Probiotics in acute pancreatitis

Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis

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).

Enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: A review of the current evidence

The use of enteral feeding as part of the management of acute pancreatitis dates back almost two decades. This review describes the indications for and limitations of enteral feeding for the treatment of acute pancreatitis using up-to-date evidence-based data. A systematic review was carried out to analyse current data on the use of enteral nutrition in the management of acute pancreatitis. Relevant literature was analysed from the viewpoints of enteral vs parenteral feeding, early vs delayed enteral nutrition, nasogastric vs nasojejunal feeding, and early oral diet and immunonutrition, particularly glutamine and probiotic supplementation. Finally, current applicable guidelines and the effects of these guidelines on clinical practice are discussed. The latest meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition significantly reduces the mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis compared to parenteral feeding. To maintain gut barrier function and prevent early bacterial translocation, enteral feeding should be commenced within the first 24 h of hospital admission. Also, the safety of nasogastric feeding, which eases the administration of enteral nutrients in the clinical setting, is likely equal to nasojejunal feeding. Furthermore, an early low-fat oral diet is potentially beneficial in patients with mild pancreatitis. Despite the initial encouraging results, the current evidence does not support the use of immunoenhanced nutrients or probiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Effects of probiotics in treatment of severe acute pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the effects of probiotics in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

METHODS: Thirty-nine SAP patients were randomly divided into two groups: a control group and a treatment group. The treatment group was given probiotics through the nasointestinal feeding tube, and the control group was given placebo (starch preparations). Infectious complications (including infected necrosis of the pancreas, pneumonia, urosepsis and bacteraemia), duration of intensive care, and rates of percutaneous drainage, intestinal ischemia and necrosis were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in infectious complications, duration of intensive care or the rate of percutaneous drainage between the two groups, but the rate of intestinal ischemia and necrosis was significantly higher in the treatment group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION: Using probiotics does not reduce infectious complications, shorten the duration of intensive care, or reduce the rate of percutaneous drainage in patients with SAP, but increase the rate of intestinal ischemia and necrosis.

Evidence-based use of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE

A systematic review was carried out to analyze current evidence-based data on the use of enteral nutrition in the management of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Literature search was performed on "Pubmed" and "Medline" databases to identify articles investigating the role and potential effect of enteral nutrition on the outcome of patients with acute pancreatitis. Relevant data were analyzed from the viewpoints of possible benefits and complications, route and timing of administration, and composition of nutrients.

RESULTS

Thirty-two prospective randomized controlled trials and 15 meta-analyses of those were identified and included in this overview. Strong evidence suggests that enteral nutrition significantly reduces mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis. While both nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding appear to be safe in severe pancreatitis, early low-fat oral diet is possibly beneficial in patients with mild pancreatitis. Since maintenance of the gut barrier function is one of the crucial effects of enteral nutrition, enteral feeding should be commenced within the first 24 h after hospital admission, in order to prevent early bacterial translocation. However, it seems that neither immunonoenhanced nutrients nor probiotic supplementation are able to reduce mortality further, and--therefore--cannot be recommended for patients with acute pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

Although enteral nutrition is undoubtedly a key component of the management of acute pancreatitis, the exact role of that is needed to be defined yet. In particular, conflicting data from studies on nutrient compositions will require further clarification in the future.

Treatment of acute pancreatitis: focus on medical care

Acute pancreatitis has an incidence of about 300 per 1 million individuals per year, of which 10-15% of patients develop the severe form of the disease. Novel management options, which have the potential to improve outcome, include initial proper fluid resuscitation, which maintains microcirculation and thereby potentially decreases ischaemia and reperfusion injury. The traditional treatment concept in acute pancreatitis, fasting and parenteral nutrition, has been challenged and early initiation of enteral feeding in severe pancreatitis and oral intake in mild acute pancreatitis is both feasible and provides some benefits. There are at present no data supporting immunonutritional supplements and probiotics should be avoided in patients with acute pancreatitis. There is also no evidence of any benefits provided by prophylactic antibacterials in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis. A variety of specific medical interventions have been investigated (e.g. intense blood glucose monitoring by insulin) but none has become clinically useful. Lessons can probably be learned from critical care in general, but studies are needed to verify these interventions in acute pancreatitis.