Pancrelipase

What it is

Pancrelipase is an extract of pig pancreas containing a mixture of lipase, protease and amylase enzymes, standardised and dosed by its lipase content. Most modern products are delayed-release capsules of enteric-coated spheres designed to stay intact through the stomach acid and release the enzymes at about pH 5.5 or above in the small intestine. One product, Viokace, is an uncoated tablet and is approved only in combination with a proton pump inhibitor. Products are not interchangeable with each other.

What the research says

For people whose pancreas cannot produce enough digestive enzymes, pancrelipase measurably restores fat and protein absorption. In cystic fibrosis trials, fat absorption rose from about 47-49% on placebo to 83-89% on treatment; in chronic pancreatitis and after pancreatic surgery the gain was about 21-28 percentage points. A 14-trial meta-analysis in 684 people confirms this across causes. What the evidence does not show is long-term benefit: the Cochrane review states there is no evidence on long-term effectiveness and risks, and the trials were mostly four weeks or shorter. The serious historical harm is fibrosing colonopathy, a scarring narrowing of the colon linked in a case-control study to very high lipase doses in young children with cystic fibrosis.

Evidence grade: Well established.

How it works

Drug class: Pancreatic enzyme replacement product: a porcine-derived mixture of lipases, proteases and amylases, dosed in lipase units

Pancrelipase supplies the three digestive enzymes a failing pancreas no longer delivers. In the first part of the small intestine the lipases split fats into fatty acids and glycerol, the proteases break proteins into peptides and amino acids, and the amylases break starches into simple sugars, so the food can be absorbed. It does nothing to the pancreas itself; it replaces what the pancreas would have secreted. (Source 1)

What it is used for

• Two randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover studies in 49 people aged 7 to 43 found fat absorption of 89% versus 49% and 83% versus 47% on placebo, differences of 41 and 35 percentage points. A meta-analysis of 14 placebo-controlled trials confirms the effect. The Cochrane review, however, rates the quality of the trial evidence as moderate to very low and finds no long-term data. Evidence: established. (Source 2)
• A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies in 511 people with chronic pancreatitis found fat absorption of 83.2±5.5 on enzymes versus 67.4±7.0 on placebo (p=0.0001) with high heterogeneity (I2=86%). The 7-day registration trial found a treatment difference of 21 percentage points (95% CI 14 to 28). Evidence: established. (Source 3)
• This use rests on small subgroups. In the Creon chronic pancreatitis trial only 7 of the people with a previous pancreatectomy received the drug, and only 1 of them had had a total pancreatectomy. The Viokace trial, in which an uncoated tablet was given with a proton pump inhibitor, included 18 people with previous pancreatectomy and reported a treatment difference in fat absorption of 28 percentage points (95% CI 18 to 37). Evidence: limited. (Source 4)
• A 2026 systematic review of 28 studies and 14,874 patients found enzymes prescribed to 17.8% of people after acute pancreatitis overall, but outcome data were inconsistent across every endpoint type, meta-analysis of treatment effect was impossible, and the overall certainty of evidence was graded low. Evidence: unknown. (Source 5)

Interactions

• Food with a pH above 4.5 (and crushing or chewing) (label): The enteric coating is designed to survive stomach acid and open in the small intestine. Mixing the capsule contents into food that is not acidic, or crushing or chewing them, breaks that coating: the enzymes are released in the mouth, can irritate the mouth lining, and lose activity. The label names applesauce, bananas and plain Greek yogurt as acidic foods at pH 4.5 or less. Limit: These instructions are the label's instructions for adults and children over 12 months of age, which is why the scoping sentence now opens the block. Section 2.3 of the same label gives a different set of instructions for infants from birth to 12 months - one capsule per breast-feed or per 120 mL of formula, never mixed into a bottle, followed immediately by breast milk or formula - so these bullets must never be shown to a parent of an infant as if they applied. (Source 6)
• Stomach acid and the enteric coating (label): Enteric-coated products are built to release their enzymes only once the surrounding acidity falls, at about pH 5.5 or above. This is why an uncoated tablet product is approved only together with a proton pump inhibitor: without acid suppression, stomach acid destroys uncoated enzymes. (Source 7)
• Proton pump inhibitors and H2 blockers (label): For the uncoated tablet, a proton pump inhibitor is part of the approved use. For enteric-coated products the picture is mixed: a pooled analysis of 34 manufacturer-supported trials found no difference in fat absorption with or without acid suppression, while a meta-analysis in chronic pancreatitis suggested acid suppression may improve results. (Source 8)
• Oral iron (clinical trial): In a small crossover study, giving pancreatic enzymes significantly impaired absorption of an oral iron dose in both people with cystic fibrosis and healthy controls, and the authors suggest long-term enzyme use may contribute to iron deficiency. This is one small study, with no effect size reported in the abstract. Limit: The source itself prints an odd figure: it says no patient with cystic fibrosis had "a hemoglobin level less than 119 g/L", which is roughly 11.9 g/dL and reads as a mix-up between the two units. The quote matches the paper either way, but that number should not be relied on. This is also a single small 1989 crossover study in 13 patients and 9 controls with no effect size in the abstract, and the authors frame the consequence as a suggestion rather than a demonstration, so it should not be read as establishing that enzyme users become iron deficient. (Source 9)
• Calcium supplements and calcium carbonate antacids (theoretical): No study of calcium supplements taken with pancrelipase was found in the sources reached, and the current labels list no drug interactions at all. The only mechanism in the labelling that could plausibly involve a calcium-containing antacid is the pH one: anything that raises the pH of what the capsule contents are mixed with, or of the stomach, can affect when the enteric coating opens. That is a theoretical extension of a statement about food, not a documented calcium interaction, and it is recorded here only to say so. Limit: No study of calcium supplements with pancrelipase was found, and the quoted passage is about the pH of food, not about calcium. It is recorded only to say that the interaction is a theoretical extension of a pH mechanism. The current labels list no drug interactions at all. (Source 10)
• Other medicines generally (label): The only pancrelipase labelling found that carries a drug interactions section is an archived 2012 repackager label (Physicians Total Care, SPL effective 2012-02-06), and it states plainly that no drug interactions have been identified and that no formal interaction studies were done. The current labels have dropped the drug interactions section altogether rather than adding findings to it. Limit: This is a statement about missing evidence from a label last updated in February 2012, by a repackager rather than the manufacturer. Its two sentences must never be separated: "no drug interactions have been identified" means only that none had been found, because the same passage says no formal interaction studies were ever done. It must not be rendered as "pancrelipase has no drug interactions". (Source 11)
• Switching between enzyme products (label): Products are not interchangeable. The label instructs that other pancreatic enzyme products must not be substituted, and that anyone switched from another product should be monitored for symptoms and have the dose re-titrated. Reported treatment failures on switching were what prompted the FDA review that ended the unapproved market in 2010. (Source 12)

Stopping it

• There is no dependence or withdrawal syndrome. Stopping simply returns the person to their untreated absorption: in the cystic fibrosis trials each person's fat absorption on placebo was used as their own no-treatment value, and those values were 47-49% against 83-89% on treatment. (Source 2)
• The one circumstance in which the labelling describes reducing the dose rather than stopping is fibrosing colonopathy: people on more than 6,000 lipase units/kg/meal should be monitored frequently for symptoms and the dose reduced or titrated downwards if clinically appropriate. The label also notes it is uncertain whether fibrosing colonopathy regresses. (Source 13)
• No study of stopping or deprescribing enzyme therapy was found. The Cochrane review states there is no evidence on long-term effectiveness and risks, on relative dosing by severity, or on the best time to start - and by the same token nothing on when or whether to stop. (Source 14)

What goes wrong

Fibrosing colonopathy, a scarring narrowing of the colon, was strongly associated with high daily lipase doses in young children with cystic fibrosis. (Source 15)

• Case-control study, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 29 cases and 105 matched controls.
• Who: children with cystic fibrosis in the United States; cases had histopathologically confirmed fibrosing colonopathy requiring colectomy for colonic strictures between 1990 and 1994; mean age 5.0 years.
• How long: cases identified over a 5-year period.
• Result: mean dose 50,046 lipase units/kg/day in cases versus 18,985 in controls. Adjusted relative risk 10.9 (95% CI 1.6 to 71.8) for 24,001-50,000 units/kg/day and 199.5 (95% CI 9.9 to 4026.0) for more than 50,000, each against 0-24,000 units/kg/day. Product strength, coating and manufacturer were not associated with risk.
• Funding: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't and U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. (per the PubMed record)

Limit of this finding: This is an observational case-control study, so it shows a strong association rather than proof of cause, and the relative risks are not absolute risks: nothing here says what share of children on high doses develop the condition. The highest estimate, 199.5, carries an interval from 9.9 to 4026.0, a span of more than 400-fold, so only the direction of the association is supportable and the number itself must not be presented as a magnitude. H2-blocker, corticosteroid and dornase alfa use and prior gastrointestinal complications were also associated with the condition. The cases were children who needed a colectomy between 1990 and 1994, each matched to up to four controls.

The mean dose of pancreatic-enzyme supplement was 50,046 units of lipase per kilogram of body weight per day for the case patients and 18,985 units per kilogram per day for the controls. A history of gastrointestinal complications attributed to cystic fibrosis and the use of histamine H2-receptor blockers, corticosteroids, or recombinant human DNase (dornase alfa) were associated with a higher incidence of fibrosing colonopathy. After adjustment for a history of such complications and the use of these medicines, the relative risk of fibrosing colonopathy that was associated with a dose of 24,001 to 50,000 units of lipase per kilogram per day, as compared with a dose of 0 to 24,000 units per kilogram per day, was 10.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 71.8), and that associated with a dose of more than 50,000 units per kilogram per day was 199.5 (95 percent confidence interval, 9.9 to 4026.0). The strength, coating, and manufacturer of the products used were not associated with the risk of fibrosing colonopathy.

The label records fibrosing colonopathy as a rare, serious reaction linked to high doses over prolonged periods, most often in children with cystic fibrosis, with an unknown mechanism. (Source 16)

• Official position, Moderate certainty.
• Size: not quantified on the label.
• Who: people taking pancreatic enzyme products, most reports in paediatric cystic fibrosis.
• How long: usually over a prolonged period.
• Result: doses exceeding 6,000 lipase units/kg/meal have been associated with colonic stricture in children under 12; it is uncertain whether fibrosing colonopathy regresses.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc. (effective 2024-02-28)

Limit of this finding: This passage names 6,000 lipase units per kilogram per meal as the exposure linked to colonic stricture but never states the label's own ceiling, which is in the next paragraph of the same section: 2,500 units/kg/meal, 10,000 units/kg/day or 4,000 units per gram of fat eaten per day. The 6,000 figure is therefore more than twice the recommended maximum, not a threshold of concern just above normal use.

Fibrosing colonopathy is a rare, serious adverse reaction initially described in association with use of high-dose pancreatic enzyme products, usually over a prolonged period of time and most commonly reported in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. Pancreatic enzyme products exceeding 6,000 lipase units/kg/meal have been associated with colonic stricture, a complication of fibrosing colonopathy, in pediatric patients less than 12 years of age. The underlying mechanism of fibrosing colonopathy remains unknown.

In the cystic fibrosis registration trials the commonest side effects reported more often than on placebo were vomiting, dizziness and cough, each in 4-6% of people. (Source 17)

• Randomized trial, Moderate certainty.
• Size: CREON N = 49 vs placebo N = 47.
• Who: adults and children aged 7 and over with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to cystic fibrosis (Studies 1 and 2)
• How long: 5 to 6 days per treatment period.
• Result: vomiting 3 (6%) vs 1 (2%); dizziness 2 (4%) vs 1 (2%); cough 2 (4%) vs 0 (0%)
• Funding: industry-funded registration trials; label held by AbbVie Inc.

Limit of this finding: These counts come from very small, very short crossover studies: two or three events define each rate, so the percentages are unstable and should not be read as population frequencies.

Adverse Reaction CREON N = 49 n (%) Placebo N = 47 n (%) Vomiting 3 (6%) 1 (2%) Dizziness 2 (4%) 1 (2%) Cough 2 (4%) 0 (0%) * Reported in at least 2 CREON-treated patients (greater than or equal to 4%) and at a higher rate than placebo-treated patients.

In the adult chronic pancreatitis trial the reported side effects were blood-sugar disturbances and bowel symptoms, each in one or two people. (Source 18)

• Randomized trial, Low certainty.
• Size: CREON N = 25 vs placebo N = 29.
• Who: adults with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatectomy (Study 4)
• How long: 7 days.
• Result: hyperglycaemia 2 (8%) vs 2 (7%); hypoglycaemia, abdominal pain 1 (4%) vs 1 (3%) each; abnormal faeces, flatulence, frequent bowel movements and nasopharyngitis 1 (4%) vs 0 (0%) each.
• Funding: industry-funded registration trial; label held by AbbVie Inc.

Limit of this finding: Every rate in this table rests on one or two events, and the denominator conflicts with the efficacy table in the same label (N = 25 here, N = 24 there). These are not usable frequency estimates.

