Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Although abdominal pain is one of the major criteria to diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP), there are no standardized guidelines to treat this troublesome symptom in the hospital setting. The aims of the study are to conduct a meta-analysis and to assess the efficacy of nonopioids vs opioids for pain management in AP.

Methods

We searched the medical literature through May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of opioids with nonopioids in AP pain management. Efficacy was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each comparison tested.

Results

We identified 7 eligible randomized controlled trials, containing 389 patients. No significant difference in terms of pain intensity at day 1 (OR 0.82, 95% CI -2.55 to 4.19) was found between opioids and nonopioids. Nonopioids have a significantly high risk of supplementary analgesic use compared with opioids (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.25-12.04). However, this significance is not seen when comparing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol with opioids (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73-3.82) after excluding trials with procaine. Opioids did not show a significant increase in the complications of pancreatitis, nausea and vomiting, sedation, and deaths when compared with nonopioids.

Conclusion

We found nonopioids, especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, can provide adequate pain relief in patients with AP with no change in supplementary analgesic use and adverse events when compared with opioids. Further research is needed to optimize the use of nonopioids along or in combination with opioids for better pain control in patients with AP.

SUBMITTER: Nelson AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11308224 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis.

Nelson Alfred D AD Lugo-Fagundo Nahyr Sofía NS Mahapatra Soumya Jagannath SJ Cheungpastiporn Wisit W Thongprayoon Charat C Wijarnpreecha Karn K Muktesh Gaurav G Kochhar Rakesh R Garg Pramod P Wallace Michael M Bi Yan Y

Gastro hep advances 20220203 1

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Although abdominal pain is one of the major criteria to diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP), there are no standardized guidelines to treat this troublesome symptom in the hospital setting. The aims of the study are to conduct a meta-analysis and to assess the efficacy of nonopioids vs opioids for pain management in AP.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the medical literature through May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of opioids with non ...[more]

PMID: 39129925

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWithin 5 years of having acute pancreatitis (AP), approximately 20% of patients develop diabetes mellitus (DM), which later increases to approximately 40%. Some studies suggest that the prevalence of prediabetes (PD) and/or DM can grow as high as 59% over time. However, information on risk factors is limited. We aimed to identify risk factors for developing PD or DM following AP.MethodsWe systematically searched three databases up to 4 September 2023 extracting direct, within-study comparisons of risk factors on the rate of new-onset PD and DM in AP patients. When PD and DM event rates could not be separated, we reported results for this composite outcome as PD/DM. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOf the 61 studies identified, 50 were included in the meta-analysis, covering 76,797 participants. The studies reported on 79 risk factors, and meta-analysis was feasible for 34 risk factor and outcome pairs. The odds of developing PD/DM was significantly higher after severe and moderately severe AP (OR: 4.32; CI: 1.76-10.60) than mild AP. Hypertriglyceridemic AP etiology (OR: 3.27; CI: 0.17-63.91) and pancreatic necrosis (OR: 5.53; CI: 1.59-19.21) were associated with a higher risk of developing PD/DM. Alcoholic AP etiology (OR: 1.82; CI: 1.09-3.04), organ failure (OR: 3.19; CI: 0.55-18.64), recurrent AP (OR: 1.89; CI: 0.95-3.77), obesity (OR: 1.85; CI: 1.43-2.38), chronic kidney disease (OR: 2.10; CI: 1.85-2.38), liver cirrhosis (OR: 2.48; CI: 0.18-34.25), and dyslipidemia (OR: 1.82; CI: 0.68-4.84) were associated with a higher risk of developing DM.DiscussionSevere and moderately severe AP, alcoholic and hypertriglyceridemic etiologies, pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, recurrent acute pancreatitis and comorbidities of obesity, chronic kidney disease liver disease, and dyslipidemia are associated with a higher risk of developing PD or DM.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021281983.

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.

Project description:Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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, p = 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, p = 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. Conclusions: 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.

Project description:BackgroundIn February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis. No differences between the groups were found for any of the primary endpoints. However, mortality in the probiotics group was significantly higher than in the placebo group. This result was unexpected in light of the results of the animal studies referred to in the trial protocol. We used the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis to take a closer look at the relation between the animal studies on probiotics and pancreatitis and the PROPATRIA-trial, focussing on indications for harmful effects and efficacy.Methods and resultsBoth PubMed and Embase were searched for original articles concerning the effects of probiotics in experimental acute pancreatitis, yielding thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data on mortality, bacterial translocation and histological damage to the pancreas were extracted, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis of the four animal studies published before PROPATRIA showed that probiotic supplementation did not diminish mortality, reduced the overall histopathological score of the pancreas and reduced bacterial translocation to pancreas and mesenteric lymph nodes. Comparable results were found when all relevant studies published so far were taken into account.ConclusionsA more thorough analysis of all relevant animal studies carried out before (and after) the publication of the study protocol of the PROPATRIA trial could not have predicted the harmful effects of probiotics found in the PROPATRIA-trial. Moreover, meta-analysis of the preclinical animal studies did show evidence for efficacy. It may be suggested, however, that the most appropriate animal experiments in relation to the design of the human trial have not yet been conducted, which compromises a fair comparison between the results of the animal studies and the PROPATRIA trial.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis.

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets