Guidelines for the understanding and management of pain in chronic pancreatitis
TL;DR: Assessment of pain follows the guidelines for other types of chronic pain, where the multidimensional nature of symptom presentation is taken into consideration and neurolytical interventions and neuromodulation can be considered in difficult patients.
About: This article is published in Pancreatology.The article was published on 2017-09-01 and is currently open access. It has received 190 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Chronic pain & Abdominal pain.
Citations
More filters
Université libre de Bruxelles1, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart2, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic3, University of Paris-Sud4, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust5, Erasmus University Medical Center6, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico7, University of Amsterdam8
TL;DR: Endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas is suggested.
Abstract: ESGE suggests endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP) with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 – 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient’s case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team and surgical options should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests, for the selection of patients for initial or continued endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL, taking into consideration predictive factors associated with a good long-term outcome. These include, at initial work-up, absence of MPD stricture, a short disease duration, non-severe pain, absence or cessation of cigarette smoking and of alcohol intake, and, after initial treatment, complete removal of obstructive pancreatic stones and resolution of pancreatic duct stricture with stenting. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends ESWL for the clearance of radiopaque obstructive MPD stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MPD stones that are radiolucent or smaller than 5 mm. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE suggests restricting the use of endoscopic therapy after ESWL to patients with no spontaneous clearance of pancreatic stones after adequate fragmentation by ESWL. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE suggests treating painful dominant MPD strictures with a single 10-Fr plastic stent for one uninterrupted year if symptoms improve after initial successful MPD drainage. The stent should be exchanged if necessary, based on symptoms or signs of stent dysfunction at regular pancreas imaging at least every 6 months. ESGE suggests consideration of surgery or multiple side-by-side plastic stents for symptomatic MPD strictures persisting beyond 1 year after the initial single plastic stenting, following multidisciplinary discussion. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage over percutaneous or surgical treatment for uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP)-related pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends retrieval of transmural plastic stents at least 6 weeks after pancreatic pseudocyst regression if MPD disruption has been excluded, and long-term indwelling of transmural double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests the temporary insertion of multiple side-by-side plastic stents or of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for treating CP-related benign biliary strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends maintaining a registry of patients with biliary stents and recalling them for stent removal or exchange. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
213 citations
Cites background from "Guidelines for the understanding an..."
...The first step proposed to relieve pain in patients with uncomplicated CP includes lifestyle modifications plus, in selected patients, endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL [3]....
[...]
University of Pittsburgh1, Tohoku University2, Mayo Clinic3, University of Florida4, University of Verona5, All India Institute of Medical Sciences6, University of Pécs7, Nagoya University8, Dokkyo Medical University9, Mie University10, Greifswald University Hospital11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University of Auckland13, University of Liverpool14, Heidelberg University15
TL;DR: An international working group supported by four major pancreas societies and a PancreasFest working group sought to develop a consensus definition and diagnostic criteria for Early CP but no consensus statement could be developed.
112 citations
TL;DR: Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months, and further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings.
Abstract: Importance: For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function. Objective: To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for ≤2 months or weak opioids for ≤6 months) were included. The 18-month follow-up period ended in March 2018. Interventions: There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality. Results: Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P =.02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P =.10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P <.001). Treatment complications (27% vs 25%), mortality (0% vs 0%), hospital admissions, pancreatic function, and quality of life were not significantly different between early surgery and the endoscopy-first approach. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months. However, further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN45877994.
104 citations
TL;DR: It is reported that activation of AT2R in macrophages that infiltrate the site of injury, but not in sensory neurons, triggers an intercellular redox communication with sensory neurons via activation of the cell damage-sensing ion channel TRPA1, which results in peripheral pain sensitization.
