PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17033333

Chronic pancreatitis.

Abstract

The pathogenesis of idiopathic chronic pancreatitis remains poorly understood despite the high expectations for ascribing the pancreatic damage in affected patients to genetic defects. Neither mutations in the cationic trypsinogen gene nor mutations of the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator gene account for the chronic pancreatitis noted in most patients with idiopathic chronic pancreatitis. Attempts to find an autoimmune basis for the pancreatitis in these patients have not been very successful. The diagnosis of small duct idiopathic chronic pancreatitis remains a great source of frustration for clinicians. Such patients with negative results of radiographic studies often cannot be diagnosed unless a hormone stimulation test such as a secretin test is performed. Although the porcine biologic form of secretin, which has been used to diagnose chronic pancreatitis, became unavailable because of widespread use in the treatment of children with autism, a synthetic form of porcine secretin has now been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is available. The true value of endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosing small duct chronic pancreatitis remains to be fully defined. Endoscopic ultrasonography is becoming the test of choice in detecting radiographic abnormalities in both the parenchyma and ducts of the pancreas. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided celiac plexus block can be performed relatively easily and very safely. It can provide excellent short-term pain relief in some patients, but reliable predictors of which patients will be successful with this therapy are not yet available. Because long-term follow-up data on the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in this respect are not available, and because the pain of chronic pancreatitis is, indeed, chronic, the role of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided celiac plexus block should be limited to treating those patients with chronic pancreatitis whose pain has not responded to other modalities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Draganov, Phillip P Toskes. 2002. Chronic pancreatitis.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001574-200209000-00006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