Wilcox, C. Mel

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a complication of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Whether pancreatogenic diabetes associated with CP-DM represents a discrete pathophysiologic entity from type 2 DM (T2DM) remains uncertain. Addressing this question is needed for development of specific measures to manage CP-DM. We approached this question from a unique standpoint, hypothesizing that if CP-DM and T2DM are separate disorders, they should be genetically distinct. To test this hypothesis, we sought to determine whether a genetic risk score (GRS) based on validated single nucleotide polymorphisms for T2DM could distinguish between groups with CP-DM and T2DM. Methods: We used 60 T2DM single nucleotide polymorphisms to construct a weighted GRS in 1,613 subjects from the North American Pancreatitis Study 2 and 2,685 subjects from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, all of European origin. Results: The mean GRS was identical between 321 subjects with CP-DM and 423 subjects with T2DM (66.53 vs 66.42, P = 0.95), and the GRS of both diabetic groups was significantly higher than that of nondiabetic controls (n = 3,554, P < 0.0001). Exploratory analyses attempting to enrich the CP-DM group for pancreatogenic diabetes, such as eliminating diabetes diagnosed before CP, requiring pancreas-specific comorbidities, or removing those with a family history of diabetes, did not improve the ability of the GRS to distinguish between CP-DM and T2DM. Discussion: Recognizing that we lacked a gold standard to define CP-DM, our study suggests that CP-DM may be a subtype of T2DM, a notion that should be tested in future, large prospective studies.

INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.