Urinary trypsinogen-2 dipstick in acute pancreatitis

Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen and amylase for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of people with acute abdominal pain differs if they have acute pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with abdominal pain has acute pancreatitis. There is currently no Cochrane review of the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase, either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in people with acute onset of a persistent, severe epigastric pain or diffuse abdominal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. We excluded case-control studies because these studies are prone to bias. We accepted any of the following reference standards: biopsy, consensus conference definition, radiological features of acute pancreatitis, diagnosis of acute pancreatitis during laparotomy or autopsy, and organ failure. At least two review authors independently searched and screened the references located by the search to identify relevant studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. The thresholds used for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis varied in the trials, resulting in sparse data for each index test. Because of sparse data, we used -2 log likelihood values to determine which model to use for meta-analysis. We calculated and reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each cutoff, but have reported only the results of the recommended cutoff of three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 50 mg/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 in the abstract.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies including 5056 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests in people presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. The risk of bias was unclear or high for all of the included studies. The study that contributed approximately two-thirds of the participants included in this review was excluded from the results of the analysis presented below due to major concerns about the participants included in the study. We have presented only the results where at least two studies were included in the analysis.Serum amylase, serum lipase, and urinary trypsinogen-2 at the standard threshold levels of more than three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and a threshold of 50 ng/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 appear to have similar sensitivities (0.72 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82); 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.92); and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), respectively) and specificities (0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99); 0.89 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.99); and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93), respectively). At the median prevalence of 22.6% of acute pancreatitis in the studies, out of 100 people with positive test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 74 (95% CI 33 to 94); 68 (95% CI 21 to 94); and 67 (95% CI 57 to 76) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively; out of 100 people with negative test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 8 (95% CI 5 to 12); 7 (95% CI 3 to 15); and 8 (95% CI 5 to 13) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively. We were not able to compare these tests formally because of sparse data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As about a quarter of people with acute pancreatitis fail to be diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with the evaluated tests, one should have a low threshold to admit the patient and treat them for acute pancreatitis if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis, even if these tests are normal. About 1 in 10 patients without acute pancreatitis may be wrongly diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with these tests, therefore it is important to consider other conditions that require urgent surgical intervention, such as perforated viscus, even if these tests are abnormal.The diagnostic performance of these tests decreases even further with the progression of time, and one should have an even lower threshold to perform additional investigations if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis.

Urinary amylase/urinary creatinine ratio (uAm/uCr)--a less-invasive parameter for management of hyperamylasemia

BACKGROUND

The serum level of amylase (sAm) is commonly used as a biochemical marker for diagnosis and management of pancreatic disorders. However, the use of the urine level of amylase (uAm) is limited in practice, because the diagnostic ability of uAm is inferior to that of sAm. In the present study, the possible concordance of uAm-rerated parameters with sAm was investigated, and evaluate the usefulness of uAm for management of hyperamylasemia.

METHODS

From June 1995 to October 2009, 804 samples of both urine and blood were collected from 128 patients in order to measure the serum level of amylase (sAm) and the urine level of amylase (uAm) and creatinine (uCr). Concordance of parameters using uAm compared to sAm was assessed. Parameters used were uAm, amylase creatinine clearance ratio (ACCR), and the ratio of uAm to uCr (uAm/uCr).

RESULTS

uAm/uCr had the best correlation with sAm (r = 0.779, p < 0.001) compared to uAm (r = 0.620, p < 0.001) and to ACCR (r = 0.374, p < 0.001), when sAm was over the standard level. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of uAm/uCr (0.884) was significantly higher than that of uAm (0.766) and of ACCR (0.666) (p < 0.001 for each). The cutoff value of uAm/uCr was 569.8, with a sensitivity of 81.0% and a specificity of 83.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The uAm/uCr ratio correlated with sAm, and may be an alternative to sAm for prediction of hyperamylasemia. Use of urine samples results in a decreased need for blood sampling, which is especially beneficial in pediatric patients.

Urinary trypsinogen-2 for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, serum amylase and lipase are the most popular laboratory markers for early diagnosis of acute pancreatitis with reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Urinary trypsinogen-2 (UT-2) has been increasingly used but its clinical value for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis has not yet been systematically assessed.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search was carried out using PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science for clinical trials, which studied the usefulness of UT-2 as a diagnostic marker for acute pancreatitis. Sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each study and were compared with serum amylase and lipase. Summary receiver-operating curves were conducted and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of UT-2 for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis were 80% and 92%, respectively (AUC=0.96, DOR=65.63, 95% CI: 31.65-139.09). The diagnostic value of UT-2 was comparable to serum amylase but was weaker than serum lipase. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of post-ERCP pancreatitis were 86% and 94%, respectively (AUC=0.92, DOR=77.68, 95% CI: 24.99-241.48).

CONCLUSIONS

UT-2 as a rapid test could be potentially used for the diagnosis of post-ERCP pancreatitis and to an extent, acute pancreatitis. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Laboratory diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: in search of the Holy Grail

