-
Gastroenterology Jan 2022Acute pancreatitis is a common disease with significant associated morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Acute pancreatitis is a common disease with significant associated morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to explore the changing temporal trends of acute pancreatitis incidence globally.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search to identify population-based studies reporting the annual incidence of acute pancreatitis. Abstracts were assessed independently to identify applicable articles for full-text review and data extraction. Joinpoint temporal trend analyses were performed to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The AAPCs were pooled in a meta-analysis to capture the overall and regional trends in acute pancreatitis incidence over time. Temporal data were summarized in a static map and an interactive, web-based map.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies reported the temporal incidence of acute pancreatitis (online interactive map: https://kaplan-acute-pancreatitis-ucalgary.hub.arcgis.com/). The incidence of acute pancreatitis has increased from 1961 to 2016 (AAPC, 3.07%; 95% CI, 2.30% to 3.84%; n = 34). Increasing incidence was observed in North America (AAPC, 3.67%; 95% CI, 2.76% to 4.57%; n = 4) and Europe (AAPC, 2.77%; 95% CI, 1.91% to 3.63%; n = 23). The incidence of acute pancreatitis was stable in Asia (AAPC, -0.28%; 95% CI, -5.03% to 4.47%; n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the global incidence of acute pancreatitis over the last 56 years and demonstrates a steadily rising incidence over time in most countries of the Western world. More studies are needed to better define the changing incidence of acute pancreatitis in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Topics: Acute Disease; Female; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Male; Pancreatitis; Sex Distribution; Time Factors
PubMed: 34571026
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.09.043 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Jul 2022Acute pancreatitis (AP) is among the commonest non-malignant admission diagnoses in gastroenterology. Its incidence in Germany lies between 13 and 43 per 100 000...
BACKGROUND
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is among the commonest non-malignant admission diagnoses in gastroenterology. Its incidence in Germany lies between 13 and 43 per 100 000 inhabitants and is increasing. In 2017, 24 per 100 000 inhabitants were hospitalized for chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
From October 2018 to January 2019, we systematically searched the literature for original articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines that were published in German or English between 1960 and 2018.
RESULTS
30-50% of cases of acute pancreatitis are caused by gallstone disease, and another 30-50% are due to alcohol abuse. The diagnosis is made when at least two of the following three criteria are met: typical abdominal pain, elevation of serum lipase, and characteristic imaging findings. If those criteria are ambiguous, transabdominal sonography is indicated. The early initiation of food intake lowers the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, or death (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval [0.2; 0.96]). In AP, Ringer's lactate solution should be preferred for fluid resuscitation, at 200-250 mL/hr for 24 hours. Severe pain should be treated with opiates.
CONCLUSION
The current German clinical practice guideline reflects the developments in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatitis that have taken place over the past few years. The long-term care and monitoring of patients with complication-free pancreatitis is the responsibility of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists.
Topics: Humans; Acute Disease; Fluid Therapy; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 35945698
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0223 -
Journal of the ASEAN Federation of... 2022The weight loss benefit of semaglutide in patients with diabetes is well-documented, but its clinical utility in treating obesity among patients without diabetes is less... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The weight loss benefit of semaglutide in patients with diabetes is well-documented, but its clinical utility in treating obesity among patients without diabetes is less described. We therefore assessed the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous semaglutide as treatment for obesity in patients without diabetes.
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google scholar was performed to identify trials on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous semaglutide on patients with obesity without diabetes. Primary outcome was expressed as percent mean weight difference. Secondary outcomes including risk for gastrointestinal adverse events, discontinuation of treatment and serious adverse events were expressed as risk ratios. These were calculated using the random effects model.
RESULTS
The study included 4 randomized controlled trials having a total of 3,613 individuals with obesity without diabetes. The mean difference for weight reduction was -11.85%, favoring semaglutide [95% confidence interval (CI) (-12.81,-10.90), <0.00001]. Secondary outcomes showed that the risk of developing gastrointestinal adverse events was 1.59 times more likely with semaglutide (RR 1.59, 95%CI [1.34, 1.88], <0.00001). Risk for discontinuation due to adverse events was twice as likely in the semaglutide group (RR 2.19, 95%CI [1.36,3.55], =0.001) and the risk for serious adverse events was 1.6 times more likely for semaglutide (RR1.60, 95%CI [1.24, 2.07], =0.0003). Serious events were mostly of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders such as acute pancreatitis and cholelithiasis.
CONCLUSION
Among individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, subcutaneous semaglutide is effective for weight loss with an 11.85% reduction from baseline compared to placebo. This supports the use of semaglutide for weight management in obesity. However, risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, discontinuation of treatment and serious adverse events were higher in the semaglutide group versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Acute Disease; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method; Pancreatitis; Weight Loss; Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36578889
DOI: 10.15605/jafes.037.02.14 -
The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology Oct 2019Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists differ in their structure and duration of action and have been studied in trials of varying sizes and with different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials.
