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.

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.

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.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of many pharmacological agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but it is unclear which agent(s) should be used in clinical practice. Network meta-analyses of RCTs are used to simultaneously compare several agents to determine their relative efficacy and identify priority agents for comparison in future RCTs.

AIM

To evaluate pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP by conducting a network meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of agents for preventing PEP. RCTs were simultaneously analysed using random-effects network meta-analysis under the Bayesian framework to identify the best agents. The efficacy of agents was ordered according to the probability of being ranked as any of the top three best performing agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 99 RCTs evaluating 16 agents in 25 313 patients. Topical epinephrine (adrenaline) was the most efficacious agent with 85.9% probability of ranking among the top three agents, followed by nafamostat (51.4%), antibiotics (44.5%) and NSAIDs (42.8%). However, in a sensitivity analysis including only rectal NSAIDs, NSAIDs moved from fourth rank to second (58.1%). Patients receiving topical epinephrine, compared with placebo, had a 75% reduced risk of PEP (OR 0.25, 95% probability interval 0.06-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical epinephrine and rectal NSAIDs are the most efficacious agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on existing RCTs. Combinations of these agents, which act on different steps in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, should be evaluated in future trials.