-
JGH Open : An Open Access Journal of... Apr 2022We aimed to systematically review the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute pancreatitis (AP). The global... (Review)
Review
We aimed to systematically review the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute pancreatitis (AP). The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection causes respiratory symptoms and notably also affects the gastrointestinal (GI) system. A systematic review of the available literature on the topic was performed with a search key using the terms "SARS COV 2," "Pancreatitis," "COVID-19" and synonyms. The search was conducted on 27 December 2020 using PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the low quality and poor comparability of the studies. We reviewed 66 studies that reported data on patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and AP using the Atlanta Criteria. Our evaluation revealed a wide age range and diverse clinical presentation of COVID-19 with or without symptoms of AP, some of which preceded typical COVID-19 symptoms. We observed a myriad of complications and one study revealed that patients with both conditions were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and had longer lengths of hospital stay compared with patients with AP without COVID-19. Treatment for AP was mostly supportive, with varied therapies employed for COVID-19. Most cases were considered idiopathic and presumed to be SARS-CoV-2-induced as established etiological factors were not reported. AP should be considered in COVID-19 patients, especially in those exhibiting GI symptoms. Evidence to establish a causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and AP is currently lacking.
PubMed: 35475200
DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12729 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m) were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.
Topics: Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Nephropathies; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glipizide; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Thiazolidinediones
PubMed: 30246878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011798.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2023Long-term medication with valproic acid has been associated with acute pancreatitis. The purpose of this report is to gain insight into the features of this... (Review)
Review
Long-term medication with valproic acid has been associated with acute pancreatitis. The purpose of this report is to gain insight into the features of this pancreatitis. A preregistered literature search (CRD42023438294) was performed on the National Library of Medicine, Excerpta Medica, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Patients with alcohol abuse disorder, gallstone disease, hypertriglyceridemia or hypercalcemia, patients with acute valproic acid intoxication, and patients with a pre-existing pancreatitis were excluded. For the final analysis, we retained 73 reports published between 1979 and 2023, which described 125 subjects (83 children and 42 adults predominantly affected by an epilepsy) with an acute pancreatitis related to valproic acid. The diagnosis was made 11 (3.0-24) months (median and interquartile range) after starting valproic acid. One hundred and five cases (84%) recovered and twenty (16%) died. Sex, age, dosage or circulating level of valproic acid, latency time, prevalence of intellectual disability, and antiepileptic co-medication were similar in cases with and without a lethal outcome. Nineteen subjects were rechallenged with valproic acid after recovery: sixteen (84%) cases developed a further episode of pancreatitis. In conclusion, pancreatitis associated with valproic acid presents at any time during treatment and has a high fatality rate.
PubMed: 37762984
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12186044 -
International Journal of Medical... Jan 2022Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common clinical pancreatic disease. Patients with different severity levels have different clinical outcomes. With the advantages of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common clinical pancreatic disease. Patients with different severity levels have different clinical outcomes. With the advantages of algorithms, machine learning (ML) has gradually emerged in the field of disease prediction, assisting doctors in decision-making.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Publication time was limited from inception to 29 May 2021. Studies that have used ML to establish predictive tools for AP were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted in accordance with the IJMEDI checklist.
RESULTS
In this systematic review, 24 of 2,913 articles, with a total of 8,327 patients and 47 models, were included. The studies could be divided into five categories: 10 studies (42%) reported severity prediction; 10 studies (42%), complication prediction; 3 studies (13%), mortality prediction; 2 studies (8%), recurrence prediction; and 2 studies (8%), surgery timing prediction. ML showed great accuracy in several prediction tasks. However, most of the included studies were retrospective in nature, conducted at a single centre, based on database data, and lacked external validation. According to the IJMEDI checklist and our scoring criteria, two studies were considered to be of high quality. Most studies had an obvious bias in the quality of data preparation, validation, and deployment dimensions.
