Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 5:04 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 4:06 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07117318
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2025-12-03
First Post:
2025-08-05
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Rectal NSAIDs With/Without PD Stent for PEP Prevention
Sponsor:
Air Force Military Medical University, China
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Rectal Non-steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs With or Without Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stent for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2025-12
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication following post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is associated with occasional mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased healthcare expenses. Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stent (PDS) placement were demonstrated to be effective strategyies to reduce PEP incidences, particlularly in high-risk patients for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).
Rectal NSAIDs were easy-to-use and safe, while PDS placement were technically complex and carried higher risks of adverse events. A previous network meta-analysis suggested rectal NSAIDs in combination with PDS placement did not differ from rectal NSAIDs alone in PEP prevention. To invesigate if rectal NSAIDs alone could obivate the need of PDS placement, a recent trial from Elmunzer et al. conducted a randomized trial to investigate if rectal NSAIDs alone was non-inferior to the combination of NSAIDs with PDS in high-risk patients. The trial found that the PEP incidence rate in combination group was significantly lower than that in NSAIDs alone group. However, post-hoc analysis of the study suggested that the combination strategy conferred significant benefits only in high-risk patients with pancreatic duct (PD) wire passage, but not in those with other risk factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that rectal NSAIDs alone may obivate the need of PDS in high-risk patients without PD wire passages. Here, we conducted a multicenter, randomized and non-inferiority trial to investigate whether rectal NSAIDs alone is non-inferior to NSAIDs plus PDS placement in high-risk patients without PD wire passages.
Rectal NSAIDs were easy-to-use and safe, while PDS placement were technically complex and carried higher risks of adverse events. A previous network meta-analysis suggested rectal NSAIDs in combination with PDS placement did not differ from rectal NSAIDs alone in PEP prevention. To invesigate if rectal NSAIDs alone could obivate the need of PDS placement, a recent trial from Elmunzer et al. conducted a randomized trial to investigate if rectal NSAIDs alone was non-inferior to the combination of NSAIDs with PDS in high-risk patients. The trial found that the PEP incidence rate in combination group was significantly lower than that in NSAIDs alone group. However, post-hoc analysis of the study suggested that the combination strategy conferred significant benefits only in high-risk patients with pancreatic duct (PD) wire passage, but not in those with other risk factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that rectal NSAIDs alone may obivate the need of PDS in high-risk patients without PD wire passages. Here, we conducted a multicenter, randomized and non-inferiority trial to investigate whether rectal NSAIDs alone is non-inferior to NSAIDs plus PDS placement in high-risk patients without PD wire passages.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: