Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis 2023

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) 2023 provide updated recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PEP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a valuable procedure for diagnosing and treating pancreatobiliary diseases, can result in PEP as the most common adverse event. Since the first guidelines were published in 2015, advances in techniques and new research findings have necessitated this revision. The guidelines developed using the GRADE methodology target adult patients undergoing ERCP. They offer a comprehensive framework for clinicians to minimize the risk of PEP. For high-risk patients, endoscopic ultrasound before ERCP is recommended to avoid unnecessary procedures. The guidelines also discuss procedural and patient-related risk factors for PEP, highlighting that operator experience does not significantly affect PEP rates if performed under the supervision of skilled endoscopists. The diagnostic criteria include monitoring serum pancreatic enzyme levels postprocedure, and early computed tomography is advised in suspected cases. For treatment, the guidelines recommend following acute pancreatitis protocols. Key preventive measures include the use of temporary pancreatic duct stents and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, both of which are supported by strong evidence for reducing the incidence of PEP. Overall, these guidelines aim to enhance clinical outcomes by reducing PEP incidence and improving its management through evidence-based practices.

Effectiveness of the pharmacological therapy to prevent post ERCP acute pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of the different pharmacological agents in preventing post-ERCP acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We included clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. The event evaluated was acute pancreatitis. We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to nowadays. We reported the information in terms of relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval. We assessed the heterogeneity using the I2 test.

RESULTS

We included 84 studies for analysis (30,463 patients). The mean age was 59.3 years (SD ± 7.01). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I2 = 34.4%) with no inconsistencies (p = 0.2567). Post ERCP pancreatitis was less in prophylaxis with NSAIDs (RR 0.65 95% CI [0.52 to 0.80]), aggressive hydration with Lactate Ringer (RR 0.32 95% CI [0.12-0.86]), NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate (RR 0.28 95% CI [0.11-0.71]) and somatostatin and analogues (RR 0.54 [0.43 to 0.68]) compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs, the Combination of NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate, somatostatin and analogues, and aggressive hydration with lactate ringer are pharmacological strategies that can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis when compared to placebo. More clinical trials are required to determine the effectiveness of these drugs.

Nafamostat Reduces the Incidence of post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). As the management of pancreatitis is limited, clinical approaches focus on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). In theory, the serine protease inhibitor nafamostat can reduce circulating inflammatory mediators in pancreatitis. We aimed to investigate the effect of nafamostat in the prevention of PEP in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022367988). We systematically searched 5 databases without any filters on September 26, 2022. The eligible population was adult patients undergoing ERCP. We compared the PEP preventive effect of nafamostat to placebo. The main outcome was the occurrence of PEP. We calculated the pooled odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and multilevel model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool. Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2,962 patients were eligible for inclusion. Nafamostat reduced the overall incidence rate of PEP (20 mg, OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.82 and 50 mg, OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24-0.96). However, the occurrence of mild PEP was significantly reduced only in the subgroup receiving 20 mg nafamostat (OR, 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77). Overall, nafamostat therapy reduced moderate PEP in high-risk patients (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.0.4-0.84) and mild PEP in low-risk patients (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.17-0.61). Nafamostat is an effective therapy in the prevention of mild post-ERCP pancreatitis. Further research is required to determine the cost-effectiveness of this therapy.

Efficacy of nafamostat mesylate in the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). PubMed, Web of Science, and Ichushi Web were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using nafamostat to prevent PEP. In subgroup analyses, we studied the preventive effects of nafamostat according to the severity of PEP, risk category, and dose. A random-effects model was adopted; heterogeneity between studies was examined using the chi-squared test and I2 statistics. This analysis uses the PRISMA statement as general guidance. 9 RCTs involving 3321 patients were included. The risk of PEP was lower in the nafamostat group than in the control group [4.4% vs. 8.3%, risk ratio (RR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.68]. In subgroup analyses, the protective effects were evident in low-risk patients for PEP before ERCP (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.55). The association between PEP and nafamostat was significant only in patients who developed mild PEP (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.69). The benefits were independent of the dose. The prophylactic use of nafamostat resulted in a lower risk of PEP. The subgroup analyses suggested uncertain benefits for severe PEP or high-risk patients for PEP. This warrants further investigation through additional RCTs.

Drug repurposing for the treatment of COVID-19: Targeting nafamostat to the lungs by a liposomal delivery system

Despite tremendous global efforts since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, still only a limited number of prophylactic and therapeutic options are available. Although vaccination is the most effective measure in preventing morbidity and mortality, there is a need for safe and effective post-infection treatment medication. In this study, we explored a pipeline of 21 potential candidates, examined in the Calu-3 cell line for their antiviral efficacy, for drug repurposing. Ralimetinib and nafamostat, clinically used drugs, have emerged as attractive candidates. Due to the inherent limitations of the selected drugs, we formulated targeted liposomes suitable for both systemic and intranasal administration. Non-targeted and targeted nafamostat liposomes (LipNaf) decorated with an Apolipoprotein B peptide (ApoB-P) as a specific lung-targeting ligand were successfully developed. The developed liposomal formulations of nafamostat were found to possess favorable physicochemical properties including nano size (119-147 nm), long-term stability of the normally rapidly degrading compound in aqueous solution, negligible leakage from the liposomes upon storage, and a neutral surface charge with low polydispersity index (PDI). Both nafamostat and ralimetinib liposomes showed good cellular uptake and lack of cytotoxicity, and non-targeted LipNaf demonstrated enhanced accumulation in the lungs following intranasal (IN) administration in non-infected mice. LipNaf retained its anti-SARS-CoV 2 activity in Calu 3 cells with only a modest decrease, exhibiting complete inhibition at concentrations >100 nM. IN, but not intraperitoneal (IP) treatment with targeted LipNaf resulted in a trend to reduced viral load in the lungs of K18-hACE2 mice compared to targeted empty Lip. Nevertheless, upon removal of outlier data, a statistically significant 1.9-fold reduction in viral load was achieved. This observation further highlights the importance of a targeted delivery into the respiratory tract. In summary, we were able to demonstrate a proof-of-concept of drug repurposing by liposomal formulations with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. The biodistribution and bioactivity studies with LipNaf suggest an IN or inhalation route of administration for optimal therapeutic efficacy.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective, randomized, and controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing PEP.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) largely remain unknown with changing trends in ERCP use, indication, and techniques. We sought to determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP in consecutive and high-risk patients based on a systemic review and meta-analysis of patients in placebo and no-stent arms of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from the inception of each database to June 2022 to identify full-text RCTs evaluating PEP prophylaxes. The incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from the placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs were recorded for consecutive and high-risk patients. A random-effects meta-analysis for a proportions model was used to calculate PEP incidence, severity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five RCTs were found with 19,038 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. The overall cumulative incidence of PEP was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.3), predominantly among the academic centers conducting such RCTs. The cumulative incidences of severe PEP and mortality were .5% (95% CI, .3-.7) and .2% (95% CI, .08-.3), respectively, across 91 RCTs with 14,441 patients. The cumulative incidences of PEP and severe PEP were 14.1% (95% CI, 11.5-17.2) and .8% (95% CI, .4-1.6), respectively, with a mortality rate of .2% (95% CI, 0-.3) across 35 RCTs with 3733 patients at high risk of PEP. The overall trend for the incidence of PEP among patients randomized to placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs has remained unchanged from 1977 to 2022 (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PEP is 10.2% but is 14.1% among high-risk patients based on this systematic review of placebo or no-stent arms of 145 RCTs; this rate has not changed between 1977 and 2022. Severe PEP and mortality from PEP are relatively uncommon.

The Rabep1-Mediated Endocytosis and Activation of Trypsinogen to Promote Pancreatic Stellate Cell Activation

Background: The pathogenesis of chronic pancreatitis is still unclear. Trypsinogen activation is an active factor in acute pancreatitis that has not been studied in the occurrence of chronic pancreatitis. Methods: Immunofluorescence was used to detect the location and expression of trypsinogen in chronic pancreatitis and normal tissues. Microarray and single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) were used to screen core genes and pathways in pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs). Western blotting and immunofluorescence were used to verify trypsinogen expression in PSCs after silencing Rabep1. Immunofluorescence and flow cytometry were used to validate trypsinogen activation and PSC activation after intervening in the endocytosis pathway. Results: Endocytosed trypsinogen was found in PSCs in CP clinical samples. Bioinformatic analysis showed that Rabep1 is a core gene that regulates trypsinogen endocytosis through the endocytosis pathway, verified by Western blot and immunofluorescence. Immunofluorescence and flow cytometry analyses confirmed the activation of trypsinogen and PSCs through the endocytosis pathway in PSCs. Conclusion: This study discovered a new mechanism by which trypsinogen affects the activation of PSCs and the occurrence and development of CP. Through communication between pancreatic acinar cells and PSCs, trypsinogen can be endocytosed by PSCs and activated by the Rabep1 gene.

The effect of nafamostat mesilate infusion after ERCP for post-ERCP pancreatitis

Background

Nafamostat mesilate decreases the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, no studies have administered nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. So we investigated if the infusion of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP can affect the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients.

Methods

In a tertiary hospital, 350 high-risk patients of PEP were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 201 patients received nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. We performed a propensity score matching to adjust for the significant different baseline characteristics. The incidence and severity of PEP were evaluated according to the infusion of nafamostat mesilate. The risk factors of PEP were also analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

Results

The baseline characteristics were not different after the matching. The PEP rate (17.4% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.141) was insignificant. Among the PEP patients, mild PEP was significantly higher in the nafamostat mesilate group (85.7% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.021). Only one patient in the nafamostat mesilate group developed severe PEP. Although young age (odds ratio [OR] 3.60, 95% CI 1.09–11.85, P = 0.035) was a risk factor, nafamostat mesilate (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.98, P = 0.047) was a protective factor for moderate to severe PEP.

Conclusions

The administration of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP in high-risk patients was not effective in preventing PEP, but may attenuate the severity of PEP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3.

Untapping host-targeting cross-protective efficacy of anticoagulants against SARS-CoV-2

Responding quickly to emerging respiratory viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2 the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is essential to stop uncontrolled spread of these pathogens and mitigate their socio-economic impact globally. This can be achieved through drug repurposing, which tackles inherent time- and resource-consuming processes associated with conventional drug discovery and development. In this review, we examine key preclinical and clinical therapeutic and prophylactic approaches that have been applied for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We break these strategies down into virus- versus host-targeting and discuss their reported efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages. Importantly, we highlight emerging evidence on application of host serine protease-inhibiting anticoagulants, such as nafamostat mesylate, as a potentially powerful therapy to inhibit virus activation and offer cross-protection against multiple strains of coronavirus, lower inflammatory response independent of its antiviral effect, and modulate clotting problems seen in COVID-19 pneumonia.

Broad antiviral and anti-inflammatory efficacy of nafamostat against SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal coronaviruses in primary human bronchiolar epithelia

Antiviral strategies that target host systems needed for SARS-CoV-2 replication and pathogenesis may have therapeutic potential and help mitigate resistance development. Here, we evaluate nafamostat mesylate, a potent broad-spectrum serine protease inhibitor that blocks host protease activation of the viral spike protein. SARS-CoV-2 is used to infect human polarized mucociliated primary bronchiolar epithelia reconstituted with cells derived from healthy donors, smokers and subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nafamostat markedly inhibits apical shedding of SARS-CoV-2 from all donors (log10 reduction). We also observe, for the first-time, anti-inflammatory effects of nafamostat on airway epithelia independent of its antiviral effects, suggesting a dual therapeutic advantage in the treatment of COVID-19. Nafamostat also exhibits antiviral properties against the seasonal human coronaviruses 229E and NL6. These findings suggest therapeutic promise for nafamostat in treating SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses.

Nafamostat Mesylate is Not Effective in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with complications such as post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Protease inhibitors, including nafamostat mesylate (NM), have been evaluated for prophylaxis against PEP.

AIM

We describe the first multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing the prophylactic efficacy of NM against PEP.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective study, we aimed to enroll 800 patients aged ≥ 20 years with a planned ERCP between December 2012 and March 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of PEP in patients who did not receive NM (non-NM) versus those who did (NM; 20 mg). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PEP by NM initiation (pre- and post-ERCP), risk factors for PEP, and NM-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Only 441 of the planned 800 patients were enrolled (non-NM: n = 149; NM: n = 292 [pre-ERCP NM: n = 144; post-ERCP NM: n = 148]). Patient characteristics were balanced at baseline with no significant differences between groups. PEP occurred in 40/441 (9%) patients (non-NM: n = 15 [10%]; NM: n = 25 [9%]), including 17 (12%) and eight (8%) in the pre-ERCP and post-ERCP NM groups, respectively. In the NM group, the incidence of PEP was lower in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group. Pancreatic injection and double-guidewire technique were independent risk factors for PEP. NM-related adverse events of hyperkalemia occurred in two (0.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the prophylactic effect of NM against PEP, regardless of the timing of administration; however, further studies are needed.

Pharmacological Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Where Do We Stand Now?

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequently occurring complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). PEP is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; that is why the prevention of PEP is essential. Pharmacoprevention holds a central position in PEP prophylaxis. The current literature explores the efficacy of various pharmacological agents in preventing PEP, their routes of administration, and the correct administration timing. Data was collected on PubMed using regular keywords, the latter yielded 2077 papers. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 218 papers were selected and screened and 28 studies were finally chosen after the removal of duplicate and irrelevant studies. The selected 28 articles comprised 25 randomized clinical trials and three systematic reviews.

The study concludes that rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) administered before ERCP are effective in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. The efficacy of rectal NSAIDs in low to medium risk group is not well established. A combination of rectal NSAIDs and intravenous hydration provides improved prophylaxis against PEP in high-risk patients than NSAIDs alone. Nafamostat, sublingual nitrates, and intravenous hydration are potential alternatives in patients with contraindications to NSAIDs.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND

Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), since it has been considered to be the most common complication of ERCP. Although ERCP can lead various complications, it can also be avoided.

AIM

To study the published evidence and systematically review the literature on the prevention and treatment for PEP.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on the prevention of PEP was conducted using the electronic databases of ISI Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. The electronic search for the review was performed by using the search terms “Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis” AND “prevention” through different criteria. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed between January 2009 and February 2019. Duplicate studies were detected by using EndNote and deleted by the author. PRISMA checklist and flow diagram were adopted for evaluation and reporting. The reference lists of the selected papers were also scanned to find other relevant studies.

RESULTS

726 studies meeting the search criteria and 4 relevant articles found in the edited books about ERCP were identified. Duplicates and irrelevant studies were excluded by screening titles and abstracts and assessing full texts. 54 studies were evaluated for full text review. Prevention methods were categorized into three groups as (1) assessment of patient related factors; (2) pharmacoprevention; and (3) procedural techniques for prevention. Most of studies in the literature showed that young age, female gender, absence of chronic pancreatitis, suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, recurrent pancreatitis and history of previous PEP played a crucial role in posing high risks for PEP. 37 studies designed to assess the impact of 24 different pharmacologic agents to reduce the development of PEP delivered through various administration methods were reviewed. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to reduce risks for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin immediately prior to or after ERCP in all patients is recommended by European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to prevent the development of PEP. The majority of the studies reviewed revealed that rectally administered indomethacin had efficacy to prevent PEP. Results of the other studies on the other pharmacological interventions had both controversial and promising results. Thirteen studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 distinct procedural techniques to prevent the development of PEP were reviewed. Pancreatic Stent Placement has been frequently used in this sense and has potent and promising benefits in the prevention of PEP. Studies on the other procedural techniques have had inconsistent results.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of PEP involves multifactorial aspects, including assessment of patients with high risk factors for alternative therapeutic and diagnostic techniques, administration of pharmacological agents and procedural techniques with highly precise results in the literature.

