or surgical approach are indicated. The most preferred surgical intervention is necrosectomy, however, non-surgical treatment with antibiotics is still the treatment of choice if the general condition is stable. Necrosectomy should be performed as late as possible. For patients with pancreatic abscess, drainage is recommended.

Efficacy and tolerance of metamizole versus morphine for acute pancreatitis pain

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Morphine has been contraindicated for pain treatment in acute pancreatitis because of its presumed opioid-induced sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. However, scientific evidence supporting a deleterious influence on the clinical course is absent. This pilot study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of metamizole versus morphine in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

16 patients with acute pancreatitis were randomized to receive 10 mg/4 h s.c. (n = 8) morphine or 2 g/8 h i.v. (n = 8) metamizole. Pain scores were recorded every 4 h during 48 h after admission by a Visual Analogue Scale. Pethidine was additionally administered as a rescue therapy.

RESULTS

75% of patients achieved pain relief in the metamizole group versus 37.5% in the morphine group within 24 h of hospitalization (6/8 vs. 3/8; p: n.s.). The mean time to achieve pain relief was shorter in the metamizole group (10 +/- 6.6 vs. 17 +/- 18.3 h; p: n.s.). At the end of the study, 75% of patients achieved pain relief in the metamizole group versus 50% in the morphine group. Three patients in each group needed pethidine: 2 out of 3 achieved pain control in the metamizole group vs. 0 out of 3 in the morphine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous metamizole shows a non-significant association with a quicker pain relief than morphine s.c. in acute pancreatitis. A larger randomized controlled trial should be desirable to confirm this result. and IAP.

A prospective multicentre survey on the treatment of acute pancreatitis in Italy

BACKGROUND

The Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas released a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for acute pancreatitis in 1999.

AIM

This study focused on the analysis of the therapeutic approach for the treatment of acute pancreatitis in Italy.

PATIENTS

One thousand, one hundred and seventy-three patients were recruited: 1006 patients (85.8%) had mild acute pancreatitis (MAP) and 167 (14.2%) had the severe acute pancreatitis (SAP); 161 patients showed pancreatic necrosis at computed tomography; 121 patients (10.3%) had sequelae and 36 (3.1%) died.

RESULTS

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and tramadol were used more frequently in patients with the MAP whereas opioids and the association schedules were used more frequently in patients with the SAP (P<0.001). Gabexate mesilate was utilised in 831 out of 1173 patients (70.8%); in particular, gabexate mesilate was used in 70.6% patients with MAP and in 73.1% of those with SAP (P=0.521). The duration of the drug administration was significantly shorter in those having MAP than in those having the SAP (P<0.001). The antibiotics most frequently used for the prophylaxis against infection from pancreatic necrosis (43.1%) were carbapenems. Only a small number of patients received enteral nutrition (4.7%). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was carried out in 344 of the 1173 patients (29.3%). Surgery was performed in 48 with SAP (19 had elective biliary surgery and 29 had pancreatic surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this survey indicate a lack of compliance with the guidelines which regard the indications mainly for interventional endoscopy and surgery.

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: medical management of acute pancreatitis

The basic principles of the initial management of acute pancreatitis are adequate monitoring of vital signs, fluid replacement, correction of any electrolyte imbalance, nutritional support, and the prevention of local and systemic complications. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where adequate monitoring and intensive medical care are available. Strict cardiovascular and respiratory monitoring is mandatory for maintaining the cardiopulmonary system in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Maximum fluid replacement is needed to stabilize the cardiovascular system. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of the intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional measures, blood purification therapy and continuous regional arterial infusion of a protease inhibitor and antibiotics, depending on the patient's condition.

Management of acute pancreatitis: current knowledge and future perspectives

In recent years, a number of articles have been published on the treatment of acute pancreatitis in experimental models and most of them concerned animals with mild disease. However, it is difficult to translate these results into clinical practice. For example, infliximab, a monoclonal TNF antibody, was experimentally tested in rats and it was found to significantly reduce the pathologic score and serum amylase activity and also to alleviate alveolar edema and acute respiratory distress syndrome; however, no studies are available in clinical human acute pancreatitis. Another substance, such as interleukin 10, was efficacious in decreasing the severity and mortality of lethal pancreatitis in rats, but seems to have no effect on human severe acute pancreatitis. Thus, the main problem in acute pancreatitis, especially in the severe form of the disease, is the difficulty of planning clinical studies capable of giving reliable statistically significant answers regarding the benefits of the various proposed therapeutic agents previously tested in experimental settings.