BACKGROUND
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists differ in their structure and duration of action and have been studied in trials of varying sizes and with different patient populations, with inconsistent effects on cardiovascular outcomes reported. We aimed to synthesise the available evidence by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials of these drugs.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible placebo-controlled trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) up to June 15, 2019. We did a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to estimate overall hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE, its components, death from any cause, hospital admission for heart failure, kidney outcomes, and key safety outcomes (severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer). We also examined MACE in several subgroups based on patient characteristics (history of cardiovascular disease, BMI, age, baseline HbA1c, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate), trial duration, treatment dosing interval, and structural homology.
FINDINGS
Of 27 publications screened, seven trials, with a combined total of 56 004 participants, were included: ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide). Overall, GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12% (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·82-0·94; p<0·0001). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity across the subgroups examined. HRs were 0·88 (95% CI 0·81-0·96; p=0·003) for death from cardiovascular causes, 0·84 (0·76-0·93; p<0·0001) for fatal or non-fatal stroke, and 0·91 (0·84-1·00; p=0·043) for fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction. GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment reduced all-cause mortality by 12% (0·88, 0·83-0·95; p=0·001), hospital admission for heart failure by 9% (0·91, 0·83-0·99; p=0·028), and a broad composite kidney outcome (development of new-onset macroalbuminuria, decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [or increase in creatinine], progression to end-stage kidney disease, or death attributable to kidney causes) by 17% (0·83, 0·78-0·89; p<0·0001), mainly due to a reduction in urinary albumin excretion. There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, or pancreatic cancer.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists has beneficial effects on cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Angiopathies; Diabetic Nephropathies; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31422062
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30249-9 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most...
Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.
PubMed: 34977084
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.782151 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2021Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to assess benefits and harms of fluid therapy protocols... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to assess benefits and harms of fluid therapy protocols in patients with AP.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised clinical trials published before May 2020, assessing types of fluids, routes and rates of administration.
RESULTS
A total 15 trials (1073 participants) were included. Age ranged from 38 to 73 years; follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 6 months. Ringer lactate (RL) showed a reduced number of severe adverse events (SAE) when compared to normal saline (NS) (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.29-0.81, p = 0.006); additionally, NS showed reduced SAE (RR 0.38; 95%IC 0.27-0.54, p < 0.001) and organ failure (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.21-0.44, p < 0.001) in comparison with hydroxyethyl starch (HES). High fluid rate fluid infusion showed increased mortality (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.41-5.88, p = 0.004), increased number of SAE (RR 1.42; 95%CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.030) and higher incidence of sepsis (RR 2.80; 95%CI 1.51-5.19, p = 0.001) compared to moderate fluid rate infusion.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with AP, RL should be preferred over NS and HES should not be recommended. Based on low-certainty evidence, moderate-rate fluid infusion should be preferred over high-rate infusion.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Acute Disease; Fluid Therapy; Pancreatitis; Sepsis; Clinical Protocols
PubMed: 34325967
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.06.426 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (TEN) on the prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid were searched using the keywords acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition to obtain the reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2000. After screening the articles according to the inclusion criteria, risk of bias of the included literatures was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The software RevMan 5.3.5 was used for analysis and the creation of a forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 488 literatures were preliminarily searched in this study, from which 10 articles were included into the final quantitative analysis, involving a total of 699 participants. A total of 6 literatures (n=329 participants) reported the infection rate indicators. The obtained statistic value [odds ratio (OR) =0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10 to 0.62] showed TEN had less infection rate that TPN (P=0.003). A total of 8 studies (654 participants) reported the incidence rate indicators of multiple organ failure rate indicator, the obtained statistic value (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.08) showed no statistical difference between TEN and TPN (P>0.05). A total of 7 studies (550 participants) reported the mortality indicators. The obtained statistic value (OR =0.59, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.94) showed TEN had less mortality than TPN (P=0.03). A total of 3 studies reported the length of hospital stay indicators. The obtained statistic value [mean difference (MD) -4.18, 95% CI: -5.07 to -3.30] showed the length of hospital stay for TEN was shorter that TPN (P<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Compared with TPN, TEN can reduce the incidence of infection, reduce the development of multiple organ failure, reduce mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, attention should be paid to prevent the occurrence of complications during the implementation of nutritional intervention.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Prognosis
PubMed: 34763439
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2469 -
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2023Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP.
METHODS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h.
RESULTS
We included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results.
CONCLUSIONS
Aggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatitis; Administration, Intravenous; Treatment Outcome; Resuscitation; Fluid Therapy
PubMed: 36949459
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04401-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antioxidants; Confidence Intervals; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28431202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011384.pub2 -
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