13 13 Bevan M, Asrani V, Petrov M. The oral refeeding trilemma of acute pancreatitis: what, when and who? Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9(10):1305–1312.
14 14 Francisco M, Valentin F, Cubiella J, et al. Factors associated with intolerance after refeeding in mild acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2012; 41:1325–1330.
15 15 Chebli JM, Gaburri PD, De Souza AF, et al. Oral refeeding in patients with mild acute pancreatitis: prevalence and risk factors of relapsing abdominal pain. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20(9):1385–1389.
16 16 Levy P, Heresbach D, Pariente EA, et al. Frequency and risk factors of recurrent pain during refeeding in patients with acute pancreatitis: a multivariate multicentre prospective study of 116 patients. Gut 1997; 40(2):262–266.
17 17 Pendharkar SA, Asrani V, Das SL, et al. Association between oral feeding intolerance and quality of life in acute pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study. Nutrition 2015; 31(11–12):1379–1384.
18 18 Whitlock TL, Repas K, Tignor A, et al. Early readmission in acute pancreatitis: incidence and risk factors. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105(11):2492–2497.
19 19 Bevan MG, Asrani VM, Bharmal S, et al. Incidence and predictors of oral feeding intolerance in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review, meta‐analysis, and meta‐regression. Clin Nutr 2017; 36(3):722–729.
20 20 Pandey SK, Ahuja V, Joshi YK, Sharma MP. A randomized trial of oral refeeding compared with jejunal tube refeeding in acute pancreatitis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2004; 23(2):53–55.
21 21 Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, van Santvoort HC, et al. Early versus on‐demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(21):1983–1993.
22 22 Qin RY, Qiu FZ. Imaging changes of the pancreas and the occasion of refeeding in patients with acute pancreatitis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2002; 1(2):290–293.
23 23 Zhao XL, Zhu SF, Xue GJ, et al. Early oral refeeding based on hunger in moderate and severe acute pancreatitis: a prospective controlled, randomized clinical trial. Nutrition 2015; 31(1):171–175.
24 24 Petrov MS, McIlroy K, Grayson L, et al. Early nasogastric tube feeding versus nil per os in mild to moderate acute pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr 2013; 32(5):697–703.
25 25 Pupelis G, Snippe K, Plaudis H, Rudakovska M. Early oral feeding in acute pancreatitis: an alternative approach to tube feeding. Preliminary report. Acta Chir Belg 2006; 106(2):181–186.
26 26 Levy P, Hastier P, Arotcarena R, et al. Efficacy of lanreotide 30 mg on prevention of pain relapse after oral refeeding in patients with necrotizing acute pancreatitis. A phase II prospective multicentre study. Pancreatology 2004; 4(3–4):229–232.
27 27 Ciok J, Dzieniszewski J, Kowalczyk I, et al. The clinical factors influencing feeding‐induced pain in the course of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Pol 2003; 10(3):233–239.
28 28 Eckerwall GE, Axelsson JB, Andersson RG. Early nasogastric feeding in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a clinical, randomized study. Ann Surg 2006; 244(6):959–965; discussion 965–967.
29 29 Ren T, Shi Z, Tang J, et al. Risk factors of refeeding intolerance in mild acute interstitial pancreatitis: a retrospective study of 323 patients. Pancreatology 2015; 15(2):111–114.
30 30 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis – 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62(1):102–111.
12 Pharmacological Therapy for Acute Pancreatitis : Any Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Rajarshi Mukherjee1, Muhammad Awais1, Wenhao Cai1,2, Wei Huang1,2, Peter Szatmary1, and Robert Sutton1
1 Liverpool Pancreatitis Research Group, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2 Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine, West China Hospital, Chengdu, China
Introduction
Targeted therapy for acute pancreatitis (AP) remains absent from the essential management toolkit, despite an increasing worldwide disease burden, an extensive range of preclinical research, and numerous clinical trials. Preclinical promise in identifying key drug targets and demonstrating significant impacts of compounds in experimental models has too often not been translated into clinical trials. When translation has been achieved, trials have been unsatisfactory in design or conduct, leaving treatment for AP at an early stage of evolution [1]. Where deficits lie, however, opportunity exists. A critical mass of international researchers has now gathered with the common goal of successfully establishing pharmacological treatment for AP, providing essential light at the end of a long tunnel [2].
Over the last few decades a major step‐change in AP clinical management has resulted from advances in intensive care support for patients with severe AP [3]. In the light of this, one may ask why do we still require a pharmacological treatment for AP? Strong justification arises if we consider several crucial points. AP remains the most common gastroenterological emergency and the average stay in hospital for severe disease is over one month, often requiring high dependency or critical care [4]. This poses a significant economic burden on both patient and healthcare provider. Infected pancreatic necrosis usually requires repeated invasive procedures for debridement, whilst mortality from severe AP remains significant. Among those who recover, long‐term sequelae remain substantial and overall longevity is decreased [4]. Despite these unmet clinical needs, there has been a major drop in overall research investment in some countries, with the United States experiencing a greater than 50% fall in research funding for gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders over the last 50 years [2]. Nevertheless, the need for targeted therapy remains ever present.
Establishing successful pharmacological treatment for any disease condition depends primarily on (i) an understanding of the fundamental pathobiology of the disease with the identification of a key drug target using relevant and reproducible in vitro and in vivo disease models; (ii) identification of established therapies that may be repositioned or development of novel drug discovery pipelines for major identified targets; and (iii) adequately powered and well‐designed clinical trials with relevant and clearly defined end points to evaluate any potential pharmacological treatment.
Preclinical research has identified pivotal mechanisms central to AP pathogenesis associated with a range of cell types. The pancreatic acinar cell is the initial site of injury, commonly from bile or ethanol excess [5,6] and investigation of acinar cell responses to toxins that induce AP remains crucial for the investigation of key mechanisms and identification of new drug targets. Physiologically, calcium signaling plays a critical role in normal stimulus–secretion and stimulus–metabolism coupling; it has long been known that pathologically raised intracellular calcium results in toxicity [7]. This led to the hypothesis over 20 years ago that prolonged cytosolic calcium elevation is the key trigger of AP [8]. This has been borne out by a wealth of evidence confirming that sustained elevation of cytosolic calcium ([Ca2+]C) is a vital trigger for pancreatic acinar cell injury and necrosis [9–11], leading to mitochondrial dysfunction [12,13], premature digestive enzyme activation, and initiation of the systemic inflammatory response. The overwhelming inflammatory response that ensues in severe disease is primarily orchestrated by the activation of key immune cells, particularly neutrophils and monocyte/macrophages, accompanied by the release of damage‐associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) [14] from acinar cells that act in concert to create a devastating cytokine storm [15]. The front‐running candidate drugs and their associated disease mechanisms are discussed in the subsequent sections of this chapter, followed by suggested improvements to trial design and funding to pave the way for future successful drug treatment.
Calcium Toxicity
Physiological