According to the pathophysiology of acute pancreatitis, the efficacy of the drugs already available, such as gabexate mesilate, lexipafant and somatostatin should be re-evaluated and should be probably administered in a different manner. Of course, also in this case, we need adequate studies to test this hypothesis.

Pharmacological prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis: where are we now?

Acute pancreatitis is a disease of increasing prevalence, unchanged mortality over many decades, and limited treatment strategies. Progress has been made in developing therapies that reduce the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-associated pancreatitis and in preventing infected pancreatic necrosis with intravenous carbapenems. Attempts at reducing pancreatic enzyme output or inhibiting the activity of digestive enzyme proteases have not yielded encouraging results - nor have anti-inflammatory strategies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis been found to be effective so far. Future therapeutic options that are presently being developed or under investigation attempt to restore pancreatic secretory function, interfere with inflammatory pathways in a more effective manner, or inhibit digestive enzyme proteases more selectively.

Severe acute pancreatitis: case-oriented discussion of interdisciplinary management

The clinical course of an episode of acute pancreatitis varies from a mild, transitory illness to a severe often necrotizing form with distant organ failure and a mortality rate of 20-40%. Patients with severe pancreatitis, representing about 15-20% of all patients with acute pancreatitis, need to be identified as early as possible after onset of symptoms allowing starting intensive care treatment early in the disease process. An episode of severe acute pancreatitis progresses in two phases. The first 10-14 days are characterized by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome maintained by the release of various inflammatory mediators. The second phase, beginning about 10-14 days after the onset of the disease is dominated by sepsis-related morbidity due to infected peripancreatic and pancreatic necrosis. This state is associated with septic multiple organ systemic failure. The importance of infection on the outcome of necrotizing pancreatitis has been clearly delineated and the pre-emptive use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that achieve effective tissue concentrations is considered standard management of patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis, especially if associated with organ failure or extended necrosis. Patients with infected necrosis should undergo a surgical intervention. The standard open technique consisting of an organ preserving necrosectomy followed by a postoperative concept of lavage and/or drainage to evacuate necrotic debris occurring during the further course has recently been challenged by various minimally invasive approaches.

Procaine hydrochloride fails to relieve pain in patients with acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Several analgesics are in use for pain control in patients with acute pancreatitis. Procaine hydrochloride (procaine) has a long tradition and is recommended by the German Society of Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases for pain treatment in patients with acute pancreatitis. There is no controlled trial showing that procaine could be effective for pain treatment.

METHODS

In an open, randomized, controlled trial, 107 patients (76 male, 31 female; mean age 45 +/- 12 years) were included and randomized either to receive procaine (n = 55) or pentazocine (n = 52) for pain relief. Procaine 2 g/ 24 h was administered by continuous intravenous infusion, pentazocine 30 mg was administered every 6 h as a bolus intravenous injection. Pentazocine was additionally administered on demand whenever required in patients of both treatment groups and its total consumption was recorded. Pain scores were assessed twice daily on a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Patients receiving procaine were significantly more likely to request additional analgesics compared to patients treated with pentazocine alone, 98 vs. 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Procaine did not reduce the amount of pentazocine required for pain control. The amount of pentazocine given in both groups was not statistically significantly different. Recorded pain scores were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in patients in the pentazocine group during the first 3 days of analgesic treatment. From day 4 on there was no significant difference in pain scores among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Thus, intravenous procaine treatment is not effective for pain control in patients with acute pancreatitis.

[Differentiation of peripheral and central hyperalgesic effects of systemic procaine]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to differentiate between the peripheral and central analgesic and antihyperalgesic properties of systemic procaine hydrochloride in standardized human pain models.

METHOD

Subcutaneous injections of either 150 mg procaine hydrochloride or saline solution were administered at intervals of 2 weeks on a randomized and double blind basis. During the 90-min infusion and subsequent 60-min monitoring periods, touch sensitivity was determined and in addition two experimental hyperalgesic models were analyzed.

