Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31780277›Full record

Trial reportThe lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology2020

Rectal indometacin dose escalation for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Evan L Fogel, Glen A Lehman, Paul Tarnasky, Gregory A Cote, Suzette E Schmidt, Akbar K Waljee, Peter D R Higgins, James L Watkins, Stuart Sherman, Richard S Y Kwon and 16 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01912716 phase2 / phase3completednot on this map

Rectal Indomethacin in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High Risk Patients: Searching for the Optimal Dose. A Prospective, Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2013 to 2018Enrolled1,037ConditionsPost-ERCP PancreatitisArmshigh dose indomethacin, standard dose indomethacin
NCT05603702 phase1active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

STTEPP: Safety, Tolerability and Dose Limiting Toxicity of Lacosamide in Patients With Painful Chronic Pancreatitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2023 to 2027Enrolled21ConditionsChronic Pain, Chronic Pain Syndrome, Chronic Pancreatitis, HyperalgesiaArmsLacosamide
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. NSAIDs do not reduce severity among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients.Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. The Incidence and Severity of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Standard Administration of NSAIDs: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Why is the rectal route for NSAIDS favorable for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis?Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Evan L FogelDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: efogel@iu.edu.
Glen A LehmanDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Paul TarnaskyUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Digestive Health Associates of Texas, Dallas, TX, USA.
Gregory A CoteDivision of Gastroenterology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Suzette E SchmidtDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Akbar K WaljeeDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Peter D R HigginsDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
James L WatkinsDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Stuart ShermanDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Richard S Y KwonDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Grace H EltaDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jeffrey J EaslerDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Douglas K PleskowDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
James M ScheimanDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ihab I El HajjDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Balamand, Beirut, Lebanon.
Nalini M GudaDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA; Aurora St Luke's Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Mark A GromskiDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lee McHenryDivision of Gastoenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Seena ArolUniversity of Texas Southwestern, Digestive Health Associates of Texas, Dallas, TX, USA.
Sheryl KorsnesDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alejandro L SuarezDivision of Gastroenterology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Rebecca SpitzerDivision of Gastroenterology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Marilyn MillerDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Maria HofbauerDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
B Joseph ElmunzerDivision of Gastroenterology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
US Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE)
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USMedical University of South Carolina · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USDigestive Health Associates of Texas · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · USUniversity of Balamand · LBUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

Indiana University (IU) Clinical Center for Chronic Pancreatitis Clinical Research NetworkU01DK108323 · NIDDK · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Jeffrey James Easler, Evan L Fogel · 2015 to 2026
$6.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK108323
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough rectal indometacin 100 mg is effective in reducing the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pancreatitis incidence remains high. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dose regimens of rectal indometacin on the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

methodsIn this randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial, we enrolled patients from six tertiary medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients were those at high risk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositories and a placebo suppository (standard-dose group) or three 50 mg indometacin suppositories (high-dose group). 4 h after the procedure, patients assigned to the high-dose group received an additional 50 mg indometacin suppository, whereas patients in the standard-dose group received an additional placebo suppository. The randomisation schedule, stratified according to study centre and with no other restrictions, was computer generated by an investigator who was uninvolved in the clinical care of any participants, distributed to the sites, and kept by personnel not directly involved with the study. These same personnel were responsible for packaging the drug and placebo in opaque envelopes. Patients, study personnel, and treating physicians were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome of the study was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912716, and enrolment is complete.

findingsBetween July 9, 2013, and March 22, 2018, 1037 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose (n=515) or high-dose indometacin (n=522). Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and 65 (12%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (risk ratio [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 0·87-1·61; p=0·32). We observed 19 adverse events that were potentially attributable to study drug. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 14 (1%) of 1037 patients-six (1%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and eight (2%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (p=0·79). Three (1%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group developed acute kidney injury versus none in the standard-dose group (p=0·25). A non-ST elevation myocardial infarction occurred in the standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP. A transient ischaemic attack occurred in the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP. All 19 adverse events, in addition to the 141 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission to hospital. We observed no allergic reactions or deaths at 30 day follow-up.

interpretationDose escalation to rectal indometacin 200 mg did not confer any advantage compared with the standard 100 mg regimen, with pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients. Current practice should continue unchanged. Further research should consider the pharmacokinetics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to determine the optimal timing of their administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP.

fundingAmerican College of Gastroenterology.

Indexed as

Administration, RectalAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceIndomethacinMaleMiddle AgedPancreatitisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalIndomethacin

Identifiers

PMID31780277
PMCPMC10576534
OpenAlexW2990398929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.