Abstract: Injury, inflammation, and nerve damage initiate a wide variety of cellular and molecular processes that culminate in hyperexcitation of sensory nerves, which underlies chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Using behavioral readouts of pain hypersensitivity induced by angiotensin II (Ang II) injection into mouse hindpaws, our study shows that activation of the type 2 Ang II receptor (AT2R) and the cell-damage-sensing ion channel TRPA1 are required for peripheral mechanical pain sensitization induced by Ang II in male and female mice. However, we show that AT2R is not expressed in mouse and human dorsal root ganglia (DRG) sensory neurons. Instead, expression/activation of AT2R on peripheral/skin macrophages (MΦs) constitutes a critical trigger of mouse and human DRG sensory neuron excitation. Ang II-induced peripheral mechanical pain hypersensitivity can be attenuated by chemogenetic depletion of peripheral MΦs. Furthermore, AT2R activation in MΦs triggers production of reactive oxygen/nitrogen species, which trans-activate TRPA1 on mouse and human DRG sensory neurons via cysteine modification of the channel. Our study thus identifies a translatable immune cell-to-sensory neuron signaling crosstalk underlying peripheral nociceptor sensitization. This form of cell-to-cell signaling represents a critical peripheral mechanism for chronic pain and thus identifies multiple druggable analgesic targets.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Pain is a widespread health problem that is undermanaged by currently available analgesics. Findings from a recent clinical trial on a type II angiotensin II receptor (AT2R) antagonist showed effective analgesia for neuropathic pain. AT2R antagonists have been shown to reduce neuropathy-, inflammation- and bone cancer-associated pain in rodents. We report that activation of AT2R in macrophages (MΦs) that infiltrate the site of injury, but not in sensory neurons, triggers an intercellular redox communication with sensory neurons via activation of the cell damage/pain-sensing ion channel TRPA1. This MΦ-to-sensory neuron crosstalk results in peripheral pain sensitization. Our findings provide an evidence-based mechanism underlying the analgesic action of AT2R antagonists, which could accelerate the development of efficacious non-opioid analgesic drugs for multiple pain conditions.
81 citations
Cites background from "Guidelines for the understanding an..."
...…and TRPV4, which have been suggested to be involved in pain hypersensitivity associatedwithinjury, inflammation,andneuropathy-likeconditions(Kwan et al., 2006; Petrus et al., 2007; Alessandri-Haber et al., 2008; Eid et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2012; Mickle et al., 2015a, 2016)....
[...]
...…TRPA1 and TRPV4, but not TRPV1, have been suggested to mediate mechanical hypersensitivity in rodent models of inflammation and experimental neuropathy (Kwan et al., 2006; Petrus et al., 2007; Alessandri-Haber et al., 2008; Eid et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2012; Mickle et al., 2016)....
[...]
TL;DR: Medical treatment of chronic pancreatitis involves controlling pain, addressing malnutrition via the treatment of vitamin and mineral deficiencies and recognizing the risk of osteoporosis, and administering appropriate pancreatic enzyme supplementation and diabetic agents.
Abstract: Chronic pancreatitis is a syndrome involving inflammation, fibrosis, and loss of acinar and islet cells which can manifest in unrelenting abdominal pain, malnutrition, and exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. The Toxic-Metabolic, Idiopathic, Genetic, Autoimmune, Recurrent and Severe Acute Pancreatitis, Obstructive (TIGAR-O) classification system categorizes known causes and factors that contribute to chronic pancreatitis. Although determining disease etiology provides a framework for focused and specific treatments, chronic pancreatitis remains a challenging condition to treat owing to the often refractory, centrally mediated pain and the lack of consensus regarding when endoscopic therapy and surgery are indicated. Further complications incurred include both exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, pseudocyst formation, bile duct obstruction, and pancreatic cancer. Medical treatment of chronic pancreatitis involves controlling pain, addressing malnutrition via the treatment of vitamin and mineral deficiencies and recognizing the risk of osteoporosis, and administering appropriate pancreatic enzyme supplementation and diabetic agents. Cornerstones in treatment include the recognition of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and administration of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, support to cease smoking and alcohol consumption, consultation with a dietitian, and a systematic follow-up to assure optimal treatment effect.
