Article Text

PDF
PWE-217 Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer – are we getting it right?
  1. S Subramaniam,
  2. N Nobar,
  3. K Besherdas
  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Abstract

Introduction Pancreatic enzyme insufficiency (PEI) is a well recognised cause of malnutrition in chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in the form of enteric coated pancreatin microspheres is recommended in both these groups of patients with symptoms of PEI to prevent weight loss and malnutrition and improve quality of life. Given that the probability of PEI is high in PC (80–90%), PERT is recommended without the use of formal diagnostic tests. The optimal starting dose of PERT is 40–50000 lipase units per main meal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of PERT including appropriate dosing in chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) and to ascertain if there was a difference in prescribing practice between these groups.

Method A single centre retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with CP and PC since 2010 in a large North London district general hospital was performed using local upper gastrointestinal cancer multidisciplinary team records and clinical coding. We identified 149 patients with PC and 110 with CP though 32 patients from the PC group and 4 from CP were excluded from the study due to poor documentation in the records leading to insufficient information surrounding enzyme supplementation and dosages. Information was collected from electronic patient records on the patients’ symptoms, evidence of PERT and the dose prescribed.

Results Symptoms of pancreatic enzyme insufficiency (abdominal pain, weight loss or steatorrhoea) were recorded in 72/117 (61.5%) of PC patients compared with 75/106 (70.8%) of CP patients. PERT was prescribed in 14/72 (19.5%) patients with PC versus 53/75 (70.7%) with CP. The Table 1shows the enzyme formulation and dosages used in both groups.

Abstract PWE-217 Table 1

Conclusion In our study we demonstrate that the majority of patients with PEI in CP are prescribed PERT, a stark contrast with a mere 20% in PC. However in both groups, most patients were not prescribed optimal doses of PERT though again, this figure was better in the CP group (14/53 or 26.4%) compared to the PC group (2/14 or 14.3%). This study highlights the missed opportunity to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life in CP and PC patients with a simple intervention. Increased awareness of the availability and appropriate dosing of PERT in conditions resulting in PEI is required.

Disclosure of interest None Declared.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.