, Volume 15, Issue 12, pp 779–789 | Cite as

Therapy with Proteolytic Enzymes in Rheumatic Disorders

  • Jörg Leipner
  • Felix Iten
  • Reinhard Saller


Plant extracts with a high content of proteolytic enzymes have been used in traditional medicine for a long time. Besides herbal proteinases, ‘modern’ enzyme therapy includes pancreatic enzymes. The therapeutic use of proteolytic enzymes is empirically based, but is also supported by scientific studies. This review provides an overview of preclinical and clinical trials of systemic enzyme therapy in rheumatic disorders. Studies of the use of proteolytic enzymes in rheumatic disorders have mostly been carried out on enzyme preparations consisting of combinations of bromelain, papain, trypsin and chymotrypsin. The precise mechanism of action of systemic enzyme therapy remains unresolved. The ratio of proteinases to antiproteinases, which is affected by rheumatic diseases, appears to be influenced by the oral administration of proteolytic enzymes, probably via induction of the synthesis of antiproteinases or a signal transduction of the proteinase-antiproteinase complex via specific receptors. Furthermore, there are numerous alterations of cytokine composition during therapy with orally administered enzymes resulting from immunomodulatory effects, which might be an indication of the efficacy of enzyme therapy.

The results of various studies (placebo-controlled and comparisons with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in patients with rheumatic diseases suggest that oral therapy with proteolytic enzymes produces certain analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects. However, the results are often inconsistent. Nevertheless, in the light of preclinical and experimental data as well as therapeutic experience, the application of enzyme therapy seems plausible in carefully chosen patients with rheumatic disorders.


Chymotrypsin Papain Auranofin Experimental Allergic Encephalomyelitis Rheumatic Disorder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The reviewers were supported by a grant from MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co. for the clinical assessment of enzyme therapy.


