Combined medical treatment of chronic pancreatitis

Funding Information: This study was supported by ESF project Nr. 2009/0147/1DP/1.1.2.1.2/09/IPIA/VIAA/009.The aim of the study was to determine the most effective medical treatment of patients with chronic pancreatitis, by using either pancreatin alone or in combination with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or PPI and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Patients with chronic pancreatitis, who did not require a surgical treatment, received medical treatment for a one-month period: 20 patients received pancreatin monotherapy; 48 patients were given a combination of pancreatin and PPI; 38 patients were treated with a combination of pancreatin, PPI and NSAID (PNP therapy group). In comparison with other groups, patients in the PNP therapy group showed improvement in body mass index, abdominal pain, bowel movements, chronic pancreatitis severity, as well as their quality of life assessment (p < 0.05). The combination of pancreatin, PPI and NSAID was the most effective among those applied in chronic pancreatitis patient treatment. A one-month long course of this therapy was safe and did not cause any significant adverse effects. The combination of pancreatin, PPI and NSAID for treatment of chronic pancreatitis can be recommended, as it is based on pathogenesis of the disease, effective, safe and economically advantageous.publishersversionPeer reviewe

ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Part 1. Initial diagnosis, monitoring of known IBD, detections of complications

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize th e work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed tocreating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines’ Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detect ion of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO’s 36 member countries and ESGAR’s 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS]