Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 12–16

Study to compare the enzyme activity, acid resistance and dissolution characteristics of currently available pancreatic enzyme preparations

  • A. M. Whitehead
Original Articles

Abstract

Anin vitro study of currently available pancreatic enzyme preparations was carried out to compare the three main types of product available, these being simple pancreatin preparations, enteric coated tablets and enteric coated granules. Two products from each of these types were analysed to compare their enzyme contents. The enteric coated preparations were tested for acid resistance and their pH dissolution profiles were also investigated. The measured enzyme contents were generally higher than the declared values but products' enzyme declarations remain valid for comparison. As the BP declaration for protease does not include total protease this value may be misleading. Acid resistance and pH dissolution profiles varied both between the types of preparation and between the actual products tested. The enteric coated granule preparations were more resistant to acid and released their enzyme more rapidly once the pH threshold of dissolution was reached. Of the two enteric coated granule preparations, Creon (Duphar) was more resistant to acid and released its enzyme from a slightly lower pH value.

Key words

Acid resistance Amylases Dissolution Drug compounding Enzyme activity Lipase Pancreatin Peptide hydrolases 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hodson ME. Cystic fibrosis. Postgrad Med J 1984;60:225–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous. 1974 Report on survival studies of patients with cystic fibrosis. Atlanta: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lankisch PG. Progress report. Exocrine pancreatic function tests. Gut 1982;23:777–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Temperley JM. Clinical aspects of pancreatic disease. Update 1984;(August):169–80.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anonymous. Pancreatic extracts [Editorial]. Lancet 1977;2:73–4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lapey A, Kattwinkel J, Di Sant'Agnese PA, Lester L. Steatorrhoea and azotorrhoea and their relation to growth and nutrition in adolescents and young adults with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr 1974;84:328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodchild MC, Segaro E, Brown GA, Cruchley PM, Jukes HR, Anderson CM. Comparative trial of Pancrex v forte and Nutrizym in treatment of malabsorption in cystic fibrosis. Br Med J 1974;3:712–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham DY. Pancreatic enzyme replacement. The effect of antacids or cimetidine. Dig Dis Sci 1982;27:485–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiMagno EP. Controversies in the treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Dig Dis Sci 1982;27:481–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Northfield T, Zentler-Munro P, Fine P. Mechanisms and management of pancreatic steatorrhoea. Update 1984;(June):489–99.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer JH. The ins and outs of oral pancreatic enzymes. N Engl J Med 1977;296:134–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abrahams CK, Hamosh M, Hubbard VS, Dutta SK, Hamosh P. Lingual lipase in cystic fibrosis. J Clin Invest 1984;73:374–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiMagno EP, Malagelada JR, Go VLW, Moertel CG. Fate of orally ingested enzymes in pancreatic insufficiency: Comparison of two dosage schedules. N Engl J Med 1977;297:854–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iber FL, Heizer WD. Gastric inactivation of pancreatic enzyme supplements. Clin Res 1963;11:397.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham DY. Relation betweenin vitro enzyme activities andin vivo potency in commercial pancreatic extracts. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1314–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruyssen R, Lauwers A. Pharmaceutical enzymes. Gent: E Story Scientia, 1978:57–84.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Vol. 1. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1980:324.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Vol. 11. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1980:574.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Vol. 11. Appendix XIV. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1980: A149.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Addendum 1982, Appendix XIV K. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1982:A17.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Addendum 1986, Appendix XIV. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1986:A103.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anonymous. British Pharmacopoeia 1980. Vol. 11. Appendix XII. A. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1980:A113–4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dutta SK, Russel RM, Iber FL. Influence of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency on the intraluminal pH of the proximal small intestine. Dig Dis Sci 1979;24:529–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Whitehead
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical DepartmentDuphar Laboratories Ltd.West EndEngland

Personalised recommendations