Background Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Methods In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights. Results A total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P = 0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Conclusions Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.)

Major problems in stem cell biology revolve around defining the developmental potential of cell populations and understanding how their potential is maintained or progressively restricted. Oxygen (O(2)) is an obvious environmental factor which has received little attention in culturing skeletal muscle progenitor cells. In this work, we examine the effects of O(2) levels on the developmental potential, proliferative capacity, and phenotype of the adult skeletal muscle fiber progenitor population (satellite cells), and cell lines that model multipotential embryonic paraxial mesoderm from which skeletal muscle develops. Both satellite cell proliferation and survival of mature fibers increased in physiologic (6%) O(2) vs. non-physiologic 20% O(2) used in virtually all traditional cell culture. Six percent O(2) conditions also accelerated the up-regulation of multiple MyoD family myogenic regulatory factors (MRFs). An unexpected finding was that fiber-adherent satellite cells could assume a non-myogenic phenotype. By the criteria of molecular markers and gross lipid accumulation, satellite cells were found to assume an adipocyte phenotype, and did so more prominently in 20% O(2) than in physiologic O(2). Selection of the adipogenic fate and execution of adipogenesis by multipotential mesenchymal cell lines was also dramatically higher in traditional 20 vs. 6% O(2), and decreased adipogenesis in physiologic O(2) was associated with significantly less expression of the adipogenic regulator, PPAR gamma. These results suggest that regulatory pathways affected by O(2) are important for satellite cell proliferation, execution of cell fate, and parent muscle survival in culture, and so may play a role in vivo under normal or pathologic conditions.

OBJECTIVES A recent large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that rectal indomethacin administration is effective in addition to pancreatic stent placement (PSP) for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. We performed a post hoc analysis of this RCT to explore whether rectal indomethacin can replace PSP in the prevention of PEP and to estimate the potential cost savings of such an approach. METHODS We retrospectively classified RCT subjects into four prevention groups: (1) no prophylaxis, (2) PSP alone, (3) rectal indomethacin alone, and (4) the combination of PSP and indomethacin. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for imbalances in the prevalence of risk factors for PEP between the groups. Based on these adjusted PEP rates, we conducted an economic analysis comparing the costs associated with PEP prevention strategies employing rectal indomethacin alone, PSP alone, or the combination of both. RESULTS After adjusting for risk using two different logistic regression models, rectal indomethacin alone appeared to be more effective for preventing PEP than no prophylaxis, PSP alone, and the combination of indomethacin and PSP. Economic analysis revealed that indomethacin alone was a cost-saving strategy in 96% of Monte Carlo trials. A prevention strategy employing rectal indomethacin alone could save approximately $150 million annually in the United States compared with a strategy of PSP alone, and $85 million compared with a strategy of indomethacin and PSP. CONCLUSIONS This hypothesis-generating study suggests that prophylactic rectal indomethacin could replace PSP in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP, potentially improving clinical outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. A RCT comparing rectal indomethacin alone vs. indomethacin plus PSP is needed.

Background and aims The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in COVID-19 remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were manually abstracted from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. Findings A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least one gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were elevated to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.12) were not independently associated with mechanical ventilation or death. Conclusion Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Background Temporary prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting effectively reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, but the optimal stent remains unclear. We compared rate of spontaneous passage, and technical difficulty of placement for 3-Fr and 5-Fr stents. Methods A randomized controlled trial at a single academic medical center. Patients deemed high risk for PEP randomly received 5-Fr or 3-Fr pancreatic duct stents. Primary outcome was spontaneous stent passage by 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ease and time for stent placement, and number of guide wires required for the entire procedure. Results Patients (69 female [89%]; mean age 44.9 years, standard deviation [SD] 16.8) were randomly assigned to receive 5-Fr (n = 38) and 3-Fr (n = 40) stents. Indications for stenting were similar. Seven patients in the 3-Fr group actually received a 5-Fr stent, and two in the 5-Fr group had a 3-Fr stent. Spontaneous passage or non-passage was confirmed in 64 (83%). No statistically significant difference in spontaneous passage rates was seen (5-Fr group, 68.4%; 3-Fr group 75.0%; P = 0.617). Non-passage rates were 10.5% (5-Fr group) and 10.0% (3-Fr group) (P = 1.00). The study was stopped after a futility analysis for the primary end point. Placement of 5-Fr stents was rated easier, at a mean score of 1.8 (5-Fr) vs. 3.4 (3-Fr), P < 0.001, with a trend towards being faster, 9.2 vs. 11.1 minutes (P = 0.355). Fewer guide wires were required for 5-Fr stent placement, 1.5 vs. 1.9 (P = 0.002). PEP rates did not differ (P = 0.519). Conclusion Placement of 5-Fr compared to 3-Fr pancreatic duct stents for PEP prophylaxis is easier, faster, and requires fewer wires. No statistically significant difference in spontaneous passage was found between the two sizes.