A randomized trial comparing endoscopic stenting to a sham procedure for chronic pancreatitis

Assessment of pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: An international consensus guideline

Pain is the most common symptom in chronic pancreatitis (CP) with a major impact on quality of life. Few validated questionnaires to assess pain in CP exist, and the lack of consensus negatively impacts clinical management, research and meta-analysis. This guideline aims to review generic pain questionnaires for their usability in CP, to outline how pain assessment can be modified by confounding factors and pain types, to assess the value of additional measures such as quality of life, mental health and quantitative sensory testing, and finally to review pain assessment questionnaires used specifically in CP. A systematic review was done to answer 27 questions that followed the PICO (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome) template. Quality of evidence of the statements was judged by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The manuscript was sent for review to 36 experts from various disciplines and continents in a multi-stage Delphi process, and finally reviewed by patient representatives. Main findings were that generic pain instruments are valid in most settings, but aspects of pain are specific for CP (including in children), and instruments have to account for the wide phenotypic variability and development of sensitization of the central nervous system. Side effects to treatment and placebo effects shall also be considered. Some multidimensional questionnaires are validated for CP and are recommended together with assessment of quality of life and psychiatric co-morbidities. This guideline will result in more homogeneous and comprehensive pain assessment to potentially improve management of painful CP.

Randomized sham-controlled trials in endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sham procedures in endoscopy are used with the intention of controlling for placebo response, potentially allowing more precise evaluation of treatment effect. Nevertheless, this type of study may impose significant risk without potential benefit for those in the sham group. The aim of the current study was to systematically review and analyze the endoscopic literature to assess the safety of sham controls.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for endoscopic sham procedures for all dates to July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing an endoscopic therapy with a sham were included. Primary outcome was adverse events (AEs) categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Results were combined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed with the Egger test and funnel plots.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 34 publications (1987-2017; 100% full text), with a total of 2492 procedures (1355 treatment/1137 sham). Sham procedures involved upper endoscopy (31 studies) and ERCP (3 studies). Treatment arms included procedures with the following indications: weight loss (38.2%), GI bleeding (26.5%), GERD (20.6%), sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (8.8%), and dysphagia (6.2%). Overall percentage of severe adverse events (SAEs) in the sham group was 1.7% (19/1137). Of these, the most common SAEs in the sham groups were need for surgery/intensive care unit stay (35.3%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (23.5%), and perforation (11.8%). There was no significant difference in the odds of developing an SAE between the treatment group and the sham group (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-2.3). The pooled additional risk incurred from being initially randomized to the sham arm and then receiving a cross-over intervention was significant (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14-1.56; P < .001), compared with patients initially randomized to the study intervention.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of AEs in endoscopic sham procedures is substantial, and patients are subjected to considerable morbidity. These results raise a serious ethical dilemma regarding the use of sham-controlled trials.

Endoscopic or surgical intervention for painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy and surgery are the treatment modalities of choice for patients with chronic pancreatitis and dilated pancreatic duct (obstructive chronic pancreatitis). Physicians face, without clear consensus, the choice between endoscopy or surgery for this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects and complications of surgical and endoscopic interventions in the management of pain for obstructive chronic pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in The Cochrane Library: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 2), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2014, Issue 2), and DARE (2014, Issue 2). We also searched the following databases up to 25 March 2014: MEDLINE (from 1950), Embase (from 1980), and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (from 1990). We performed a cross-reference search. Two review authors independently performed the selection of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endoscopic or surgical interventions in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. We included trials comparing endoscopic versus surgical interventions as well as trials comparing either endoscopic or surgical interventions to conservative treatment (i.e. non-invasive treatment modalities). We included relevant trials irrespective of blinding, the number of participants randomised, and the language of the article.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two authors independently extracted data from the articles. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included trials and requested additional information from study authors in the case of missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three eligible trials. Two trials compared endoscopic intervention with surgical intervention and included a total of 111 participants: 55 in the endoscopic group and 56 in the surgical group. Compared with the endoscopic group, the surgical group had a higher proportion of participants with pain relief, both at middle/long-term follow-up (two to five years: risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 2.15) and long-term follow-up (≥ five years, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.05). Surgical intervention resulted in improved quality of life and improved preservation of exocrine pancreatic function at middle/long-term follow-up (two to five years), but not at long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). No differences were found in terms of major post-interventional complications or mortality, although the number of participants did not allow for this to be reliably evaluated. One trial, including 32 participants, compared surgical intervention with conservative treatment: 17 in the surgical group and 15 in the conservative group. The trial showed that surgical intervention resulted in a higher percentage of participants with pain relief and better preservation of pancreatic function. The trial had methodological limitations, and the number of participants was relatively small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis and dilated pancreatic duct, this review shows that surgery is superior to endoscopy in terms of pain relief. Morbidity and mortality seem not to differ between the two intervention modalities, but the small trials identified do not provide sufficient power to detect the small differences expected in this outcome.Regarding the comparison of surgical intervention versus conservative treatment, this review has shown that surgical intervention in an early stage of chronic pancreatitis is a promising approach in terms of pain relief and pancreatic function. Other trials need to confirm these results because of the methodological limitations and limited number of participants assessed in the present evidence.