80 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Diagnostic criteria to establish the presence of central sensitization in patients will greatly assist the phenotyping of patients for choosing treatments that produce analgesia by normalizing hyperexcitable central neural activity.
Abstract: Nociceptor inputs can trigger a prolonged but reversible increase in the excitability and synaptic efficacy of neurons in central nociceptive pathways, the phenomenon of central sensitization. Central sensitization manifests as pain hypersensitivity, particularly dynamic tactile allodynia, secondary punctate or pressure hyperalgesia, aftersensations, and enhanced temporal summation. It can be readily and rapidly elicited in human volunteers by diverse experimental noxious conditioning stimuli to skin, muscles or viscera, and in addition to producing pain hypersensitivity, results in secondary changes in brain activity that can be detected by electrophysiological or imaging techniques. Studies in clinical cohorts reveal changes in pain sensitivity that have been interpreted as revealing an important contribution of central sensitization to the pain phenotype in patients with fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal disorders with generalized pain hypersensitivity, headache, temporomandibular joint disorders, dental pain, neuropathic pain, visceral pain hypersensitivity disorders and post-surgical pain. The comorbidity of those pain hypersensitivity syndromes that present in the absence of inflammation or a neural lesion, their similar pattern of clinical presentation and response to centrally acting analgesics, may reflect a commonality of central sensitization to their pathophysiology. An important question that still needs to be determined is whether there are individuals with a higher inherited propensity for developing central sensitization than others, and if so, whether this conveys an increased risk in both developing conditions with pain hypersensitivity, and their chronification. Diagnostic criteria to establish the presence of central sensitization in patients will greatly assist the phenotyping of patients for choosing treatments that produce analgesia by normalizing hyperexcitable central neural activity. We have certainly come a long way since the first discovery of activity-dependent synaptic plasticity in the spinal cord and the revelation that it occurs and produces pain hypersensitivity in patients. Nevertheless, discovering the genetic and environmental contributors to and objective biomarkers of central sensitization will be highly beneficial, as will additional treatment options to prevent or reduce this prevalent and promiscuous form of pain plasticity.
3,331 citations
TL;DR: Naltrexone may be a safe and effective adjunct to treatment in alcohol-dependent subjects, particularly in preventing alcohol relapse, and was seen in patients who drank any alcohol while attending outpatient treatment.
Abstract: • Seventy male alcohol-dependent patients participated in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naltrexone hydrochloride (50 mg/d) as an adjunct to treatment following alcohol detoxification. Subjects taking naltrexone reported significantly less alcohol craving and days in which any alcohol was consumed. During the 12-week study, only 23% of the naltrexone-treated subjects met the criteria for a relapse, whereas 54.3% of the placebo-treated subjects relapsed. The primary effect of naltrexone was seen in patients who drank any alcohol while attending outpatient treatment. Nineteen (95%) of the 20 placebo-treated patients relapsed after they sampled alcohol, while only eight (50%) of 16 naltrexone-treated patients exposed to alcohol met relapse criteria. Naltrexone was not associated with mood changes or other psychiatric symptoms. Significant side effects (nausea) occurred in two nalterxonetreated subjects, and one naltrexone-treated subject complained of increased pain from arthritis. These results suggest that naltrexone may be a safe and effective adjunct to treatment in alcohol-dependent subjects, particularly in preventing alcohol relapse.
1,666 citations
Medical University of South Carolina1, Yale University2, Boston University3, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, University of Washington6, Harvard University7, University of Texas at San Antonio8, Brown University9, University of Miami10, National Institutes of Health11, University of New Mexico12, University of Pennsylvania13
TL;DR: Patients receiving medical management with naltrexone, CBI, or both fared better on drinking outcomes, whereas acamprosate showed no evidence of efficacy, with or without CBI.
