Endoscopy 2008; 40(12): 1054
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1077696
Letters to the editor

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reply to Kakutani et al.

J.  M.  Buscaglia, S.  B.  Jagannath
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 December 2008 (online)

We have read the letter by Kakutani et al. in the current issue. While we understand and appreciate their ethical concerns surrounding our recent publication in Endoscopy attempting to establish an animal model of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) [1], we strongly disagree with their position. In their own words, PEP continues to be “one of the most severe complications of interventional endoscopy,” affecting between 1 % and 22 % [2] [3] [4] of all patients undergoing ERCP. With the exception of pancreatic stent placement [5] [6], all other measures studied for the prevention of this disease have proven to be less effective. The cost, morbidity, and mortality associated with PEP is unacceptable, yet the practice of “pilot testing” unproven agents, maneuvers, or devices in humans should stop. As such, we firmly believe that an animal model mimicking PEP would serve as an invaluable platform for the initial study of pharmaceuticals and devices aimed at its prevention, thereby avoiding the wasteful use of resources while studying ineffective measures in humans. We strongly support thoughtful and ethical research in the prevention of PEP, and it is for this reason that our study was designed and carried forward under strict approval from our institution’s animal research review board – not for the sole purpose of obtaining “academic kudos.”

Competing interests: None

References

J. M. BuscagliaMD 

Department of Gastroenterology
State University of New York at Stony Brook

Health Sciences Center Tower 17
Room 060

Stony Brook
New York 11794
USA

Fax: +1-631-444-8886

Email: jmbuscaglia@notes.cc.sunysb.edu