Authors: Angela M. Barbara, Melissa Severn
Horizon scan reports provide brief summaries of information regarding new and emerging health technologies, which are identified through the CADTH Horizon Scanning Service as topics of potential interest to health care decision-makers in Canada.
The Actim Pancreatitis test is a rapid point-of-care test that detects acute pancreatitis (including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography–related pancreatitis). It has the potential to provide a diagnosis of pancreatitis more quickly and with fewer financial and human resources. It may be particularly useful in settings that do not have quick access to laboratory services.
As an alternative to traditional blood tests that measure serum lipase and serum amylase, Actim Pancreatitis is a point-of-care trypsinogen-2 dipstick test that aims to diagnose or rule out acute pancreatitis in 5 minutes.
Acute pancreatitis is a disease characterized by acute inflammation of the pancreas and destruction of the acinar cells (functional units of the pancreas).1 Trypsinogen-2, a pancreatic enzyme, is excreted from acinar cells into the urine from early onset of acute pancreatitis.2 Trypsinogen-2 is present in low concentration in the urine of people without pancreatitis.3 In people with acute pancreatitis, urinary trypsinogen-2 levels are elevated in the early stages of disease and remain elevated for several days or even weeks.4
Actim Pancreatitis works by detecting trypsinogen-2 in urine.4 The rapid test is carried out by dipping a test strip into a sample of freshly passed urine until it absorbs the liquid. Then, the dipstick is removed from the sample and placed horizontally. A positive result can be read as soon as it becomes visible. Two blue lines (the test line and the control line) indicate that symptoms may be due to acute pancreatitis and more investigation is needed. The test is considered negative if only 1 clear blue line is detected at 5 minutes. The control line is used to indicate proper functioning of the strip. The detection limit of the test is approximately 50 mcg/L, and the results remain positive to at least 10,000 mcg/L.4
Although the majority of acute pancreatitis cases are mild, approximately 20% can be very severe and life-threatening and potentially lead to failure of the heart, lungs, and kidneys.5-7 The incidence of pancreatitis has been increasing worldwide.8 In 2019, there were 29,038 new cases of pancreatitis in Canada. In the same year, there were 546 deaths and more than 2,013 years lost to disability due to pancreatitis in Canada.9 Some people are at increased risk of acute pancreatitis, including people who are aged between 40 and 70 years, are living with obesity, are heavy consumers of alcohol, who smoke, are male, and/or have a family history of pancreatitis.7,10,11
Most patients with acute pancreatitis present with acute onset of severe upper abdominal pain.12 However, there are many other causes of acute abdominal pain, including peptic ulcer, functional dyspepsia, gallstones, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Therefore, it is essential to diagnose whether the abdominal pain is due to acute pancreatitis to initiate the appropriate treatment or to proceed to another diagnosis.5
Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and occurs after approximately 5% to 10% of ERCP procedures.13-15 ERCP is a test to examine and diagnose conditions of the liver, bile ducts, pancreas, or gallbladder.10 In Canada, ERCP is recommended for patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis associated with bile duct obstruction or cholangitis.16 Post-ERCP pancreatitis is fatal in 0.7% of cases.13 Patients at high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis include those who have a suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, are younger than 50 years, are female, and/or have had more than 2 episodes of pancreatitis.13,17 Actim Pancreatitis can also be used to detect post-ERCP acute pancreatitis.4
Actim Pancreatitis is not currently authorized for use in Canada or the US. According to the manufacturer,4 the test is currently used in 42 countries around the world.
Actim Pancreatitis is not currently available for use in Canada, so the Canadian price is unavailable. According to the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence,10 the cost of Actim Pancreatitis was £4.50 in 2020. The Actim Pancreatitis test kit contains all the necessary materials needed to perform the test and can be stored at room temperature. No additional resources, sample processing, or laboratory facilities are required.4
Based on extrapolation of US data, pancreatitis could incur direct annual health care costs of approximately $200 million in Canada.11
Because Actim Pancreatis can detect acute pancreatitis immediately at an early stage, the manufacturer suggests that patients can be treated more efficiently and avoid unnecessary treatments, CT scans, and expenses.4,18 Point-of-care testing may also reduce lengths of stay in the emergency department.19 An observational study conducted in India20 reported that the average time from testing to diagnosing acute pancreatitis was 29 minutes with the Actim Pancreatitis test. This was considerably shorter than the average times of 178 minutes for serum amylase and lipase testing, 242 minutes for ultrasonography, and 370 minutes for contrast-enhanced CT scan.20
Although several studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of point-of care tests,21 no economic evaluations of Actim Pancreatitis have been conducted.
In Canada, the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is determined by medical history and symptoms; specifically, abdominal pain and raised pancreatic enzymes in blood based on the test results of serum lipase or amylase.6 Practice guidelines by the Best Practice in General Surgery group at the University of Toronto16 recommend that a serum lipase test be performed in all patients with a suspected diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is based on the 2012 Atlanta Classification of Acute Pancreatitis,22 which requires 2 of following 3 criteria:
abdominal pain (acute onset of a persistent, severe, epigastric pain often radiating to the back)
serum lipase activity (or amylase) at least 3 times greater than the upper limit of normal
characteristic findings of acute pancreatitis on CT or MRI.16
None of the previously mentioned criteria are very reliable in diagnosing acute pancreatitis in the early stage.3 Serum lipase increases within 4 to 8 hours of the start of symptoms, peaks at 24 hours, and returns to normal levels within 8 to 14 days. Serum amylase increases within 6 to 12 hours of the onset of acute pancreatitis and typically returns to normal within 3 to 5 days.23 These tests are also nonspecific because other conditions can also increase the levels of lipase or amylase,24 including peptic ulcers, salivary adenitis, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal obstruction, peritonitis, and acute kidney injury.25
Contrast-enhanced CT scan is the most accurate method for diagnosing acute pancreatitis.24,26 However, this modality is limited for routine screening due to its high costs, wait time for results, limited availability, exposure to ionizing radiation, and other potential adverse events.3,27
As demonstrated in several systematic reviews5,10,28,29 and numerous observational studies,3,20,23,30-34 the Actim Pancreatitis test appears to be adequately sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients presenting to the hospital with abdominal pain. A summary of diagnostic test accuracy for acute pancreatitis is provided in Table 1.
All diagnostic test accuracy studies took place in hospital emergency departments and included adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain (suspected of acute pancreatitis). The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis was based on standard criteria (acute abdominal pain, elevated levels of serum amylase and lipase, imaging results). The countries of data collection included China,29 Egypt,32 Finland,10,28,29 India,3,20,23,28-31 Italy,29 Japan,10,28,29,34 Spain,28,29 Sweden,29,32 Taiwan,10,28 Turkey,28,29 and the US.29
Some of these studies calculated and compared the diagnostic test accuracy of Actim Pancreatitis with serum amylase and serum lipase tests. Most primary studies3,30,32,33 reported better diagnostic accuracy with Actim Pancreatitis compared with both traditional tests. Other studies20,23,31 reported that Actim Pancreatitis was better at correctly diagnosing those with acute pancreatitis but worse at identifying those who did not have acute pancreatitis compared with serum amylase and serum lipase testing. Two systematic reviews5,29 concluded that Actim Pancreatitis was comparable to serum amylase testing. Compared with the serum lipase test, 1 systematic review reported that Actim Pancreatitis was similar5 and another systematic review concluded that it was inferior.29 Because serum amylase and/or lipase were included in the reference standard to determine the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, their diagnostic values might be overestimated due to incorporation bias, which is not the case with Actim Pancreatitis.10,29
One systematic review29 and 2 prospective observational studies14,18 assessed the reliability of Actim Pancreatitis to diagnose post-ECRP pancreatitis. Each study concluded that Actim Pancreatitis was an accurate screening test for ruling out post-ECR pancreatitis. While 1 study reported low sensitivity,18 the systematic review reported high sensitivity.29 The other primary study14 found that Actim Pancreatitis correctly diagnosed all participants who had acute pancreatitis 24 hours after the procedure but was less accurate at 4 hours (60%). A summary of diagnostic test accuracy for post-ECRP pancreatitis is provided in Table 2. The diagnostic test accuracy of Actim Pancreatitis for diagnosing post-ECRP pancreatitis was comparable with or better than serum amylase, urine amylase and serum lipase testing.18,35,36
Table 1: Evaluation of Actim Pancreatitis for the Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis in Patients With Abdominal Pain
First author, year, country | Study design | Number of studies or participants | Overall sensitivitya (95% CI) | Overall specificityb (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systematic reviews | ||||
Muniraj (2018)28 US | SR and MA | 17 studiesc 2,942 participants | 84% (71% to 91%) | 92% (89% to 94%) |
Rompianesi (2017)5 Italy | SR and MA | 5 studies 841 participants | 0.72 (0.56 to 0.84) | 0.90 (0.85 to 0.93) |
Jin (2013)29 China | SR and MA | 14 studies 2,659 participants | 0.80 (0.77 to 0.82) | 0.92 (0.91 to 0.94) |
Chang (2012)24 China | SR and MA | 13 studies 2,342 participants | 82.3% (79.3% to 85.1%) | 93.5% (92.2% to 94.6%) |
Primary studies | ||||
Chowdary (2022)33 India | Observational | 96 participants | 80% (NR) | 92.3% (NR) |
Patel (2022)23 India | Cross-sectional | 166 participants | 90.7% (NR) | 87.5% (NR) |
Sethy (2022)3 India | Prospective observational | 98 participants | 91.5% (NR) | 94.1%(NR) |
Balineni (2021)30 India | Cohort | 100 participants | 96% (NR) | 100% (NR) |
Simha (2021)25 India | Prospective observational | 187 participants | 67.8% (57.1% to 77.25%) | 90.7% (80.9% to 94.4%) |
Raja (2019)20 India | Prospective observational | 134 participants | 97.1% (89.8% to 99.6%) | 92.4% (83.2% to 97.5%) |
Mishra (2019)31 India | Prospective observational | 205 participants | 93% (NR) | 92% (NR) |
Yasuda (2019)34 Japan | Prospective observational | 94 participants | 73.1% (62% to 82%) | 62.5% (39% to 82%) |
El-Sheikh (2018)32 Egypt | Observational | 68 participants | 100% (NR) | 100% (NR) |
CI = confidence interval; MA = meta-analysis; NR = not reported; SR = systematic review.
aSensitivity is the test’s ability to correctly diagnose participants with acute pancreatitis.
bSpecificity is the test’s ability to correctly identify participants without acute pancreatitis.
cIncluded 4 studies on post-ECRP pancreatitis.
Table 2: Evaluation of Actim Pancreatitis for the Diagnosis of Post-ECRP Pancreatitis
First author, year, country | Study design | Timing of test post-ECRP | Number of studies or participants | Overall sensitivitya (95% CI) | Overall specificityb (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Systematic reviews | |||||
Jin (2013)29 China | SR and MA | 1 to 6 hours | 3 studies 285 participants | 86% (67% to 96%) | 94% (91% to 97%) |
Primary studies | |||||
Yewale (2022)18 India | Prospective observational | 4 hours | 79 participants | 66.7% (9.4% to 99.7%) | 92.1% (83.6% to 97.1%) |
Rainio (2021)14 Finland | Prospective observational | 4 hours 24 hours | 388 participants 271 participants | 60% (35% to 80%) 100% (70% to 100%) | 99% (97% to 99%) 98% (96% to 99%) |
CI = confidence interval; ECRP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
aSensitivity is the test’s ability to correctly diagnose participants with acute pancreatitis.
bSpecificity is the test’s ability to correctly identify participants without acute pancreatitis.
No evidence was identified regarding safety issues related to the use of Actim Pancreatitis.
Although all diagnostic test accuracy studies on Actim Pancreatitis took place in hospital emergency departments, the test can potentially be performed in any clinical setting, including primary care.10
Several studies have reported high levels of patient satisfaction with point-of-care tests.21 However, patient experiences with Actim Pancreatitis have not been documented.
Many of the diagnostic test accuracy studies of Actim Pancreatitis have been limited by small sample sizes. A clinical trial with an estimated enrolment of 1,825 participants is currently underway in the state of Indiana to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Actim Pancreatitis for the diagnosis of post-ECRP pancreatitis.37
Actim Pancreatitis was not developed to differentiate between severe and mild forms of acute pancreatitis. However, some studies have evaluated the accuracy of the test for predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis.38 Its ability to detect true cases of acute pancreatitis ranged from 66% to 68% and its ability to correctly rule out acute pancreatitis was 66% to 86%.38 Others argue that Actim Pancreatitis cannot be used to assess the severity of pancreatitis because it is not a quantitative measurement,39 and a positive test result would still require a CT scan to confirm diagnosis, assess severity, and occurrence of complications.
Acute pancreatitis may also occur following upper abdominal surgery, such as pancreatic resection or pancreaticoduodenectomy.40 Although it is not intended to identify these cases of pancreatitis, there is evidence that Actim Pancreatitis can identify 100% of true cases of acute pancreatitis and correctly rule out acute pancreatitis in 91% of cases after pancreatic resection. Actim Pancreatitis was also not developed to detect postoperative complications. However, the test results are significantly related with postoperative pancreatic fistula following pancreatic surgery.41-43 However, Actim Pancreatitis failed to statistically predict postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage, or wound infection.42
Trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) is the amino-terminus peptide released by the activation of trypsinogen.34 The concentration of TAP correlates with the severity of acute pancreatitis.34 TAP can be measured in urine and serum using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit which requires laboratory testing. A systematic review and meta-analysis44 found that the sensitivity of urinary TAP levels to predict severity of acute pancreatitis was 71% and its specificity was 75%. The TAP ELISA test kits are expensive45 (approximately $1,300)46 and thus prohibitive for regular use in clinical practice.
Actim Pancreatitis is currently being used in more than 40 countries. Although it is unclear when this specific technology may be available in Canada, it could have the potential to change the way acute pancreatitis is investigated in hospital emergency departments. This simple, noninvasive test could provide rapid results without the need for blood draws or laboratory facilities. Actim Pancreatitis may be especially useful in remote or rural settings where resources are often limited and, in some cases, samples must be sent to offsite laboratories for processing. As evidence develops, modification of the cut-off point may potentially increase the test’s accuracy for predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis.
1.Van Santvoort HC, Bakker OJ, Bollen TL, et al. A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(4):1254-1263. PubMed
2.Takada T, Isaji S, Mayumi T, et al. JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy‐to‐understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis. Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences. 2022. PubMed
3.Sethy MK, Tamang M, Soren DH, Sebedhi J, Krishna MS. Evaluating the efficacy of urinary trypsinogen-2 Dipstick test in diagnosing acute pancreatitis. Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences. 2022;12(2):284-288.
4.Actim. Actim® Pancreatitis. 2021; https://www.actimtest.com/actim-pancreatitis-for-healthcare-professionals/#materials. Accessed 2023 Jan 24.
5.Rompianesi G, Hann A, Komolafe O, Pereira SP, Davidson BR, Gurusamy KS. Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen and amylase for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017(4).
6.Canadian Digestive Health Foundation. Pancreatitis. 2023: https://cdhf.ca/en/digestive-conditions/pancreatitis/. Accessed 2023 Jan 23.
7.Meher S, Mishra TS, Sasmal PK, et al. Corrigendum to “Role of biomarkers in diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of acute pancreatitis”. Journal of Biomarkers. 2019;2019.
8.Iannuzzi JP, King JA, Leong JH, et al. Global incidence of acute pancreatitis is increasing over time: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(1):122-134. PubMed
9.Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global Burden Disease 2019. 2023. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/. Accessed 2023 Jan 24.
10.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Actim Pancreatitis for diagnosing acute pancreatitis. Medtech innovation briefing [MIB218]. 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/mib218. Accessed 2023 Jan 24.
11.Teshima CW, Bridges RJ, Fedorak RN. Canadian Digestive Health Foundation public impact series 5: pancreatitis in Canada. Incidence, prevalence, and direct and indirect economic impact. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012;26(8):544-545. PubMed
12.Vege SS. Clinical manifestations and diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Waltham (MA): UpToDate 2022 Apr 27: www.uptodate.com. Accessed 2023 Jan 18.