Abstract: ContextAlcohol dependence treatment may include medications, behavioral therapies, or both. It is unknown how combining these treatments may impact their effectiveness, especially in the context of primary care and other nonspecialty settings.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of medication, behavioral therapies, and their combinations for treatment of alcohol dependence and to evaluate placebo effect on overall outcome.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized controlled trial conducted January 2001-January 2004 among 1383 recently alcohol-abstinent volunteers (median age, 44 years) from 11 US academic sites with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnoses of primary alcohol dependence.InterventionsEight groups of patients received medical management with 16 weeks of naltrexone (100 mg/d) or acamprosate (3 g/d), both, and/or both placebos, with or without a combined behavioral intervention (CBI). A ninth group received CBI only (no pills). Patients were also evaluated for up to 1 year after treatment.Main Outcome MeasuresPercent days abstinent from alcohol and time to first heavy drinking day.ResultsAll groups showed substantial reduction in drinking. During treatment, patients receiving naltrexone plus medical management (n = 302), CBI plus medical management and placebos (n = 305), or both naltrexone and CBI plus medical management (n = 309) had higher percent days abstinent (80.6, 79.2, and 77.1, respectively) than the 75.1 in those receiving placebos and medical management only (n = 305), a significant naltrexone × behavioral intervention interaction (P = .009). Naltrexone also reduced risk of a heavy drinking day (hazard ratio, 0.72; 97.5% CI, 0.53-0.98; P = .02) over time, most evident in those receiving medical management but not CBI. Acamprosate showed no significant effect on drinking vs placebo, either by itself or with any combination of naltrexone, CBI, or both. During treatment, those receiving CBI without pills or medical management (n = 157) had lower percent days abstinent (66.6) than those receiving placebo plus medical management alone (n = 153) or placebo plus medical management and CBI (n = 156) (73.8 and 79.8, respectively; P<.001). One year after treatment, these between-group effects were similar but no longer significant.ConclusionsPatients receiving medical management with naltrexone, CBI, or both fared better on drinking outcomes, whereas acamprosate showed no evidence of efficacy, with or without CBI. No combination produced better efficacy than naltrexone or CBI alone in the presence of medical management. Placebo pills and meeting with a health care professional had a positive effect above that of CBI during treatment. Naltrexone with medical management could be delivered in health care settings, thus serving alcohol-dependent patients who might otherwise not receive treatment.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006206
1,584 citations
TL;DR: Alcohol abstinence and smoking cessation can alter the progression of pancreatitis and reduce recurrence; smoking cessation is the most effective strategy to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer.
1,513 citations
"Guidelines for the understanding an..." refers background in this paper
...While variation in disease estimates exist, the prevalence of CP has been approximated at ~50/100,000 population [3]....
[...]
TL;DR: The outcome for benefit is continuous or prolonged abstinence at least six months from the start of treatment, and the outcome for harms is the incidence of serious adverse events associated with each of the treatments.
