As pancreatic surgeons, we know all too well how hard it is to carry out randomized clinical trials in our field. Therefore, in striving for the best evidence-based solutions to combat the sequelae of pancreatectomies, we are grateful to Tarvainen and colleagues 1 for providing us the Hydrocortisone vs Pasireotide in Reducing Pancreatic Surgery Complications trial in this issue of JAMA Surgery. We are offered a demonstration that perioperative administration of hydrocortisone is not significantly worse compared with the more-expensive option of pasireotide in terms of overall complication burden (measured by the Comprehensive Complication Index) following different types of pancreatectomies. Pasireotide is, however, associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas in the subgroup of distal pancreatectomies. Unfortunately, the article is unclear on which of these outcomes (overall burden vs fistula) is the real focus of the investigation.We want primarily to clear the air: in the article, pasireotide is referred to as being more effective than corticosteroids. Unfortunately, we cannot be assured that pasireotide in itself was effective. Without a proper comparison with placebo, it is uncertain whether either pasireotide or hydrocortisone played a protective role for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula or were merely figurants. Although sometimes implied in the article, pasireotide administration may not actually be the standard modality to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula. We remember the seminal trial by Allen et al, 2 which was the first and, to our knowledge, the only one to suggest that pasireotide could reduce pancreatic fistula (relative risk reduction of 56%). Despite continued en-