Citations

AbstractBackground and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals.Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction.Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Objectives We describe the methodology of Post–Acute Pancreatitis Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency (PAPPEI), a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study. The objectives of PAPPEI are to estimate the incidence rate of post–acute pancreatitis (AP) pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI), define factors that determine the development of post-AP PEI, and evaluate the impact of post-AP PEI on nutritional status and quality of life. Methods Enrollment started in June 2017 in 3 expert academic centers in the United States. Data were collected during hospitalization (baseline) at 3 and 12 months after enrollment. Fecal elastase-1 was used to assess PEI. Study questionnaires are completed by patient interview and review of electronic medical records. Blood is obtained to evaluate vitamin deficiencies and nutritional markers. Results As of August 2020, 77 subjects have completed the baseline evaluation. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 39–67 years), 38% were male, and 90% were white. The etiology of AP was biliary in 39 subjects (51%), and 51 subjects (66%) had mild AP. Three- and 12-month follow-up data have been collected in 29 and 13 subjects, respectively. Conclusion The PAPPEI study aims to expand our understanding of post-AP PEI incidence, including its impact on nutritional status and quality of life.

AbstractBackground and AimThe primary aim was to validate the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) in a multicenter prospectively ascertained acute pancreatitis (AP) cohort. Second, we investigated the association of early PASS trajectories with disease severity and length of hospital stay (LOS).MethodsData were prospectively collected through the APPRENTICE consortium (2015–2018). AP severity was categorized based on revised Atlanta classification. Delta PASS (ΔPASS) was calculated by subtracting activity score from baseline value. PASS trajectories were compared between severity subsets. Subsequently, the cohort was subdivided into three LOS subgroups as short (S‐LOS): 2–3 days; intermediate (I‐LOS): 3–7 days; and long (L‐LOS): ≥7 days. The generalized estimating equations model was implemented to compare PASS trajectories.ResultsThere were 434 subjects analyzed including 322 (74%) mild, 86 (20%) moderately severe, and 26 (6%) severe AP. Severe AP subjects had the highest activity levels and the slowest rate of decline in activity (P = 0.039). Focusing on mild AP, L‐LOS subjects (34%) had 28 points per day slower decline; whereas, S‐LOS group (13%) showed 34 points per day sharper decrease compared with I‐LOS (53%; P < 0.001). We noticed an outlier subset with a median admission‐PASS of 466 compared with 140 in the rest. Morphine equivalent dose constituted 80% of the total PASS in the outliers (median morphine equivalent dose score = 392), compared with only 25% in normal‐range subjects (score = 33, P value < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlighted that PASS can quantify AP activity. Significant differences in PASS trajectories were found both in revised Atlanta classification severity and LOS groups, which can be harnessed in AP monitoring/management (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03075618).

Objective This study aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in acute pancreatitis (AP) as an endpoint centred on the patient. Design A PROM instrument (PAtieNt-rePoRted OutcoMe scale in acute pancreatItis, an international proSpEctive cohort study, PAN-PROMISE scale) was designed based on the opinion of patients, professionals and an expert panel. The scale was validated in an international multicentre prospective cohort study, describing the severity of AP and quality of life at 15 days after discharge as the main variables for validation. The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) methodology was applied. Both the design and validation stages considered the content and face validity of this new instrument; the metric properties of the different items, reliability (reproducibility and internal consistence), the construct, structural and criterion validity, responsiveness and interpretability of this scale. Results PAN-PROMISE consists of a seven-item scale based on the symptoms that cause the most discomfort and concern to patients with AP. The validation cohort involved 15 countries, 524 patients. The intensity of symptoms changed from higher values during the first 24 hours to lower values at discharge and 15 days thereafter. Items converged into a unidimensional ordinal scale with good fit indices. Internal consistency and split-half reliability at discharge were adequate. Reproducibility was confirmed using test–retest reliability and comparing the PAN-PROMISE score at discharge and 15 days after discharge. Evidence is also provided for the convergent-discriminant and empirical validity of the scale. Conclusion The PAN-PROMISE scale is a useful tool to be used as an endpoint in clinical trials, and to quantify patient well-being during the hospital admission and follow-up. Trial registration number NCT03650062