Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence.

This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

This study sought to determine the prevalence and associated factors of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection ever in life and chronic HBV infection in Armenia.

A population-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study combined with a phone survey of tested individuals.

All administrative units of Armenia including 10 provinces and capital city Yerevan.

The study frame was the general adult population of Armenia aged ≥18 years.

The participants were tested for anti-HBV core antibodies (anti-HBc) and HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) using third-generation enzyme immunoassays. In case of HBsAg positivity, HBV DNA and hepatitis D virus (HDV) RNA PCR tests were performed. Risk factors of HBV infection ever in life (anti-HBc positivity) and chronic HBV infection (HBsAg positivity) were identified through fitting logistic regression models.

The seroprevalence study included 3838 individuals 18 years and older. Of them, 90.7% (3476 individuals) responded to the phone survey. The prevalence of anti-HBc positivity was 14.1% (95% CI 13.1% to 15.2%) and HBsAg positivity 0.8% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). The viral load was over 10 000 IU/mL for 7.9% of HBsAg-positive individuals. None of the participants was positive for HDV. Risk factors for HBsAg positivity included less than secondary education (aOR=6.44; 95% CI 2.2 to 19.1), current smoking (aOR=2.56; 95% CI 1.2 to 5.6), and chronic liver disease (aOR=8.44; 95% CI 3.0 to 23.7). In addition to these, risk factors for anti-HBc positivity included age (aOR=1.04; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.05), imprisonment ever in life (aOR=2.53; 95% CI 1.41 to 4.56), and poor knowledge on infectious diseases (aOR=1.32; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67), while living in Yerevan (vs provinces) was protective (aOR=0.74; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93).

This study provided robust estimates of HBV markers among general population of Armenia. Its findings delineated the need to revise HBV testing and treatment strategies considering higher risk population groups, and improve population knowledge on HBV prevention.