Lexipafant (BB-882), a potent PAF antagonist 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).

Pharmacological prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

The incidence of clinically significant pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ranges from 1-13.5%. It is more common after therapeutic procedures such as sphincterotomy or balloon dilatation of the sphincter, and diagnostic procedures such as biliary or pancreatic manometry. The severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis may vary from very mild to extremely severe disease with multiple organ failure and fatal outcome. Several factors including papillary oedema, injection of hyperosmolar contrast-material, introduction of previously activated enzymes during repeated cannulation, bacterial contamination and thermal injury from endoscopic sphincterotomy have been implicated as triggering factors that initiate the sequential cascade of pancreatic autodigestion and release of proinflammatory cytokines leading to acute pancreatitis. Recovery from post-ERCP pancreatitis is usually rapid when the injury is confined to the pancreas. However, systemic production of inflammatory mediators may lead to the development of more serious manifestations including multiorgan failure.A wide range of pharmacological agents has been tested in experimental and clinical trials, but the results have been largely disappointing. Several drugs are discussed in this review, but only somatostatin and gabexate (gabexate mesilate) have consistently shown a moderate beneficial effect. In clinical trials, both gabexate and somatostatin appear equally effective in reducing the incidence of pancreatitis by two-thirds compared with controls. However, both drugs need to be given by continuous infusion for about 12 hours and this makes them less cost-effective than conventional treatment. One potential strategy is to reserve these drugs for high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Preliminary studies have shown encouraging results with nitroglycerin, antibacterials and heparin. However, these observations need to be corroborated in a rigorous fashion in large, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials. If these drugs are found to be effective in further trials, it may become cost-effective to use them routinely for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Despite the theoretical benefits, interleukin-10 has not shown a consistent benefit in clinical trials. It is probable that other cytokine inhibitors or modulators may become available for future trials to prevent pancreatitis or more probably, to reduce the severity of pancreatitis. Further research also should focus on developing newer molecules or the use of a combination of currently available drugs to prevent pancreatitis in high-risk patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP procedures.

Localization of the platelet-activating factor receptor to rat pancreatic microvascular endothelial cells

Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is a potent lipid autocoid involved in numerous inflammatory processes. Although PAF plays a key role as a mediator of inflammation in acute pancreatitis, the site(s) of action of PAF in the pancreas remains unknown. One of the aims of this study was to identify cell types within the pancreas expressing the PAF receptor using immunohistochemical protocols. Additionally, pancreatic microvascular endothelial cells were isolated and examined for the PAF receptor using immunohistochemistry, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and intracellular calcium responses to PAF exposure. Immunohistochemical analysis of pancreatic slices using an antibody directed toward the N-terminus of the PAF receptor revealed specific localization to the vascular endothelium with no localization to other pancreatic cell types. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of RNA isolated from cultured pancreatic islet endothelial cells yielded the predicted amplicon for the PAF receptor. Cultured pancreatic islet endothelial cells responded to PAF as measured by a transient increase in intracellular calcium, which was ameliorated in the presence of a PAF receptor antagonist. The results demonstrate the localization of PAF receptors on the pancreatic vascular endothelium. The presence of PAF receptors on the pancreatic vascular endothelium provides a defined, highly localized target for therapeutic intervention.