When parents make up diseases in their children, the consequences can be dire. What happens when doctors find out that a disease that they have been treating probably doesn’t exist?
- Cotton PD et al. “Effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction on pain-related disability following cholecystectomy: the EPISOD randomized clinical trial” JAMA 2014; 311: 2101-2109.
A detailed analysis of this study (Gastroenterol 2015; 148: 440-44) and the author’s reply provides some insight into that questions and helps place this study and its results into context.
Key points from the Gastroenterology Selected Summary:
Background:
- “Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) is the term used to describe an episodic abdominal pain syndrome, typically occurring in young to middle-aged women in the setting of prior cholecystectomy…SOD remains a diagnosis of exclusion.”
Design:
- “The investigators conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized trial at 7 US tertiary centers, enrolling 214 adult post-cholecystectomy patients with debilitating abdominal pain due to suspected biliary SOD (predominantly type III).” Sham patients underwent ERCP, manometry, and pancreatic duct stenting.
- Patients were randomized 2:1 to sphincterotomy or sham; those randomized to sphincterotomy and subsequently shown to have a hypertensive pancreatic sphincter were then re-randomized (1:1) to have biliary or combined biliary/pancreatic sphincterotomies.
Results:
- “Most patients in both study groups experienced considerable reduction in their pain disability scores…the proportion meeting the trial’s 1-year primary endpoint was higher among those treated with sham compared with sphincter ablation (37% vs. 23%, P=.01)”
- “The manometry findings did not predict treatment success.” There were no other useful predictors of success identified (eg. elevated liver enzymes, prior stone at cholecystectomy)
- Adverse effects from procedures included 26 cases of acute pancreatitis (2 severe) and 2 perforations.
Discussion:
- “The results of this trial are fascinating…the authors, many of whom had dedicated entire careers to the management of these patients using the very procedure they have now conclusively shown to be futile, may be understandably disheartened by the results.”
- Numerous limitations of the study are noted. In particular, “the 1-year time frame of the trial is likely to have been too short to capture the deleterious impact of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting, which…has been associated with interval induction of pancreatic ductal abnormalities mimicking chronic pancreatitis.”
- “It is our view that the authors’ data…provide an unambiguous mandate for imposing an immediate moratorium on subjecting this group of patients to ERCP.“
Dr. Cotton’s reply:
- “It may be premature to discard the whole concept of sphincter dysfunction as a cause of pain.”
- He indicates that “gallbladder dyskinesia” is another related question and was the reason for surgery in half of EPISOD subjects.
- The results of the study “clearly show the need for equally stringent studies to answer the many remaining questions.”
For those who read this much of this post: I wanted to let you know that yesterday’s online post on early peanut introduction was updated with recommendations from the associated editorial.
Related blog posts:
- Indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis | gutsandgrowth
- In the News …CRE due to ERCPs | gutsandgrowth
- Why an ERCP Study Matters to Pediatric Care | gutsandgrowth
- What and When for ERCP with Gallstone Pancreatitis …
Another headline from Freaknomics Website follows. Of course I probably should think twice about poking fun at typos given the volume of them on this blog.
gutsandgrowth 