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been a mainstay examination to clarify the biliary and pancreatic system. Not just diagnostic purpose, it could achieve therapeutic goal. Under the trend of more and more procedures about ERCP being interventional, the rate of adverse events after the procedure is increasing. Among them, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common and sometimes tremendous complication. This mini-review will overview the PEP from definition, pathogenesis, and risk factors to prevention.

Epinephrine in the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges between 15 and 20% among patients at high risk of developing PEP. The efficacy of indomethacin administration in the prevention of PEP is rather debatable. In the present randomized trial study, we evaluated whether or not the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine in comparison to the single administration of indomethacin differs in the pathogenesis and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and ninety-two patients were randomized in a double-blinded manner into 3 groups: the epinephrine group (group A), the indomethacin group (group B), and the combined epinephrine and indomethacin group (group C). After the procedure, patients were evaluated for the PEP development.

RESULTS

During the procedure, 66 patients were randomized to the epinephrine group (group A), 68 cases to the indomethacin group (group B), and 58 individuals to the indomethacin-epinephrine group (group C). The mean age of patients in the epinephrine group was 59.59 ± 15.680 years, in the indomethacin group it was 58.06 ± 17.125 years, and in the combination group it was 59.62 ± 15.369 years. In the present study, we did not observe a significant difference between the 3 groups in sex, age, pre-ERCP amylase, lipase, and patient and procedure risk factors including pancreatic duct (PD) dilation (p = 0.404), PD cannulation (p = 0.329), and difficult cannulation (p = 0.076) among others. PEP developed in 7 of the 192 individuals (3.6%), 6 PEP cases occurred in the indomethacin group and 1 in the epinephrine group (p = 0.016). Univariate analysis of risk factors for PEP in patients with and without pancreatitis revealed no significant difference between the pancreatitis group and the non-pancreatitis group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to the administration of indomethacin alone, a single application of epinephrine and the combination of epinephrine and indomethacin seem to be effective in reducing the cases of PEP. A further randomized clinical trial with a larger sample size is required to confirm the efficacy of our medication in the prevention of pancreatitis after ERCP.

On the value of therapeutic interventions targeting the complement system in acute myocardial infarction

The complement system plays an important role in the inflammatory response subsequent to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study is to create a systematic overview of studies that have investigated therapeutic administration of complement inhibitors in both AMI animal models and human clinical trials. To enable extrapolation of observations from included animal studies toward post-AMI clinical trials, ex vivo studies on isolated hearts and proof-of-principle studies on inhibitor administration before experimental AMI induction were excluded. Positive therapeutic effects in AMI animal models have been described for cobra venom factor, soluble complement receptor 1, C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-inh), FUT-175, C1s-inhibitor, anti-C5, ADC-1004, clusterin, and glycosaminoglycans. Two types of complement inhibitors have been tested in clinical trials, being C1-inh and anti-C5. Pexelizumab (anti-C5) did not result in reproducible beneficial effects for AMI patients. Beneficial effects were reported in AMI patients for C1-inhibitor, albeit in small patient groups. In general, despite the absence of consistent positive effects in clinical trials thus far, the complement system remains a potentially interesting target for therapy in AMI patients. Based on the study designs of previous animal studies and clinical trials, we discuss several issues which require attention in the design of future studies: adjustment of clinical trial design to precise mechanism of action of administered inhibitor, optimizing the duration of therapy, and optimization of time point(s) on which therapeutic effects will be evaluated.

The "Scope" of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the potential for clinically significant morbidity and mortality. Several patient and procedural risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Considerable research efforts have identified several pharmacologic and procedural interventions that can drastically affect the incidence of PEP. This review article addresses the underlying mechanisms at play for the development of PEP, identifying patient and procedural risk factors and meaningful use of risk-stratification information, and details current interventions aimed at reducing the risk of this complication.

Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Medications and Techniques

Over the past 2 decades, it increasingly has been recognized that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most predictable provocateur of acute pancreatitis, with an incidence of more than 15% in high-risk patients. For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the effect of periprocedural drug administration as well as different ERCP techniques on both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Although many agents and techniques have shown promise in small clinical studies, the majority of these have failed to yield consistent benefit in larger randomized patient groups. This review summarizes the data on medications and ERCP techniques that have been studied for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

A Randomized Comparative Study of 24- and 6-Hour Infusion of Nafamostat Mesilate for the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although prolonged intravenous infusion (24 hours) of nafamostat mesilate is effective for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it requires hospitalization and is expensive. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 24- versus 6-hour intravenous infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 382 patients who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned into 2 groups: 24 hours or 6 hours. In both groups, nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) infusion was initiated up to an hour before ERCP and continued for either 24 or 6 hours.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 2.4% (9/371). The rates of PEP following 24- and 6-hour infusion were 2.8% (5/179) and 2.1% (4/192), respectively (P = 0.744). No significant difference was observed in the severity of pancreatitis between the groups. On multivariate analysis, increasing pancreatic duct cannulations (odds ratio, 1.685; 95% confidence interval, 1.036-2.741; P = 0.036) was identified as a statistically significant risk factor of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the incidence of PEP regardless of the duration of nafamostat mesilate infusion. Therefore, 6-hour infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate may be useful for the prevention of PEP in an outpatient setting.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost.

RESULTS

After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched until April 18, 2014.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 2956 patients met the search criteria. When compared with nonnafamostat, the incidence of PEP was reduced to 53% in the patients who received nafamostat (risk ratio [RR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.63). Further analyses were conducted based on the different risk classifications (n = 641 in patients with high risks: RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96 and n = 944 with low risks: RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56), PEP severities (n = 1654: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59 for mild; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96 for moderate; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.13-6.38 for severe), and nafamostat doses (n = 1902: RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.63 for 20 mg; n = 1150: RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63 for 50 mg). However, there was no reduction of the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.68-1.45) or cannulation difficulty (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled analyses from current randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of nafamostat for prophylaxis of PEP.

Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether prophylactic administration of nafamostat mesilate reduces the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), its efficacy, and risk factors for PEP.

METHODS

Potential subjects comprised 876 patients who underwent ERCP between September 2008 and February 2011. Of these, 58 patients were excluded after meeting exclusion criteria, and 818 patients were randomized. Patients in the nafamostat mesilate group were administered 20 mg of nafamostat mesilate dissolved in 500 mL of 5% glucose solution, whereas the control group received 500 mL of 5% glucose solution alone, over 2 hours from the start of ERCP.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 5.1% (41 patients) overall, with a significantly lower frequency in the nafamostat mesilate group (3.5%) than in the control group (6.7%; P = 0.0349). Analysis of the 322 patients who had undergone ERCP for the first time (n = 158 in the nafamostat mesilate group; n = 164 in the control group) found that PEP again significantly less frequently occurred in the nafamostat mesilate group (5.7%) than in the control group (13.4%; P = 0.0172).

CONCLUSIONS

Our randomized controlled study suggested that short-term administration of nafamostat mesilate 20 mg may reduce the incidence of PEP.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP.

SETTING

Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis.

PATIENTS

Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Recent advances on plasmin inhibitors for the treatment of fibrinolysis-related disorders

Growing evidence suggests that plasmin is involved in a number of physiological processes in addition to its key role in fibrin cleavage. Plasmin inhibition is critical in preventing adverse consequences arising from plasmin overactivity, e.g., blood loss that may follow cardiac surgery. Aprotinin was widely used as an antifibrinolytic drug before its discontinuation in 2008. Tranexamic acid and ε-aminocaproic acid, two small molecule plasmin inhibitors, are currently used in the clinic. Several molecules have been designed utilizing covalent, but reversible, chemistry relying on reactive cyclohexanones, nitrile warheads, and reactive aldehyde peptidomimetics. Other major classes of plasmin inhibitors include the cyclic peptidomimetics and polypeptides of the Kunitz and Kazal-type. Allosteric inhibitors of plasmin have also been designed including small molecule lysine analogs that bind to plasmin's kringle domain(s) and sulfated glycosaminoglycan mimetics that bind to plasmin's catalytic domain. Plasmin inhibitors have also been explored for resolving other disease states including cell metastasis, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and embryo implantation. This review highlights functional and structural aspects of plasmin inhibitors with the goal of advancing their design.

Comparison between ulinastatin and nafamostat for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications: a prospective, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this prospective trial was to compare the effect of ulinastatin and nafamostat on the prophylaxis of post-ERCP complications.

METHODS

A total of 159 patients who underwent ERCP were divided into ulinastatin (n = 53), nafamostat (n = 53) and control (n = 53) groups. Each patient received ulinastatin (150,000 units), nafamostat (20 mg), or placebo from 2-4 h before ERCP to 6-8 h after ERCP. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PEP, and the secondary endpoints were the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, hyperlipasemia and abdominal pain.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PEP was 6.3% (10/159) and no significant differences were observed between ulinastatin and nafamostat groups in terms of the incidences of PEP (1.9% and 3.8%, P = 0.560), hyperamylasemia, hyperlipasemia, and abdominal pain, although these were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference for preventing PEP between ulinastatin and nafamostat and both drugs were efficacious for preventing post-ERCP complications.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in a meta-analysis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of ERCP. Several meta-analyses have examined the effects of protease inhibitors (gabexate mesilate, ulinastatin, and nafamostat mesilate) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on post-ERCP pancreatitis, but the results have been confusing. Since the previous meta-analysis, several new studies have been published on this topic. To provide an updated quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials for patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Twenty-six articles were included in this meta-analysis. Nafamostat mesilate (summary RR = 0.41; 95 %CI 0.28-0.59; n = 4 studies) and NSAIDs (summary RR = 0.58; 95 %CI = 0.44-0.76; n = 7 studies) were associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. However, gabexate mesilate (summary RR = 0.64; 95 %CI = 0.36-1.13; n = 6 studies) and ulinastatin (summary RR = 0.65; 95 %CI = 0.33-1.30; n = 2 studies) were not associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. This is the first meta-analysis to compare the effects of three protease inhibitors. Solid evidence supports the use of nafamostat mesilate and NSAIDs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A variety of patient-related and procedure-related factors have been identified to risk-stratify patients. Several measures can be undertaken in order to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk groups. These measures include pancreatic duct stenting and rectal indomethacin, amongst others.

Preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.

Prevention and management of adverse events of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a therapeutic procedure with the potential for a variety of adverse events, including acute pancreatitis, perforation, bleeding, and cardiopulmonary complications, which are well-established risk factors. It has become standard that patients undergoing ERCP are carefully selected based on appropriate indications. Once an ERCP is undertaken, preprocedure and intraprocedure risks should be assessed and appropriate risk-reducing modalities, such as prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and rectal indomethacin, should be used if patient or procedural factors suggest an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Prophecy about post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: From divination to science

One unresolved issue of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which occurs in up to 40% of patients. Identification of risk factors for PEP is especially important in the field of ERCP practice because it may assist physicians in taking protective measures in situations with high risk. A decade ago, Freeman et al meticulously evaluated a large number of potentially relevant risk factors for PEP, which can be divided into patient-related and procedure-related issues. In this commentary, we summarize this classic article and reevaluate the risk factors for PEP from the current point of view. This is followed by assessment of strategies for prevention of PEP that can be divided into mechanical and pharmacologic methods.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis: review of current preventive strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent literature with significant findings pertaining to the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite several promising reports of pharmacologic agents that have demonstrated the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secretin, there are currently no universally accepted agents for use in high-risk patients. The greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demonstrated through advancements in endoscopic techniques such as pancreatic duct stenting and dye-free guidewire cannulation.

SUMMARY

Pancreatitis requiring hospitalization is the most common complication of ERCP. Numerous pharmaceutical and procedure related interventions have been studied in attempts to prevent this complication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant. The most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and identification of risk factors prior to procedure.

Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. It can be associated with substantial morbidity. Hence, the minimization of both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis is paramount. Considerable efforts have been made to identify factors that may be associated with an increased risk of this complication. In addition, both procedure- and pharmacological-related interventions have been proposed that may prevent this complication. This paper outlines these interventions and presents the evidence to support their use in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.