Acute pancreatitis, a prevalent illness with devastating consequences, poses a grave threat to those affected. There has been a steady increase in the occurrence of acute pancreatitis at about 3% per year from 1961 to 2016. There are 3 main guidelines on acute pancreatitis, including the American College of Gastroenterology, the International Association of Pancreatology/American Pancreatic Association guideline in 2013, and the American Gastroenterological Association guideline in 2018. However, several milestone studies have been published since then. We hereby reviewed the current acute pancreatitis guidelines with an update on clinical practicechanging literature. The aggressive or moderate fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis (WATERFALL) trial recommended fluid resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution at a moderate aggressive rate. All guidelines did not recommend prophylactic antibiotics use. Early enteral feeding reduces morbidity. A clear liquid diet is no longer recommended. Nutrition with nasogastric or nasojejunal feeding does not have a difference. The upcoming high vs. low-energy administration in the early phase of acute pancreatitis (GOULASH) trial will provide more information on the impact of calorie intake. Pain management should be individualized based on the degree of pain and severity of pancreatitis. In patients with moderate to severe and severe acute pancreatitis, a step-down approach with epidural analgesia can be considered for moderate to severe pain. The management of acute pancreatitis has evolved. New research on the impact of electrolytes, pharmacologic agents, the role of anticoagulants, and nutrition support will provide scientific and clinical evidence to improve patient care and decrease morbidity and mortality. Cite this article as: Huang Y, Badurdeen DS. Acute pancreatitis review. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2023;34(8):795-801.

INTRODUCTION: Liver disease is a significant public health problem in the United States, with notable racial disparities in mortality. This study examines liver disease mortality trends among Black and White populations during 1999–2020. METHODS: We used CDC WONDER database to ascertain liver disease age-standardized mortality rates in Black and White Americans. Annual percent change was calculated. Age-standardized absolute rate difference and rate ratios were computed by subtracting and dividing the White population's rate from that of the Black population. RESULTS: Liver diseases accounted for 171,627 Black and 1,314,903 White deaths during 1999–2020. Age-standardized mortality rates for Blacks decreased from 22.5 to 20.1 per 100,000 person-years (annual percentage change −0.4%, −0.6% to −0.2%), whereas an increase was observed for Whites, from 17.9 to 25.3 per 100,000 person-years (annual percentage change 1.4%, 1.4% to 1.7%). The rate ratio decreased from 1.26 (1.22–1.29) in 1999 to 0.79 (0.78–0.81) in 2020. This pattern was evident in all census regions, more pronounced among the younger (age 25–64 years) than older (age 65+ years) population and observed across different urbanization levels. The pattern may be attributable to increasing alcohol-related liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease–related deaths in Whites and tapering in viral hepatitis and primary liver cancer–related deaths in Blacks. Despite notable improvement, racial disparities persist in primary liver cancer and viral hepatitis among the Black population. DISCUSSION: The rise in alcohol-related liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease–related deaths among Whites, and enduring liver cancer and viral hepatitis disparities in the Black population, underscores the urgent need for tailored public health interventions.

Context Whether proton pump inhibitors (PPI) can improve glycemic control among individuals with diabetes or decrease the risk of incident diabetes in the general population is unclear. Objective To evaluate the impact of PPI therapy on glycemic control among individuals with diabetes and the risk of diabetes among those without diabetes. Results PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to November 21, 2020. We included studies comparing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood glucose (FBG) among individuals with diabetes treated with and without PPI therapy as an add-on to standard therapy. Studies evaluating the risk of incident diabetes among individuals taking PPI were assessed. We performed dual independent review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Weighted mean differences between groups or relative risks were imputed using random-effects models. Results Seven studies (n = 342) for glycemic control and 5 studies (n = 244 439) for risk of incident diabetes were included. Compared with standard therapy, add-on PPI was associated with a significant decrease in HbA1c (WMD, −0.36 %; 95% CI, −0.68 to −0.05; P = 0.025) and FBG (WMD, −10.0 mg/dL; 95% CI, −19.4 to −0.6; P = 0.037). PPI use did not reduce the risk of incident diabetes (pooled RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.34; P = 0.385). Conclusion Add-on PPI improved glycemic indices among individuals with diabetes but did not alter the risk of incident diabetes. The effects of PPI on glycemic control should be considered when prescribing antacids to patients with diabetes.