  1. 1.
    Vanhoof G, Cooreman W. Bromelain. In: Lauwers A, Scharpé S, editors. Pharmaceutical enzymes. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997: 131–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Feo V. Medicinal and magical plants in the northern Peruvian Andes. Fitoterapia 1992; 53: 417–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rawlings ND, Barrett AJ. Evolutionary families of peptidases. Biochem J 1993; 290: 205–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rowan AD, Buttle DJ, Barrett AJ. The cysteine proteinases of the pineapple plant. Biochem J 1990; 266: 869–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrach T, Eckert K, Schulze-Forster K, et al. Isolation and partial characterization of basic proteinases from stem bromelain. J Protein Chem 1995; 14: 41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christie RB. The medical uses of proteolytic enzymes. In: Wiseman A, editor. Topics in enzyme and fermentation biotechnology. Vol. 4. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1980: 25–83Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Netti C, Bandi GL, Pecile A. Anti-inflammatory action of proteolytic enzymes of animal vegetable or bacterial origin administered orally compared with that of known anti-phlogistic compounds. Farmaco-Edizione Pratica 1972; 27: 453–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ito C, Yamaguchi K, Shibutani Y, et al. Anti-inflammatory actions of proteases, bromelain, trypsin and their mixed preparation. Nippon Yakurigaku Zasshi 1979; 75: 227–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wood GR, Ziska T, Morgenstern E, et al. Sequential effects of an oral enzyme combination with rutosid in different in vitro and in vivo models of inflammation. Int J Immunother 1997; 13: 139–46Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashimoto Y, Kakegawa H, Narita Y, et al. Significance of cathepsin B accumulation in synovial fluid of rheumatoid arthritis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001; 283: 334–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoshihara Y, Nakamura H, Obata K, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in synovial fluids from patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59: 455–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borth W, Dunky A, Kleesiek K. α2-Macroglobulin-proteinase complexes as correlated with α1-proteinase inhibitor-elastase complexes in synovial fluids of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Rheum 1986; 29: 319–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbink JJ, Kamp AM, Nieuwenhuys EJ, et al. Predominant role of neutrophils in the inactivation of α2-macroglobulin in arthritic joints. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34: 1139–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kruze K, Fehr K, Boni A. Effect of antirheumatic drugs on cathepsin B1 from bovine spleen. Z Rheumatol 1976; 35: 95–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keyszer G, Lambiri I, Keysser M, et al. Matrix metalloproteinases, but not cathepsin B, H, and L or their inhibitors in peripheral blood of patients with rheumatoid arthritis are potentially useful markers of disease activity. Z Rheumatol 1998; 57: 392–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisher JD, Weeks RL, Curry WM, et al. Effects of an oral enzyme preparation, Chymoral®, upon serum proteins associated with injury (acute phase reactants) in man. J Med 1974; 5: 258–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latha B, Ramakrishnan KM, Jayaraman V, et al. Action of trypsin: chymotrypsin (Chymoral forte DS) preparation on acute-phase proteins following burn injury in humans. Burns 1997; 23: 3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Targoni OS, Tary-Lehmann M, Lehmann PV. Prevention of murine EAE by oral hydrolytic enzyme treatment. J Autoimmun 1999; 12: 191–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon AK, Seipelt E, Sieper J. Divergent T-cell cytokine patterns in inflammatory arthritis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994; 91: 8562–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mazurov VI, Lila AM, Klimko NN, et al. The efficacy of systemic enzyme therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Immunother 1997; 13: 85–92Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lehmann PV, Forsthuber T, Miller A, et al. Spreading of T-cell autoimmunity of cryptic determinants of an autoantigen. Nature 1992; 358: 155–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    LaMarre J, Wollenberg GK, Gonias SL, et al. Biology of disease. Cytokine binding and clearance properties of proteinase-activated α2-macroglobulins. Lab Invest 1991; 65: 3–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Emancipator SN, Chintalacharuvu SR, Urankar Nagy N, et al. Effects of oral enzymes in collagen II induced arthritis in mice. Int J Immunother 1997; 13: 67–74Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kullich W, Schwann H. Circulating immune complexes and complement fragment iC3b in chronic polyarthritis during 12 months therapy with oral enzymes in comparison with oral gold. Wien Med Wochenschr 1992; 142: 493–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steffen C, Smolen J, Miehlke K, et al. Enzyme therapy in comparison with immune complex determinations in chronic polyarthritis. Z Rheumatol 1985; 44: 51–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singer F, Oberleitner H. Drug therapy of activated arthrosis. On the effectiveness of an enzyme mixture versus diclofenac. Wien Med Wochenschr 1996; 146: 55–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klein G, Kullich W. Short-term treatment of painful osteoarthritis of the knee with oral enzymes: a randomised, double-blind study versus diclofenac. Clin Drug Invest 2000; 19: 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klein G, Kullich W, Brugger A. Phlogenzym in der Behandlung der Periarthropathia humeroscapularis tendopathica simplex. Arzt Praxis 1997; 51: 879–85Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tilscher H, Keusch R, Neumann K. Results of a double-blind, randomized comparative study of Wobenzym-placebo in patients with cervical syndrome. Wien Med Wochenschr 1996; 146: 91–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wittenborg A, Bock PR, Hanisch J, et al. Therapie mit nichtsteroidalen Antiphlogistika versus einem oralen Enzymkombinationspräparat. Arzneimittelforschung 2000; 50: 728–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-692424: monocentric, randomized, double-blind study of efficacy and safety of Phlogenzym® in patients with periarthropathia humero-scapularis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1994. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-91407: Phlogenzym® in painful arthrosis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1996. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-693422: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1996. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-91409: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of thoracic spine/lumbar spine symptoms. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1996. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baumüller M. Study No. MU-696413: Phlogenzym® in patients with thoracic spine/lumbar spine syndrome. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1996. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-695419: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of periarthritis humeroscapularis tendopathica. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1996. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singer F. Study No. MU-695414: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of a monoarticular gonarthritis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1997. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Herrera EG. Study No. MU-696416: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of a monoarticular painful gonarthritis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1998. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pavelka K. Study No. MU-693405: efficacy and safety of an oral hydrolytic enzyme therapy inpatients with rheumatoid arthritis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 2000. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-696401: Phlogenzym® in the treatment of a monoarticular gonarthritis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1997. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-86215: efficacy and tolerance of Wobenzym as base therapy in rheumatoidal arthritis in comparison with oral gold. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1987. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singer F. Study No. MU-87208: base therapy of rheumatoidal arthritis with Wobenzym® in comparison with oral gold therapy. Efficacy and tolerance in a randomised, open, parallel group study. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1990. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Singer F. Study No. MU-88202: therapeutic use of Wobenzym® in monoarticular activated arthrosis of knee joint. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1990. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Klein G. Study No. MU-88210: Wobenzym as base therapeutic in rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy and tolerance. Arandomised, double blind study in parallel group versus auranofin. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1991. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goubert LG. Study No. MU-696701: Wobenzym® N in the treatment of patients with gonarthritis. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 1999. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Conradt C. Study No. MU-696702/B: re-analysis of efficacy of Wobenzym® N in rheumatic diseases by the mean of the epidemiological study: ‘proof of efficacy and harmlessness of Wobenzym® N in rheumatic diseases. A retrolective, cohort analysis in parallel groups (RetrospectTM) with oral nonsteroidal antirheumatics (NS AR) as reference therapy in the control group’. MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Geretsried, Germany 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Leipner
    • 1
  • Felix Iten
    • 1
  • Reinhard Saller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Natural MedicineUniversity HospitalZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Abteilung für Naturheilkunde, Departement für Innere MedizinUniversitätsspital ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations