Enzyme substitution in pancreatic disease: is colipase activity sufficient?

Delayed release pancrelipase for treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency associated with chronic pancreatitis

Pancreatic enzyme supplements (PES) are used in chronic pancreatitis (CP) for correction of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) as well as pain and malnutrition. The use of porcine pancreatic enzymes for the correction of exocrine insufficiency is governed by the pathophysiology of the disease as well as pharmacologic properties of PES. Variability in bioequivalence of PES has been noted on in vitro and in vivo testing and has been attributed to the differences in enteric coating and the degree of micro-encapsulation. As a step towards standardizing pancreatic enzyme preparations, the Food and Drug Administration now requires the manufacturers of PES to obtain approval of marketed formulations by April 2010. In patients with treatment failure, apart from evaluating drug and dietary interactions and compliance, physicians should keep in mind that patients may benefit from switching to a different formulation. The choice of PES (enteric coated versus non-enteric coated) and the need for acid suppression should be individualized. There is no current standard test for evaluating adequacy of therapy in CP patients and studies have shown that optimization of therapy based on symptoms may be inadequate. Goals of therapy based on overall patient presentation and specific laboratory tests rather than mere correction of steatorrhea are needed.

Comparison of two enteric coated microsphere preparations in the treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency caused by cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is a common condition in patients with cystic fibrosis. Large amounts of pancreatic enzyme supplements are required to reduce malabsorption but patient compliance is not always optimal.

AIMS

To compare patients' preference and the efficacy of two enteric coated microsphere preparations in patients with cystic fibrosis.

PATIENTS

Patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency due to cystic fibrosis.

METHODS

Patients were assigned to the crossover treatment with Creon or Pancrease for 1 week and then to the alternative treatment. Patients had to follow a fixed diet (at least 2 g fat/kg) and had to assume 1000 units lipase/g fat. The evaluation parameters were: patients' preference, acceptance of therapy, stool fat excretion, stool weight, gastrointestinal symptoms, and tolerance.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Of the 33/60 patients who expressed a preference for one of the two treatments, 30 preferred Creon while only 3 patients preferred Pancrease (p<0.001). No difference between the two treatments was observed regarding stool characteristics, gastrointestinal symptoms and tolerance. The mean number of capsules taken daily was reduced by 35% with Creon. The results of this study showed a preference in favour of Creon probably due to the reduction of daily capsule intake of 35%, supporting digestion as well as Pancrease.

Carboxyl ester lipase (bile salt-stimulated lipase), colipase, lipase, and phospholipase A2 levels in pancreatic enzyme supplements

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic lipolytic activity originates from lipase (LIP) and its cofactor colipase (COL), carboxyl ester lipase (CEL), and phospholipase A2 (PLA2). Yet there are few data on the levels of individual lipolytic enzymes in pancreatic enzyme supplements (PES). This study determines activity and immunoreactive mass in some commonly used PES and thus contributes to the understanding of the poor relationship between 'lipase dose' and clinical improvements.

METHODS

Recommended doses of each PES were incubated at 37 degrees C for 2 h in a 1-mM Tris-maleate buffer, pH 7.0, containing 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM CaCl2. Aliquots for determinations of enzyme activities and for immunochemical mass were taken every half hour. For comparison a standard dose was defined as 10,000 declared lipase units.

RESULTS

No simple parallelism between LIP, COL, CEL, and/or PLA2 activities was seen. The LIP contents ranged from 135% to 301% of the standard dose. None of the PES were short of COL (227%-504%). The variation in CEL was twentyfold, and in PLA2 sevenfold. Less variations were seen in the mass composition. There was considerable variation in activity to mass ratios (particularly for CEL), declared lipase units per recommended dose (6000-160,000), and cost (0.36-3.52 SEK).

CONCLUSIONS

PES differ considerably in their content of lipolytic enzymes. CEL activities were relatively low and COL and PLA2 activities high compared with normal duodenal content. The manufacturing procedure can be improved to increase the lipolytic activity in PES in a broader meaning. It seems to be most important to increase the amount of CEL. From these in vitro data we advocate a more careful decision in the choice of PES for each patient, depending on the total clinical picture. Money can be saved without disadvantage to the patient.