In-Vitro Comparison of Physical Characteristics, Enzyme Content, and Release Kinetics of Pancreatic Enzyme Preparations Available in Europe and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Commercially available pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) preparations differ significantly in their physical and enzyme properties, raising concern about the interchangeability of these preparations. The current study aimed to compare various commercially available PERT in Europe and Canada for physical properties, enzyme content, enzyme activities, release characteristics, and compliance with the label claim. METHODS: Particle size was determined using a dynamic image analyzer and represented as Feret Max at 10th (FERET Max D [v, 0.1]), 50th (FERET Max D [v, 0.5]), and 90th percentiles (FERET Max D [v, 0.9]). Particle imaging was performed using scanning electron microscopy and a Quorum sputter coater. Lipase activity was measured according to the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur) and International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) procedures. The measured activity was compared against the label claims to identify the percentage of deviations. Lipase release at different pH (release kinetics) was also determined subsequently. RESULTS: The particle size of the PERT preparations differed considerably. There were deviations in the actual lipase content from the label claim, ranging from 85.8% (Gastrozym 10000) to 177.5% (Pancreolan 6000). Under the simulated conditions, most PERT preparations released the enzyme lipase at an acidic pH present in the stomach before reaching the duodenum. CONCLUSION: PERT preparations available in Europe and Canada exhibit significant differences in terms of physical and enzyme release kinetics. Careful evaluation is needed when interchanging these preparations, as it could impact the therapeutic outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".