Joachim Mössner’s research while affiliated with Leipzig University and other places

Introduction Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Methods An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years. Results Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Conclusion This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.

Background & aims: Compared with drugs plus endoscopy, placement of transjugular portosystemic shunt within 72 hrs of admission to the hospital (early or preventive TIPS, also called preemptive TIPS) increases the proportion of high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who survive for 1 year. However, the benefit of preemptive TIPS is less clear for patients with a Child-Pugh score of B and active bleeding (CP-B+AB). We performed a individual data meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of preemptive TIPS in these patients and identify factors associated with reduced survival of patients receiving preemptive TIPS. Methods: We searched publication databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the effects of preemptive TIPS vs endoscopy plus non-selective beta blockers in the specific population of high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding (CP-B+AB or Child-Pugh C, below 14 points), through December 31, 2019. We performed a meta-analysis of data from 7 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies), comprising 1327 patients (310 received preemptive TIPS and 1017 received drugs plus endoscopy). We built adjusted models to evaluate risk using propensity score for baseline covariates. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to assess the factors associated with survival time. The primary endpoint was effects of preemptive TIPS vs drugs plus endoscopy on 1-year survival in the overall population as well as CP-B+AB and Child-Pugh C patients. Results: Overall, preemptive TIPS significantly increased the proportion of high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who survived for 1 year, compared with drugs plus endoscopy (HR=0.443, CI 95%: [0.323-0.607], p<0.001). This effect was observed in CP-B+AB patients (HR=0.524, CI 95%: [0.307-0.896], p=0.018) and in patients with Child-Pugh C scores below 14 points (HR=0.374, CI 95%: [0.253-0.553], p<0.001). Preemptive TIPS significantly improved control of bleeding and ascites without increasing risk of hepatic encephalopathy in Child-Pugh C and CP-B+AB patients, compared with drugs plus endoscopy. Cox analysis of patients who received preemptive TIPS showed that patients could be classified into 3 categories for risk of death, based on age, serum level of creatinine, and Child-Pugh score. In each of these risk categories, preemptive TIPS increased the proportion of patients who survived for 1 year, compared with drugs plus endoscopy. Conclusions: In a meta-analysis of data from 1327 patients with cirrhosis, acute variceal bleeding, and Child-Pugh score between 10-13 points or CP-B+AB, preemptive TIPS increased the proportion who survived for 1 year, in both subgroups separately, compared with drugs plus endoscopy.

Background To evaluate medical versus interventional treatment (transjugular thrombus fragmentation, local thrombolysis with or without stent implantation) in patients with acute non‐cirrhotic, non‐malignant portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Methods This prospective, observational study enrolled 65 patients with acute (<28 days since begin of symptoms, no cavernoma) PVT in nine centres. Thirty patients received medical treatment and 35 patients received interventional treatment. PVT was graded into grade 1: short thrombosis and incomplete occlusion of the vessel lumen and grade 2: extended thrombosis or complete occlusion. Treatment response was classified as partial or complete, if thrombosis was reduced by one grade or to <25% of the vessel diameter respectively. Results Partial and complete response rates were 7% and 30% in the medical compared to 17% and 54% (P < 0.001) in the interventional treatment group. In the multivariate analysis, interventional treatment showed a strong positive (OR 4.32, P < 0.016) and a myeloproliferative aetiology a negative (OR 0.09, P = 0.006) prediction of complete response. Complications were rare in the medical group and consisted of septicaemia and upper gastrointestinal bleeding of unknown origin in one patient each. Interventional treatment was accompanied by mild and self‐limiting bleeding complications in nine patients, moderate intra‐abdominal bleeding requiring transfusions (2 units) in one patient and peritoneal bleeding requiring surgical rescue in one patient. Four patients in each group developed intestinal gangrene requiring surgery. One patient died 52 days after unsuccessful interventional treatment. Conclusions Compared to medical treatment alone, interventional treatment doubled response rates at the cost of increased bleeding complications.

In the original article, the affiliations were presented incorrectly. David Petroff is in fact the only author at affiliation 2. All other authors listed as being at affiliation 2 (Tina Weiße, Sebastian Beer, Franziska Gnatzy, Joachim Mössner, Michael Tröltzsch, Johannes Wiegand and Volker Keim) are in fact just at affiliation 1. These have now been corrected in the original article.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is the only curative option for a variety of diseases. Despite advances, it is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, often involving liver complications. Liver disease can be characterized using ultrasound-based liver stiffness measurement. To assess its prognostic value, consecutive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were prospectively evaluated in a single-center study. Endpoints included liver event-free survival and all-cause mortality at 1 year. Competing risk and Cox-regression were used for analysis. We evaluated 106 patients (42 female, age 57) and observed 33 life-threatening events (14 died) including 16 liver complications at 100 days. At 1 year, 36 patients had died, 20 with disease relapse. The hazard ratios for liver-related complications at 100 days were 3.2 (95% CI: 1.8–14.6, p = 0.0022) and 4.4 (95% CI: 1.6–11.9, p = 0.0042) for elevated transient elastography (n = 11) and shear-wave velocity (n = 31), respectively. Results were analogous for all-cause mortality at 1 year. Prior stem cell therapy and elevated gamma glutamyltransferase were also associated with outcome. This demonstrates that elastography is a promising and viable tool for risk prediction and should be included in upcoming multi-center trials to establish new means of guiding treatment and prophylaxis.