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreas, which might extend to local and distant extrapancreatic tissues. The global incidence varies between 17.5 and 73.4 cases per 100,000 and the pathogenesis recognizes alcohol exposure and biliary tract disease as the leading causes, ahead of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, drugs and abdominal trauma. The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is substantially based on a combination of clinical signs and symptoms, imaging techniques and laboratory investigations. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography is the reference standard for the diagnosis, as well as for establishing disease severity. The assessment of pancreatic enzymes, early released from necrotic tissue, is the cornerstone of laboratory diagnosis in this clinical setting. Although there is no single test that shows optimal diagnostic accuracy, most current guidelines and recommendations indicate that lipase should be preferred over total and pancreatic amylase. Although a definitive diagnostic threshold cannot be identified, cut-offs comprised between ≥ 2 and ≥ 4 times the upper limit of the reference interval are preferable. The combination of amylase and lipase has been discouraged as although it marginally improves the diagnostic efficiency of either marker alone, it increases the cost of investigation. Some interesting biomarkers have been also suggested (e.g., serum and urinary trypsinogen-1, -2 and -3, phospholipase A2, pancreatic elastase, procalcitonin, trypsinogen activated protein, activation peptide of carboxypeptidase B, trypsin-2-alpha1 antitrypsin complex and circulating DNA), but none of them has found widespread application for a variety of reasons, including the inferior diagnostic accuracy when compared with the traditional enzymes, the use of cumbersome techniques, or their recent discovery. The promising results of recent proteomics studies showed that this innovative technique might allow the identification of changes characterizing pancreatic tissue injury, thus highlighting new potential biomarkers of acute pancreatitis.

Current status on plasma biomarkers for acute mesenteric ischemia

Clinical diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia is difficult. The aim of this review is to provide current status on the search for an accurate plasma biomarker for acute mesenteric ischemia. A search using the medical subject heading terms marker and mesenteric ischemia or intestinal ischemia or superior mesenteric artery occlusion or mesenteric venous thrombosis in the Medline and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011. Studies without a control group or a control group consisted of healthy individuals (human studies), or studies on intestinal reperfusion were excluded. Twenty animal and twelve human studies were identified. In human studies, the studied series of patients had a control group that had a need of laparotomy (n = 2), suspected acute mesenteric ischemia (n = 7), acute abdomen (n = 2) or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (n = 1). D: -dimer has been found to be the most consistent highly sensitive early marker, but specificity was low. The follow-up study on α-glutathione S-transferase yielded inferior sensitivity and accuracy than the preliminary study, clearly questioning the value of this marker. Intestinal fatty acid binding globulin (I-FABP) and D: -lactate are both interesting markers, but the results were conflicting. Different cut-off levels have been used in the studies on I-FABP. The encouraging preliminary result of cobalt-albumin and urinary FABP as an accurate marker needs to be addressed in other study populations. The early clinical and laboratory diagnosis of intestinal ischemia remains a challenge. None of the proposed plasma-derived tests for acute mesenteric ischemia has as yet entered routine clinical practice. The proposed biomarkers need to be evaluated in a prospective clinical research project in patients with acute abdomen.

Validity of the urinary trypsinogen-2 test in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

A simple urinary trypsinogen-2 test was evaluated for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study enrolled consecutive patients with acute abdominal pain who presented to the emergency department or who were hospitalized at 1 of 21 medical institutions in Japan. Patients were tested with urinary trypsinogen-2 dipstick test and a quantitative trypsinogen-2 assay, and these values were compared with serum amylase and lipase findings.

RESULTS

A total of 412 patients were enrolled. The trypsinogen-2 dipstick test was positive in 107 of 156 patients with acute pancreatitis (sensitivity, 68.6%) and in 33 of 256 patients with nonpancreatic abdominal pain (specificity, 87.1%). The sensitivity for the diagnosis of pancreatitis caused by alcohol and gallstones by the dipstick test was 72.2% and 81.8%, respectively, which was much higher than those associated with amylase testing. There are several degrees of positivity within the urinary trypsinogen-2 dipstick test. Modification of the cutoff point such that positive (+) and most positive (++) results were interpreted as a positive result, the specificity and positive likelihood ratio increased to 92.2% and 7.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple, rapid, easy, and noninvasive urinary trypsinogen-2 test can diagnose or rule out most cases of acute pancreatitis.

Serine proteases mediate inflammatory pain in acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a life-threatening inflammatory disease characterized by abdominal pain of unknown etiology. Trypsin, a key mediator of pancreatitis, causes inflammation and pain by activating protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR(2)), but the isoforms of trypsin that cause pancreatitis and pancreatic pain are unknown. We hypothesized that human trypsin IV and rat P23, which activate PAR(2) and are resistant to pancreatic trypsin inhibitors, contribute to pancreatic inflammation and pain. Injections of a subinflammatory dose of exogenous trypsin increased c-Fos immunoreactivity, indicative of spinal nociceptive activation, but did not cause inflammation, as assessed by measuring serum amylase and myeloperoxidase activity and by histology. The same dose of trypsin IV and P23 increased some inflammatory end points and caused a more robust effect on nociception, which was blocked by melagatran, a trypsin inhibitor that also inhibits polypeptide-resistant trypsin isoforms. To determine the contribution of endogenous activation of trypsin and its minor isoforms, recombinant enterokinase (ENK), which activates trypsins in the duodenum, was administered into the pancreas. Intraductal ENK caused nociception and inflammation that were diminished by polypeptide inhibitors, including soybean trypsin inhibitor and a specific trypsin inhibitor (type I-P), and by melagatran. Finally, the secretagogue cerulein induced pancreatic nociceptive activation and nocifensive behavior that were reversed by melagatran. Thus trypsin and its minor isoforms mediate pancreatic pain and inflammation. In particular, the inhibitor-resistant isoforms trypsin IV and P23 may be important in mediating prolonged pancreatic inflammatory pain in pancreatitis. Our results suggest that inhibitors of these isoforms could be novel therapies for pancreatitis pain.

What have we learned about acute pancreatitis in children?

Pediatric pancreatitis has received much attention during the past few years. Numerous reports have identified an increasing trend in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in children and key differences in disease presentation and management between infants and older children. The present review provides a brief, evidence-based focus on the latest progress in the clinical field. It also poses important questions for emerging multicenter registries to answer about the natural history and management of affected children with pancreatitis.