RESULTS

While touch sensitivity was not affected by procaine hydrochloride, development of primary mechanical hyperalgesia was significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

The concentration of procaine hydrochloride used in our experiment elicited peripheral antihyperalgesic effects without central venous side effects. These results can account for the clinical effect of low-dose procaine hydrochloride in pain conditions exhibiting pronounced hyperalgesia.

[Therapy of chronic pancreatitis]

Treatment of chronic pancreatitis is dependend on the stage of the disease and its complications. Pain therapy should be based on the knowledge of various causes of pain. In therapy of complications such as bile duct or pancreatic duct strictures interventional endoscopy is usually the first choice followed by surgery. Exocrine insufficiency is treated by porcine pancreatic extracts, endocrine insufficiency by insulin. One has to apply various imaging procedures such as sonography, MRCP, ERCP, endosonography, CT for exact diagnosis of complications and planning various therapeutic strategies. Pseudocysts may be drained via the transgastric, transduodenal, transpapillary or transcutaneous route. Distal prepapillary stenosis of the main pancreatic duct and bile duct stenoses can be drained by stents. Pancreatic duct stones can be desintegrated by shock waves and removed by endoscopy. Early diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma as a potential complication of long standing inflammation of the pancreas remains an unsolved problem.

Acute pancreatitis: treatment strategies

Acute pancreatitis is an acute painful abdominal disease of sudden onset that ranges from a mild and self-limited illness to a severe and severe life-threatening condition. In spite of decades of intensive research, there are no causal therapeutic options. Treatment relies on supportive treatment principles based on adequate volume replacement to compensate for fluid loss in the intraperitoneal space and analgesics for pain relief. In cases with acute pancreatitis predicted to have a severe course of the disease, antibiotic therapy is recommended to avoid infection of pancreatic necrosis. Despite a substantial set of clinical trials in favor of antibiotic treatment to reduce morbidity, there is no general consensus on the prophylactic antibiotic treatment. Adequate nutritional support is required for patients with severe acute pancreatitis and a protracted course of the disease. Enteral nutrition appears to be superior to enteral nutrition.

Beta-phenylethylamines and the isoquinoline alkaloids

This review covers beta-phenylethylamines and isoquinoline alkaloids and compounds derived from them, including further products of oxidation, condensation with formaldehyde and rearrangement, some of which do not contain an isoquinoline system, together with naphthylisoquinoline alkaloids, which have a different biogenetic origin. The occurrence of the alkaloids, with the structures of new bases, together with their reactions, syntheses and biological activities are reported. The literature from July 2001 to June 2002 is reviewed, with 581 references cited.

[Acute pancreatitis]

While interstitial acute pancreatitis usually takes a benign course, necrotizing acute pancreatitis takes a severe course, mainly because of severe local and systemic complications. After a quick diagnosis it is necessary to rapidly assess a degree of severity of the disease and thus the prognosis. The clinical picture and the result of imaging procedures do not always correspond. The management basically includes to treat pain as well as to administer fluid, electrolyte, protein and calories. In addition, systemic treatment of complications such as shock or respiratory and renal insufficiency--if occurring--is necessary. In case of pancreatic necrosis, prophylactic administration of pancreas-penetrable antibiotics is recommended to avoid infection. In the severely ill with infected pancreatic necrosis, surgery is the treatment of choice. In approximately 10% of all patients with alcohol-induced pancreatitis, there is a gradual transition to chronic pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis

The pathophysiologic concept of acute pancreatitis focuses on early events inside acinar cells such as activation of trypsin. Despite significant progress in the understanding of molecular events in experimental pancreatitis, knowledge of these mechanisms has not yet been translated into therapeutic strategies useful in humans. A single morphologic or laboratory marker reliably predicting the individual course of acute pancreatitis still awaits discovery. The clinical outcome of acute pancreatitis is dependent on the presence of necrosis and systemic complications. The extent of the systemic inflammatory response to local pancreatitis seems to be the rate-limiting step. Several mechanisms shed light on the interconnectivity between intra-acinar protease activation and immunoregulatory processes. Deciphering these cell biologic connections has already had an impact on the clinical management of patients and the identification of prognostic markers in human disease. However, further investigations of pancreatic pathophysiology are needed to initiate novel therapeutic strategies.