ObjectiveThe benefits of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in chronic pancreatitis (CP) are inadequately defined. We have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of PERT to determine the efficacy of PERT in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) from CP.DesignMajor databases were searched from 1966 to 2015 inclusive. The primary outcome was coefficient of fat absorption (CFA). Effects of PERT versus baseline and versus placebo, and of different doses, formulations and schedules were determined.ResultsA total of 17 studies (511 patients with CP) were included and assessed qualitatively (Jadad score). Quantitative data were synthesised from 14 studies. PERT improved CFA compared with baseline (83.7±6.0 vs 63.1±15.0, p<0.00001; I2=89%) and placebo (83.2±5.5 vs 67.4±7.0, p=0.0001; I2=86%). PERT improved coefficient of nitrogen absorption, reduced faecal fat excretion, faecal nitrogen excretion, faecal weight and abdominal pain, without significant adverse events. Follow-up studies demonstrated that PERT increased serum nutritional parameters, improved GI symptoms and quality of life without significant adverse events. High-dose or enteric-coated enzymes showed a trend to greater effectiveness than low-dose or non-coated comparisons, respectively. Subgroup, sensitive and meta-regression analyses revealed that sample size, CP diagnostic criteria, study design and enzyme dose contributed to heterogeneity; data on health inequalities were lacking.ConclusionsPERT is indicated to correct EPI and malnutrition in CP and may be improved by higher doses, enteric coating, administration during food and acid suppression. Further studies are required to determine optimal regimens, the impact of health inequalities and long-term effects on nutrition.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough evidence suggests frequent gastrointestinal (GI) involvement during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), endoscopic findings are scarcely reported.AimsWe aimed at registering endoscopic abnormalities and potentially associated risk factors among patients with COVID-19.MethodsAll consecutive patients with COVID-19 undergoing endoscopy in 16 institutions from high-prevalence regions were enrolled. Mann-Whitney U, χ2 or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare patients with major abnormalities to those with negative procedures, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors.ResultsBetween February and May 2020, during the first pandemic outbreak with severely restricted endoscopy activity, 114 endoscopies on 106 patients with COVID-19 were performed in 16 institutions (men=70.8%, median age=68 (58–74); 33% admitted in intensive care unit; 44.4% reporting GI symptoms). 66.7% endoscopies were urgent, mainly for overt GI bleeding. 52 (45.6%) patients had major abnormalities, whereas 13 bled from previous conditions. The most prevalent upper GI abnormalities were ulcers (25.3%), erosive/ulcerative gastro-duodenopathy (16.1%) and petechial/haemorrhagic gastropathy (9.2%). Among lower GI endoscopies, 33.3% showed an ischaemic-like colitis.Receiver operating curve analysis identified D-dimers >1850 ng/mL as predicting major abnormalities. Only D-dimers >1850 ng/mL (OR=12.12 (1.69–86.87)) and presence of GI symptoms (OR=6.17 (1.13–33.67)) were independently associated with major abnormalities at multivariate analysis.ConclusionIn this highly selected cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring endoscopy, almost half showed acute mucosal injuries and more than one-third of lower GI endoscopies had features of ischaemic colitis. Among the hospitalisation-related and patient-related variables evaluated in this study, D-dimers above 1850 ng/mL was the most useful at predicting major mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrial.gov (ID: NCT04318366).

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background/Objectives The epidemiology of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) after acute pancreatitis (AP) is uncertain. We sought to determine the prevalence, progression, etiology and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) requirements for EPI during follow-up of AP by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Scopus, Medline and Embase were searched for prospective observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of PERT reporting EPI during the first admission (between the start of oral refeeding and before discharge) or follow-up (≥ 1 month of discharge) for AP in adults. EPI was diagnosed by direct and/or indirect laboratory exocrine pancreatic function tests. Results Quantitative data were analyzed from 370 patients studied during admission (10 studies) and 1795 patients during follow-up (39 studies). The pooled prevalence of EPI during admission was 62% (95% confidence interval: 39–82%), decreasing significantly during follow-up to 35% (27–43%; risk difference: − 0.34, − 0.53 to − 0.14). There was a two-fold increase in the prevalence of EPI with severe compared with mild AP, and it was higher in patients with pancreatic necrosis and those with an alcohol etiology. The prevalence decreased during recovery, but persisted in a third of patients. There was no statistically significant difference between EPI and new-onset pre-diabetes/diabetes (risk difference: 0.8, 0.7–1.1, P = 0.33) in studies reporting both. Sensitivity analysis showed fecal elastase-1 assay detected significantly fewer patients with EPI than other tests. Conclusions The prevalence of EPI during admission and follow-up is substantial in patients with a first attack of AP. Unanswered questions remain about the way this is managed, and further RCTs are indicated. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10620-019-05568-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PEI was a significant independent risk factor for mortality in patients with CP. These results support further research into the optimal treatment of PEI to reduce mortality in this population.

No abstract

The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.