38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Alcohol Consumption as a Risk Factor for Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and a Series of Meta-analyses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pancreatitis is a highly prevalent medical condition associated with a spectrum of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiencies. While high alcohol consumption is an established risk factor for pancreatitis, its relationship with specific types of pancreatitis and a potential threshold have not been systematically examined.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic literature search for studies on the association between alcohol consumption and pancreatitis based on PRISMA guidelines. Non-linear and linear random-effect dose–response meta-analyses using restricted cubic spline meta-regressions and categorical meta-analyses in relation to abstainers were conducted.

          Findings

          Seven studies with 157,026 participants and 3618 cases of pancreatitis were included into analyses. The dose–response relationship between average volume of alcohol consumption and risk of pancreatitis was monotonic with no evidence of non-linearity for chronic pancreatitis (CP) for both sexes (p = 0.091) and acute pancreatitis (AP) in men (p = 0.396); it was non-linear for AP in women (p = 0.008). Compared to abstention, there was a significant decrease in risk (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.60–0.97) of AP in women below the threshold of 40 g/day. No such association was found in men (RR = 1.1, 95%CI: 0.69–1.74). The RR for CP at 100 g/day was 6.29 (95%CI: 3.04–13.02).

          Interpretation

          The dose–response relationships between alcohol consumption and risk of pancreatitis were monotonic for CP and AP in men, and non-linear for AP in women. Alcohol consumption below 40 g/day was associated with reduced risk of AP in women. Alcohol consumption beyond this level was increasingly detrimental for any type of pancreatitis.

          Funding

          The work was financially supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21AA023521) to the last author.

          Highlights

          • The dose–response relationships between alcohol use and different types of pancreatitis in men and women are different.

          • The relationship was linear for chronic and acute pancreatitis in men, but non-linear for acute pancreatitis in women.

          • There is a threshold effect for acute pancreatitis in women at the level of up to 40 g/day.

          • The risk of pancreatitis was higher than previously thought beyond the level of 40 g of pure alcohol/day.

          The article updates existing knowledge on the relationship between average alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatitis. Specifically, there are differences between acute and chronic pancreatitis and different sexes. For women there is a threshold of 40 g of ethanol per day — below this level alcohol use is not increasing the risk of acute pancreatitis and might even be beneficial. Above this threshold alcohol use is detrimental. Beyond this threshold the risk of pancreatitis, acute and chronic, in both sexes is greater than previously thought, and increases with increases of average consumption.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions.

            Results from better quality studies should in some sense be more valid or more accurate than results from other studies, and as a consequence should tend to be distributed differently from results of other studies. To date, however, quality scores have been poor predictors of study results. We discuss possible reasons and remedies for this problem. It appears that 'quality' (whatever leads to more valid results) is of fairly high dimension and possibly non-additive and nonlinear, and that quality dimensions are highly application-specific and hard to measure from published information. Unfortunately, quality scores are often used to contrast, model, or modify meta-analysis results without regard to the aforementioned problems, as when used to directly modify weights or contributions of individual studies in an ad hoc manner. Even if quality would be captured in one dimension, use of quality scores in summarization weights would produce biased estimates of effect. Only if this bias were more than offset by variance reduction would such use be justified. From this perspective, quality weighting should be evaluated against formal bias-variance trade-off methods such as hierarchical (random-coefficient) meta-regression. Because it is unlikely that a low-dimensional appraisal will ever be adequate (especially over different applications), we argue that response-surface estimation based on quality items is preferable to quality weighting. Quality scores may be useful in the second stage of a hierarchical response-surface model, but only if the scores are reconstructed to maximize their correlation with bias.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial.

              A system has been constructed to evaluate the design, implementation, and analysis of randomized control trials (RCT). The degree of quadruple blinding (the randomization process, the physicians and patients as to therapy, and the physicians as to ongoing results) is considered to be the most important aspect of any trial. The analytic techniques are scored with the same emphasis as is placed on the control of bias in the planning and implementation of the studies. Description of the patient and treatment materials and the measurement of various controls of quality have less weight. An index of quality of a RCT is proposed with its pros and cons. If published papers were to approximate these principles, there would be a marked improvement in the quality of randomized control trials. Finally, a reasonable standard design and conduct of trials will facilitate the interpretation of those with conflicting results and help in making valid combinations of undersized trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                EBioMedicine
                EBioMedicine
                EBioMedicine
                Elsevier
                2352-3964
                14 November 2015
                December 2015
                14 November 2015
                : 2
                : 12
                : 1996-2002
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Social and Epidemiological Research Department, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada
                [b ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [c ]Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [d ]Dalla Lana School of Public Health (DLSPH), University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [e ]Institute for Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                [f ]WHO Collaborating Centre on Mental Health and Addiction, Toronto, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Social and Epidemiological Research Department, 33 Russell Street, T519, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthSocial and Epidemiological Research Department33 Russell Street, T519TorontoOntarioM5S 2S1Canada andriy.samokhvalov@ 123456camh.ca
                Article
                S2352-3964(15)30208-5
                10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.11.023
                4703772
                26844279
                8135cb15-72bb-40fd-91f1-f4d0df8bcdf2
                © 2015 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 September 2015
                : 10 November 2015
                : 12 November 2015
                Categories
                Research Article

                alcohol,pancreatitis,acute pancreatitis,chronic pancreatitis,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article