Treatment options in painful chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Longlasting and unbearable pain is the most common and striking symptom of chronic pancreatitis. Accordingly, pain relief and improvement in patients' quality of life are the primary goals in the treatment of this disease. This systematic review aims to summarize the available data on treatment options.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Library was performed according to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The search was limited to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. Reference lists were then hand-searched for additional relevant titles. The results obtained were examined individually by two independent investigators for further selection and data extraction.

RESULTS

A total of 416 abstracts were reviewed, of which 367 were excluded because they were obviously irrelevant or represented overlapping studies. Consequently, 49 full-text articles were systematically reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line medical options include the provision of pain medication, adjunctive agents and pancreatic enzymes, and abstinence from alcohol and tobacco. If medical treatment fails, endoscopic treatment offers pain relief in the majority of patients in the short term. However, current data suggest that surgical treatment seems to be superior to endoscopic intervention because it is significantly more effective and, especially, lasts longer.

Endoscopic or surgical intervention for painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy and surgery are the treatment modalities of choice in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Physicians face the decision between endoscopy and surgery for this group of patients, without clear consensus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effectiveness and complications of surgical and endoscopic interventions in the management of pain for obstructive chronic pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index; and performed a cross-reference search. Two review authors performed the selection of trials independently.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating endoscopic or surgical interventions for obstructive chronic pancreatitis. All trials were included irrespective of blinding, number of patients randomised and language of the article.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from the articles. The methodological quality of included trials was evaluated. Authors were requested additional information in the case of missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 2082 publications and identified three eligible trials. Two trials compared endoscopic intervention to surgical intervention. These included a total of 111 patients, 55 in the endoscopic group and 56 in the surgical group. A higher proportion of patients with pain relief was found in the surgical group compared to the endoscopic group (partial or complete pain relief: RR 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.37; complete pain relief: RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 5.09). Surgical intervention resulted in improved quality of life and improved preservation of exocrine pancreatic function in one trial. The number of patients did not allow for a reliable evaluation of morbidity and mortality between the two treatment modalities. One trial compared surgical intervention to conservative treatment. It included 32 patients: 17 in the surgical group and 15 in the conservative group. The trial showed that surgical intervention resulted in a higher percentage of patients with pain relief and better preservation of pancreatic function. The trial had methodological limitations and the number of patients was relatively small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis and dilated pancreatic duct, this review showed that surgery is superior to endoscopy in terms of pain control. Morbidity and mortality seemed not to differ between the two intervention modalities, but the small trials identified do not provide sufficient power to detect the small differences expected in this outcome.Regarding the comparison of surgical intervention versus conservative treatment, this review has shown that surgical intervention in an early stage of chronic pancreatitis seems to be a promising approach in terms of pain control and pancreatic function. Confirmation of these results is needed in other trials due to the methodological limitations and limited number of patients of the present evidence.

Endoscopic therapy in chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a debilitating disease that can result in chronic abdominal pain, malnutrition, and other related complications. The main aims of treatment are to control symptoms, prevent disease progression, and correct any complications. A multidisciplinary approach involving medical, endoscopic, and surgical therapy is important. Endoscopic therapy plays a specific role in carefully selected patients as primary interventional therapy when medical measures fail or in patients who are not suitable for surgery. Endoscopic therapy is also used as a bridge to surgery or as a means to assess the potential response to pancreatic surgery. This review addresses the role of endoscopic therapy in relief of obstruction of the pancreatic duct (PD) and bile du ct, closure of PD leaks, and drainage of pseudocysts in CP. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for pain in chronic pancreatitis is also discussed.

What is the role of endotherapy in chronic pancreatitis?

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) can have debilitating clinical course due to chronic abdominal pain, malnutrition and related complications. Medical, endoscopic and surgical treatment of CP should aim at control of symptoms, prevention of progression of the disease and correction of complications. Endoscopic management plays a specific role in carefully selected patients as primary interventional therapy when medical measures fail or in high-risk surgical candidates. Endotherapy for CP is utilized also as a bridge to surgery or to assess potential response to pancreatic surgery. In this review we address the role of endotherapy for the relief of obstruction of the pancreatic duct (PD) and bile duct, closure of PD leaks and drainage of pseudocysts in the setting of CP. In addition, endotherapy for relief of pancreatic pain by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for CP is discussed.