Abstract: © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Background: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of illness and premature death worldwide. Some medications have been proven to help people to quit, with three licensed for this purpose in Europe and the USA: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline. Cytisine (a treatment pharmacologically similar to varenicline) is also licensed for use in Russia and some of the former socialist economy countries. Other therapies, including nortriptyline, have also been tested for effectiveness. Objectives: How do NRT, bupropion and varenicline compare with placebo and with each other in achieving long-term abstinence (six months or longer)? How do the remaining treatments compare with placebo in achieving long-term abstinence? How do the risks of adverse and serious adverse events (SAEs) compare between the treatments, and are there instances where the harms may outweigh the benefits? Methods: The overview is restricted to Cochrane reviews, all of which include randomised trials. Participants are usually adult smokers, but we exclude reviews of smoking cessation for pregnant women and in particular disease groups or specific settings. We cover nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants (bupropion and nortriptyline), nicotine receptor partial agonists (varenicline and cytisine), anxiolytics, selective type 1 cannabinoid receptor antagonists (rimonabant), clonidine, lobeline, dianicline, mecamylamine, Nicobrevin, opioid antagonists, nicotine vaccines, and silver acetate. Our outcome for benefit is continuous or prolonged abstinence at least six months from the start of treatment. Our outcome for harms is the incidence of serious adverse events associated with each of the treatments. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) in The Cochrane Library, for any reviews with 'smoking' in the title, abstract or keyword fields. The last search was conducted in November 2012. We assessed methodological quality using a revised version of the AMSTAR scale. For NRT, bupropion and varenicline we conducted network meta-analyses, comparing each with the others and with placebo for benefit, and varenicline and bupropion for risks of serious adverse events. Main results: We identified 12 treatment-specific reviews. The analyses covered 267 studies, involving 101,804 participants. Both NRT and bupropion were superior to placebo (odds ratios (OR) 1.84; 95% credible interval (CredI) 1.71 to 1.99, and 1.82; 95% CredI 1.60 to 2.06 respectively). Varenicline increased the odds of quitting compared with placebo (OR 2.88; 95% CredI 2.40 to 3.47). Head-to-head comparisons between bupropion and NRT showed equal efficacy (OR 0.99; 95% CredI 0.86 to 1.13). Varenicline was superior to single forms of NRT (OR 1.57; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.91), and to bupropion (OR 1.59; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.96). Varenicline was more effective than nicotine patch (OR 1.51; 95% CredI 1.22 to 1.87), than nicotine gum (OR 1.72; 95% CredI 1.38 to 2.13), and than 'other' NRT (inhaler, spray, tablets, lozenges; OR 1.42; 95% CredI 1.12 to 1.79), but was not more effective than combination NRT (OR 1.06; 95% CredI 0.75 to 1.48). Combination NRT also outperformed single formulations. The four categories of NRT performed similarly against each other, apart from 'other' NRT, which was marginally more effective than NRT gum (OR 1.21; 95% CredI 1.01 to 1.46). Cytisine (a nicotine receptor partial agonist) returned positive findings (risk ratio (RR) 3.98; 95% CI 2.01 to 7.87), without significant adverse events or SAEs. Across the 82 included and excluded bupropion trials, our estimate of six seizures in the bupropion arms versus none in the placebo arms was lower than the expected rate (1:1000), at about 1:1500. SAE meta-analysis of the bupropion studies demonstrated no excess of neuropsychiatric (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.31 to 2.50) or cardiovascular events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.59). SAE meta-analysis of 14 varenicline trials found no difference between the varenicline and placebo arms (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55), and subgroup analyses detected no significant excess of neuropsychiatric events (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.67), or of cardiac events (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.56). Nortriptyline increased the chances of quitting (RR 2.03; 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). Neither nortriptyline nor bupropion were shown to enhance the effect of NRT compared with NRT alone. Clonidine increased the chances of quitting (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.18), but this was offset by a dose-dependent rise in adverse events. Mecamylamine in combination with NRT may increase the chances of quitting, but the current evidence is inconclusive. Other treatments failed to demonstrate a benefit compared with placebo. Nicotine vaccines are not yet licensed for use as an aid to smoking cessation or relapse prevention. Nicobrevin's UK license is now revoked, and the manufacturers of rimonabant, taranabant and dianicline are no longer supporting the development or testing of these treatments. Authors' conclusions: NRT, bupropion, varenicline and cytisine have been shown to improve the chances of quitting. Combination NRT and varenicline are equally effective as quitting aids. Nortriptyline also improves the chances of quitting. On current evidence, none of the treatments appear to have an incidence of adverse events that would mitigate their use. Further research is warranted into the safety of varenicline and into cytisine's potential as an effective and affordable treatment, but not into the efficacy and safety of NRT.
1,054 citations
"Guidelines for the understanding an..." refers background in this paper
...In a recent Cochrane review nicotine replacement, bupropion, varenicline, and cytisine, another partial nicotine receptor agonist, had the greatest evidence for improving the chances of quitting [55]....
[...]