Dataset Information

Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors administered through intravenous infusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The intravenous use of protease inhibitors in patients with acute pancreatitis is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protease inhibitors intravenously administered to prevent pancreatitis-associated complications.

Methods

We updated our previous meta-analysis with articles of randomized controlled trials published from January 1965 to March 2013 on the effectiveness of protease inhibitors for acute pancreatitis. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina was conducted. In addition, Internet-based registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, controlled-trials.com, UMIN, JMACCT, and JAPIC) were used to search for on-going clinical trials. Furthermore, references of review articles and previously published meta-analyses were handsearched. The main outcome of interest was the overall mortality rate from acute pancreatitis.

Results

Seventeen trials were selected for analysis. Overall, protease inhibitors did not achieve a significant risk reduction in mortality (pooled risk difference [RD], -0.02; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.01; number needed to treat [NNT], 74.8) with low heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis in moderate to severe pancreatitis (defined by control mortality rate [CMR] >0.10) did not show a significant effect of protease inhibitors to prevent death (pooled RD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.01; NNT, 1603.9) with low heterogeneity. An additional subgroup analysis of two trials with CMR >0.20 (i.e., low quality) revealed a significant risk reduction.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis re-confirmed that there is no solid evidence that supports the intravenous use of protease inhibitors to prevent death due to acute pancreatitis.

SUBMITTER: Seta T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4061927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsAggressive 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.

Project description:ObjectivesThe prognosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients is closely related to early nutritional support. It is well-established that changes in glutamine (Gln), an important amino acid and nutritional supplement, can reflect disease severity. However, no consensus has been reached on the role of Gln nutrition therapy for SAP patients. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and evaluate the advantages of Gln supplementation in SAP.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, the Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP) were systematically searched for eligible studies that included glutamine supplementation in SAP patients from inception to October 31 2021, excluding non-SAP studies. Primary outcome measures included mortality, APACHE II score, complications, and length of hospital stay. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288371) and was conducted using Review Manager and Stata softwares.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,201 patients. Six primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes were analyzed. For the primary outcomes, Gln supplementation was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.69, P = 0.001), total hospital stay (MD = -3.41, 95% CI: -4.93 to -1.88, P < 0.0001) and complications (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.66, P < 0.0001) compared with conventional nutrition. Further subgroup analysis found that parenteral glutamine was more effective in reducing mortality. In terms of secondary outcomes, Gln supplementation helped restore liver, kidney and immune function, with significantly increased serum albumin (SMD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.74-1.31, P < 0.00001) and IgG levels (MD = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.82-1.67, P < 0.00001), and decreased serum creatinine (Scr) (MD = -12.60, 95% CI: -21.97 to -3.24, P = 0.008), and inflammatory indicators such as C-reaction protein (CRP) (SMD = -1.67, 95% CI: -2.43 to -0.90, P < 0.0001).ConclusionAlthough Gln supplementation is not routinely recommended, it is beneficial for SAP patients. Indeed, glutamine nutrition has little effect on some indicator outcomes but contributes to improving the prognosis of this patient population.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (york.ac.uk). Unique Identifier: CRD42021288371.