13.Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2015;81(1):143-149. e149.
14.Rainio M, Lindstrom O, Udd M, Puolakkainen P, Stenman UH, Kylanpaa L. Repeated Negative Urine Trypsinogen-2 Dipstick Test Rules Out Diagnosis of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2021;55(4):361-366. PubMed
15.Bartel M. Acute Pancreatitis. 2023. https://www.merckmanuals.com/en-ca/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/pancreatitis/acute-pancreatitis. Accessed 2023 Feb 2.
16.Greenberg JA, Hsu J, Bawazeer M, et al. Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2016;59(2):128. PubMed
17.Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2017;85(1):32-47. PubMed
18.Yewale RV, Vinish DB, Jayaraman K, Chand N, Papalkar P, Ramakrishna BS. Urine trypsinogen-2 as a noninvasive screening test for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy Practice. 2022;2(2):41.
19.Jang T, Uzbielo A, Sineff S, Naunheim R, Scott MG, Lewis LM. Point‐of‐care urine trypsinogen testing for the diagnosis of pancreatitis. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2007;14(1):29-34. PubMed
20.Raja B, Srinath Kumar TS, Vigu Wilben V. Urinary trypsinogen-2 dipstick test for point-of-care screening of acute pancreatitis. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2019;7(5):1822-1827.
21.Lilly CM, Ensom E, Teebagy S, et al. Patient preferences for point-of-care testing: survey validation and results. Point of care. 2020;19(4):112. PubMed
22.Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62(1):102-111. PubMed
23.Patel P, Bahulikar A, Beke N, Patel D, Phalgune D. Sensitivity and Specificity of Urine Trypsinogen 2 Dip Test in Acute Upper Abdominal Pain for the Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis. ACTA Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders. 2022;5(1):31-35.
24.Chang K, Lu W, Zhang K, et al. Rapid urinary trypsinogen-2 test in the early diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Clinical biochemistry. 2012;45(13-14):1051-1056. PubMed
25.Simha A, Saroch A, Pannu AK, et al. Utility of point-of-care urine trypsinogen dipstick test for diagnosing acute pancreatitis in an emergency unit. Biomarkers in Medicine. 2021;15(14):1271-1276. PubMed
26.Simha A, Saroch A, Sharma N, et al. Evaluation of point of care urine trypsinogen dipstick for diagnosing acute pancreatitis in an emergency unit. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2020;39(suppl 1):S87-S88.
27.Walkowska J, Zielinska N, Tubbs RS, Podgórski M, Dłubek-Ruxer J, Olewnik Ł. Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis. Diagnostics. 2022;12(8):1974. PubMed
28.Muniraj T, Whiting PF, Sundaram RS, Aslanian HR, Jamidar PA, Laine L. Rapid Urinary Trypsinogen Test in Early Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis and Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6 Supplement 1):S-714-S-715.
29.Jin T, Huang W, Jiang K, et al. Urinary trypsinogen-2 for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International. 2013;12(4):355-362. PubMed
30.Balineni P. Urinary Trypsinogen versus Serum Amylase in Early Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis. International Journal for Case Reports. 2021;5(5):8459.
31.Mishra J, Mishra B, Firodous A. A comparative analysis of urine trypsinogen-2 test strip with serum lipase in diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in emergency set-up. International Surgery Journal. 2019;6(1):252-256.
32.El-Sheikh MM, Yasser M, Abd El-Raouf MD, El-Sorgogy HA. Predictive Value of Urinary Trypsinogen-2 Dipstick for Early Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis in Emergency Medicine. The Medical Journal of Cairo University. 2018;86(5):2427-2433.
33.Chowdary AYR, Janugade HB, Katkar A. A Study on Role of Urine Trypsinogen-2 in Diagnosing Acute Pancreatitis. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine. 2022;9(7):5040-5049.
34.Yasuda H, Kataoka K, Takeyama Y, et al. Usefulness of urinary trypsinogen-2 and trypsinogen activation peptide in acute pancreatitis: A multicenter study in Japan. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2019;25(1):107-117. PubMed
35.Kemppainen E, Hedström J, Puolakkainen P, et al. Urinary trypsinogen-2 test strip in detecting ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 1997;29(4):247-251. PubMed
36.Tseng CW, Chen CC, Lin SZ, Chang FY, Lin HC, Lee SD. Rapid urinary trypsinogen-2 test strip in the diagnosis of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas. 2011;40(8):1211-1214. PubMed
37.Indiana University. Urine Trypsinogen 2 Dipstick for the Early Detection of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. CT Identifier: NCT03098082. Bethesda (MD): ClinicalTrials.gov; 2022: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03098082. Accessed 2023 Jan 31.
38.Staubli SM, Oertli D, Nebiker CA. Laboratory markers predicting severity of acute pancreatitis. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences. 2015;52(6):273-283. PubMed
39.Sankaralingam S, Wesen C, Barawi M, Galera R, Lloyd L. Use of the urinary trypsinogen-2 dip stick test in early diagnosis of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surgical endoscopy. 2007;21(8):1312-1315. PubMed
40.Räty S, Sand J, Nordback I. Detection of postoperative pancreatitis after pancreatic surgery by urine trypsinogen strip test. Journal of British Surgery. 2007;94(1):64-69. PubMed
41.Nahm CB, Brown KM, Townend PJ, et al. Acinar cell density at the pancreatic resection margin is associated with post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis and the development of postoperative pancreatic fistula. HPB. 2018;20(5):432-440. PubMed
42.Jotheeswaran R, Singh H, Kaur J, et al. Role of inflammatory and nutritional markers in predicting complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 2022;172(5):1502-1509. PubMed
43.Uemura K, Murakami Y, Sudo T, et al. Elevation of urine trypsinogen 2 is an independent risk factor for pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pancreas. 2012;41(6):876-881. PubMed
44.Huang W, Altaf K, Jin T, et al. Prediction of the severity of acute pancreatitis on admission by urinary trypsinogen activation peptide: a meta-analysis. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2013;19(28):4607. PubMed
45.Abbexa. Human Trypsinogen Activation Peptide (TAP) ELISA Kit. 2023. https://www.abbexa.com/human-trypsinogen-activation-peptide-elisa-kit. Accessed 2023 Feb 1.
46.GeneBio Systems. Human Trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) ELISA Kit. 2022. https://www.genebiosystems.com/products/human-trypsinogen-activation-peptide-tap-elisa-kit. Accessed 2023 Feb 1.
ISSN: 2563-6596
Disclaimer: The information in this document is intended to help Canadian health care decision-makers, health care professionals, health systems leaders, and policy-makers make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. While patients and others may access this document, the document is made available for informational purposes only and no representations or warranties are made with respect to its fitness for any particular purpose. The information in this document should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or as a substitute for the application of clinical judgment in respect of the care of a particular patient or other professional judgment in any decision-making process. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) does not endorse any information, drugs, therapies, treatments, products, processes, or services.
While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up-to-date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH.
CADTH is not responsible for any errors, omissions, injury, loss, or damage arising from or relating to the use (or misuse) of any information, statements, or conclusions contained in or implied by the contents of this document or any of the source materials.
This document may contain links to third-party websites. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third-party sites is governed by the third-party website owners’ own terms and conditions set out for such sites. CADTH does not make any guarantee with respect to any information contained on such third-party sites and CADTH is not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage suffered as a result of using such third-party sites. CADTH has no responsibility for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by third-party sites.
Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada’s federal, provincial, or territorial governments or any third-party supplier of information.
This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document outside of Canada is done so at the user’s own risk.
This disclaimer and any questions or matters of any nature arising from or relating to the content or use (or misuse) of this document will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and all proceedings shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
The copyright and other intellectual property rights in this document are owned by CADTH and its licensors. These rights are protected by the Canadian Copyright Act and other national and international laws and agreements. Users are permitted to make copies of this document for non-commercial purposes only, provided it is not modified when reproduced and appropriate credit is given to CADTH and its licensors.
About CADTH: CADTH is an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing Canada’s health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of drugs, medical devices, diagnostics, and procedures in our health care system.
Funding: CADTH receives funding from Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec.
Questions or requests for information about this report can be directed to Requests@CADTH.ca