CONCLUSION
In the prediction tasks for AP, ML has shown great potential in assisting decision-making. However, the existing studies still have some deficiencies in the process of model construction. Future studies need to optimize the deficiencies and further evaluate the comparability of the ML systems and model performance, so as to consequently develop high-quality ML-based models that can be used in clinical practice.
Topics: Acute Disease; Algorithms; Humans; Machine Learning; Pancreatitis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34785488
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104641 -
Cureus Oct 2023Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas with high prevalence and varying degrees of severity that can be potentially life-threatening. Much... (Review)
Review
Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas with high prevalence and varying degrees of severity that can be potentially life-threatening. Much is still unknown about which mechanisms determine the course and severity of acute pancreatitis. The primary objective of this review is to identify the potential association between circulating lymphocytes and the severity of acute pancreatitis. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrails.gov. The authors independently did the selection process as well as data extraction that was recorded into a flow diagram following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Our initial search identified 27,783 studies which were narrowed down to 13 by applying strict inclusion and exclusion algorithms. The consistent findings across the studies indicated that peripheral blood lymphocytes are related to acute pancreatitis severity.
PubMed: 38022062
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47532 -
Gut Oct 2023In up to 20% of patients, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) remains elusive and is thus called idiopathic. On more detailed review these cases can often be...
OBJECTIVE
In up to 20% of patients, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) remains elusive and is thus called idiopathic. On more detailed review these cases can often be explained through biliary disease and are amenable to treatment. Findings range from biliary sludge to microlithiasis but their definitions remain fluid and controversial.
DESIGN
A systematic literature review (1682 reports, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines) analysed definitions of biliary sludge and microlithiasis, followed by an online international expert survey (30 endoscopic ultrasound/hepatobiliary and pancreatic experts; 36 items) which led to definitions of both. These were consented by Delphi voting and clinically evaluated in a retrospective cohort of patients with presumed biliary pancreatitis.
RESULTS
In 13% of original articles and 19.2% of reviews, microlithiasis and biliary sludge were used synonymously. In the survey, 41.7% of experts described the term 'sludge' and 'microlithiasis' as identical findings. As a consequence, three definitions were proposed, agreed on and confirmed by voting to distinctly discriminate between biliary sludge (hyperechoic material without acoustic shadowing) and microlithiasis (echorich calculi of ≤5 mm with acoustic shadowing) as opposed to larger biliary stones, both for location in gallbladder and bile ducts. In an initial attempt to investigate the clinical relevance in a retrospective analysis in 177 confirmed cases in our hospital, there was no difference in severity of AP if caused by sludge, microlithiasis or stones.
CONCLUSION
We propose a consensus definition for the localisation, ultrasound morphology and diameter of biliary sludge and microlithiasis as distinct entities. Interestingly, severity of biliary AP was not dependent on the size of concrements warranting prospective randomised studies which treatment options are adequate to prevent recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatitis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Acute Disease; Consensus; Gallstones
PubMed: 37072178
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327955 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jun 2022Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disorder of the gut with frequent extra-intestinal complications. Pancreatic involvement in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disorder of the gut with frequent extra-intestinal complications. Pancreatic involvement in IBD is not uncommon and comprises a heterogeneous group of conditions, including acute pancreatitis (AP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI); however, data on such an association remain sparse and heterogeneous.
METHOD
PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating pancreatic involvement in patients with IBD.
RESULTS
Four thousand one hundred and twenty-one records were identified and 547 screened; finally, 124 studies were included in the review. AP is the most frequent pancreatic manifestation in IBD; the majority of AP cases in IBD are due to gallstones and drugs but cases of idiopathic AP are increasingly reported. AIP is a rare disease, but a strong association with IBD has been demonstrated, especially for type 2 and ulcerative colitis. The pathogenetic link between IBD and AIP remains unclear, but an immune-mediated pathway seems plausible. An association between CP and PEI with IBD has also been suggested, but data are to date scarce and conflicting.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review of the association between IBD and pancreatic diseases. Gallstones and drugs should be considered the most probable causes of AP in IBD, with type 2 AIP also being possible.
