Rectal diclofenac versus indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (DIPPP): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

IF 25.8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gut Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2024-334466
Xiaoyu Kang, Mingxing Xia, Jun Wang, Xiangping Wang, Hui Luo, Wenhao Qin, Zirong Liang, Gang Zhao, Longbao Yang, Hao Sun, Jie Tao, Bo Ning, Li Zhong, Rongchun Zhang, Xuyuan Ma, Jianghai Zhao, Laifu Yue, Haifeng Jin, Chenxi Kang, Gui Ren, Shuhui Liang, Haiying Wang, Ling Wang, Yongzhan Nie, Kaichun Wu, Dai-Ming Fan, Yanglin Pan
{"title":"Rectal diclofenac versus indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (DIPPP): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial","authors":"Xiaoyu Kang, Mingxing Xia, Jun Wang, Xiangping Wang, Hui Luo, Wenhao Qin, Zirong Liang, Gang Zhao, Longbao Yang, Hao Sun, Jie Tao, Bo Ning, Li Zhong, Rongchun Zhang, Xuyuan Ma, Jianghai Zhao, Laifu Yue, Haifeng Jin, Chenxi Kang, Gui Ren, Shuhui Liang, Haiying Wang, Ling Wang, Yongzhan Nie, Kaichun Wu, Dai-Ming Fan, Yanglin Pan","doi":"10.1136/gutjnl-2024-334466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Recent meta-analyses suggested diclofenac may be superior to indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of 100 mg rectal indomethacin versus diclofenac on PEP incidences. Design This multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine tertiary centres in China. Patients with low and high risk for PEP and native papilla were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive 100 mg diclofenac or 100 mg indomethacin rectally before ERCP. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PEP defined by the Cotton consensus. The intention-to-treat principle was conducted for the analysis. Results The trial was terminated early for futility after the predetermined first interim analysis. Between June 2023 and May 2024, 1204 patients were randomised into the diclofenac group (n=600) or indomethacin group (n=604). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The primary outcome occurred in 53 patients (8.8%) of 600 patients allocated to the diclofenac group and 37 patients (6.1%) of 604 patients allocated to the indomethacin group (relative risk 1.44; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.16, p=0.074). PEP occurred in 35 (14.2%) of 247 high-risk patients in the diclofenac group and 26 (9.8%) of 266 high-risk patients in the indomethacin group (p=0.124). PEP incidences were also comparable in low-risk patients between the two groups (18/353 (5.1%) vs 11/338 (3.3%), p=0.227). Other ERCP-related complications did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion Pre-procedure 100 mg rectal diclofenac was not superior to the same dose of rectal indomethacin regarding preventing PEP. These findings supported current clinical practice guidelines of 100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac for PEP prophylaxis in patients without contraindications. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov ([NCT05947461][1]). Data are available upon reasonable request. yes. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05947461&atom=%2Fgutjnl%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F20%2Fgutjnl-2024-334466.atom","PeriodicalId":12825,"journal":{"name":"Gut","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":25.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-334466","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Recent meta-analyses suggested diclofenac may be superior to indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of 100 mg rectal indomethacin versus diclofenac on PEP incidences. Design This multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine tertiary centres in China. Patients with low and high risk for PEP and native papilla were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive 100 mg diclofenac or 100 mg indomethacin rectally before ERCP. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PEP defined by the Cotton consensus. The intention-to-treat principle was conducted for the analysis. Results The trial was terminated early for futility after the predetermined first interim analysis. Between June 2023 and May 2024, 1204 patients were randomised into the diclofenac group (n=600) or indomethacin group (n=604). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The primary outcome occurred in 53 patients (8.8%) of 600 patients allocated to the diclofenac group and 37 patients (6.1%) of 604 patients allocated to the indomethacin group (relative risk 1.44; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.16, p=0.074). PEP occurred in 35 (14.2%) of 247 high-risk patients in the diclofenac group and 26 (9.8%) of 266 high-risk patients in the indomethacin group (p=0.124). PEP incidences were also comparable in low-risk patients between the two groups (18/353 (5.1%) vs 11/338 (3.3%), p=0.227). Other ERCP-related complications did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion Pre-procedure 100 mg rectal diclofenac was not superior to the same dose of rectal indomethacin regarding preventing PEP. These findings supported current clinical practice guidelines of 100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac for PEP prophylaxis in patients without contraindications. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov ([NCT05947461][1]). Data are available upon reasonable request. yes. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05947461&atom=%2Fgutjnl%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F20%2Fgutjnl-2024-334466.atom
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直肠服用双氯芬酸与吲哚美辛预防胃食管反流术后胰腺炎 (DIPPP):一项多中心、双盲、随机对照试验
最近的荟萃分析表明,双氯芬酸在预防内镜后逆行胆管胰管造影(ERCP)胰腺炎(PEP)方面可能优于吲哚美辛。本研究的目的是比较100mg直肠用吲哚美辛与双氯芬酸对PEP发生率的影响。本多中心、双盲、随机对照试验在中国9个三级中心进行。PEP和原生乳头低、高风险患者随机分配(1:1),在ERCP前接受100mg双氯芬酸或100mg吲哚美辛直肠治疗。主要结局是棉花共识定义的PEP的发生。采用意向处理原则进行分析。结果在预定的第一次中期分析后,因无效而提前终止试验。2023年6月至2024年5月,1204例患者随机分为双氯芬酸组(n=600)和吲哚美辛组(n=604)。平衡基线特征。分配给双氯芬酸组的600例患者中有53例(8.8%)出现主要结局,分配给吲哚美辛组的604例患者中有37例(6.1%)出现主要结局(相对危险度1.44;95% CI 0.96 ~ 2.16, p=0.074)。双氯芬酸组247例高危患者中有35例(14.2%)发生PEP,吲哚美辛组266例高危患者中有26例(9.8%)发生PEP (p=0.124)。两组低危患者PEP发生率也具有可比性(18/353 (5.1%)vs 11/338 (3.3%), p=0.227)。其他与ercp相关的并发症在两组之间没有差异。结论术前100mg直肠双氯芬酸在预防PEP方面并不优于同剂量直肠吲哚美辛。这些发现支持了目前的临床实践指南,即在无禁忌症的患者中使用100mg吲哚美辛或双氯芬酸预防PEP。试验注册号ClinicalTrials.gov ([NCT05947461][1])。如有合理要求,可提供资料。是。[1]: /查找/ external-ref ? link_type = CLINTRIALGOV&access_num = NCT05947461&atom = % 2 fgutjnl % 2恐惧% 2 f2025 % 2 f03 % 2 f20 % 2 fgutjnl - 2024 - 334466. -原子
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gut
Gut 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
45.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
284
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Gut is a renowned international journal specializing in gastroenterology and hepatology, known for its high-quality clinical research covering the alimentary tract, liver, biliary tree, and pancreas. It offers authoritative and current coverage across all aspects of gastroenterology and hepatology, featuring articles on emerging disease mechanisms and innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches authored by leading experts. As the flagship journal of BMJ's gastroenterology portfolio, Gut is accompanied by two companion journals: Frontline Gastroenterology, focusing on education and practice-oriented papers, and BMJ Open Gastroenterology for open access original research.
期刊最新文献
Steatosis severity and metabolic fingerprints after HCV eradication: toward an individualised approach to HCC surveillance after HCV cure. Methodological and reporting considerations for self-reported NCGWS prevalence. Rifaximin in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease: a stewardship perspective following the Fiesole Consensus. Roseburia inulinivorans increases muscle strength. Post-infection disorders of the gut: of latitude and longitude.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1