Topics: Acute Disease; Autoimmune Diseases; Chronic Disease; Colitis, Ulcerative; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Gallstones; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 35505465
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16949 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022Extra-pulmonary features sometimes occur in association with atypical bacterial pneumonia and include neurologic manifestations, diarrhea, rashes, altered liver enzymes,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Extra-pulmonary features sometimes occur in association with atypical bacterial pneumonia and include neurologic manifestations, diarrhea, rashes, altered liver enzymes, or kidney injury, among other conditions. Acute pancreatitis has been associated with atypical pneumonias since 1973.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature in the Excerpta Medica, National Library of Medicine, and Web of Science databases. We retained 27 reports published between 1973 and 2022 describing subjects with an otherwise unexplained pancreatitis temporally associated with an atypical pneumonia.
RESULTS
The reports included 33 subjects (19 males, and 14 females; 8 children and 25 adults) with acute pancreatitis temporally associated with atypical pneumonia caused by ( = 18), species ( = 14), or ( = 1). Approximately 90% of patients ( = 29) concurrently presented with respiratory and pancreatic diseases. No cases associated with , , or species were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Acute pancreatitis has been associated with various infectious agents. The present review documents the association with atypical pneumonia induced by , species, and .
PubMed: 36498822
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237248 -
Cureus Aug 2022There is increasing literature mentioning severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19 infection) causing acute pancreatitis (AP). It... (Review)
Review
There is increasing literature mentioning severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19 infection) causing acute pancreatitis (AP). It is hypothesized that SARS-Cov-2 causes pancreatic injury either by direct cytotoxic effect of the virus on pancreatic cells through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors - the main receptors for the virus located on pancreatic cells - or by the cytokine storm that results from COVID-19 infection or a component of both. Many viruses are related to AP including mumps, coxsackievirus, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and as data evolves SARS-CoV-2 virus may be one of them as well. We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the current literature and provide an overview of the evidence of AP in COVID-19 infection. We studied the presence of AP in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and calculated the time of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection with respect to the time of diagnosis of AP. We also studied the age, gender, clinical manifestations, time of onset of symptoms, laboratory values, imaging findings, mortality, length of stay, comorbidities, need for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) care, and excluded any other common causes of AP. We included 40 articles comprising 46 patients. All patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and all patients had AP as per Atlanta's criteria. The most common clinical presentation was abdominal pain in 29 (63.0%). Edematous pancreas was the most common Computed Tomography Abdomen Pelvis (CTAP) scan finding in these patients (35 patients). Seventeen (37%) patients required ICU admission and six (13%) patients died. Our study provides an important overview of the available data on AP in COVID-19 patients and concludes that AP is an important complication in COVID-19 infection and should be considered as an important differential in patients with COVID-19 infection who complain of abdominal pain.
PubMed: 36168341
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28380 -
Cureus Apr 2023The current meta-analysis was conducted to determine the predictors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with sepsis. The present meta-analysis was... (Review)
Review
The current meta-analysis was conducted to determine the predictors of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with sepsis. The present meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. We conducted a systematic search using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 28 February 2023 that assessed the predictors of ARDS in patients with sepsis. We used key terms such as "predictors," "acute respiratory distress syndrome," and "sepsis" to search for relevant articles. Our search was limited to human studies published in English. A total of six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the six studies, four were retrospective and two were prospective. The pooled incidence of ARDS was 11.27%. We identified six factors with a consistent and statistically significant association with ARDS, including sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, pulmonary sepsis, smoking, pancreatitis, and C-reactive protein. Age, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were not found to be significantly associated with ARDS in this patient population. It is important for healthcare providers to consider these predictors when assessing patients with sepsis and septic shock to identify those at high risk for developing ARDS and implement appropriate preventive measures.
PubMed: 37143620
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37055