Adverse Reaction CREON N = 25 n (%) Placebo N = 29 n (%) Hyperglycemia 2 (8%) 2 (7%) Hypoglycemia 1 (4%) 1 (3%) Abdominal Pain 1 (4%) 1 (3%) Abnormal Feces 1 (4%) 0 (0%) Flatulence 1 (4%) 0 (0%) Frequent Bowel Movements 1 (4%) 0 (0%) Nasopharyngitis 1 (4%) 0 (0%) * Reported in at least 1 CREON-treated patient (greater than or equal to 4%) and at a higher rate than placebo-treated patients.

Voluntary reports after marketing, for CREON or other pancreatic enzyme products, include fibrosing colonopathy, distal intestinal obstruction syndrome, anaphylaxis, raised liver enzymes and skin reactions, with no reliable frequency and no established cause. (Source 19)

• Case series, Very low certainty.
• Size: not quantifiable (spontaneous reports from a population of uncertain size)
• Who: people using pancreatic enzyme products after approval.
• How long: post-approval use.
• Result: no rate can be estimated; the label states that frequency cannot be reliably estimated and causality cannot be established from voluntary reports.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc.

Limit of this finding: These are spontaneous reports from a population of unknown size, which is why the label itself says it is not always possible to estimate their frequency or to establish that the drug caused them. They cover CREON or other pancreatic enzyme products, so the list is not specific to one brand, and none of it should be read as a rate.

The following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use of CREON or other pancreatic enzyme products. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure. Eye Disorders blurred vision Gastrointestinal Disorders fibrosing colonopathy and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome abdominal pain, diarrhea, flatulence, constipation, and nausea Immune System Disorders anaphylaxis, asthma, hives, and pruritus

Because the enzymes come from pig pancreas, the label records a theoretical risk of transmitting a virus, while also noting no such case has been reported. (Source 20)

• Official position, Very low certainty.
• Size: not applicable.
• Who: anyone taking a porcine pancreatic enzyme product.
• How long: any duration of use.
• Result: no case has occurred; the risk is described as theoretical and includes novel or unidentified viruses.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc.

Although the risk that CREON will transmit an infectious agent to humans has been reduced by testing for certain viruses during manufacturing and by inactivating certain viruses during manufacturing, there is a theoretical risk for transmission of viral disease, including diseases caused by novel or unidentified viruses. Thus, the presence of porcine viruses that might infect humans cannot be definitely excluded. However, no cases of transmission of an infectious illness associated with the use of porcine pancreatic extracts have been reported.

Pancreatic enzyme products contain purines and high doses have been associated with raised uric acid in blood and urine. (Source 21)

• Official position, Low certainty.
• Size: not quantified on the label.
• Who: people on pancreatic enzyme products, particularly those with gout, kidney impairment or existing hyperuricaemia.
• How long: any duration; associated with high dosages.
• Result: no rate is given; the label advises considering blood uric acid monitoring in people with gout, renal impairment or hyperuricaemia.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc.

Pancreatic enzyme products contain purines that may increase blood uric acid levels. High dosages have been associated with hyperuricosuria and hyperuricemia [see Overdosage (10)]. Consider monitoring blood uric acid levels in patients with gout, renal impairment, or hyperuricemia during treatment with CREON.

Severe hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis have been reported, and people allergic to pig proteins need watching. (Source 22)

• Case series, Very low certainty.
• Size: not quantified.
• Who: people taking pancreatic enzyme products, including those with known hypersensitivity to porcine proteins.
• How long: any duration of use.
• Result: no rate given; reactions reported include anaphylaxis, asthma, hives and itching.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc.

Severe hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis, asthma, hives, and pruritus have been reported with pancreatic enzyme products [see Adverse Reactions (6.2)]. If symptoms occur, initiate appropriate medical management.

Breaking the enteric coating, by crushing or chewing or by mixing the contents into food above pH 4.5, releases the enzymes in the mouth and can irritate the mouth lining and destroy the enzymes. (Source 10)

• Official position, Low certainty.
• Size: not quantified on the label.
• Who: anyone taking a delayed-release enzyme product, especially infants and people who cannot swallow capsules.
• How long: immediate, at the time of administration.
• Result: no rate given; the consequences stated are early release of enzymes, irritation of the oral mucosa and loss of enzyme activity, and the label's fourth instruction is to visually inspect the mouth of infants under 12 months and of anyone who cannot swallow capsules whole, to check no drug has been retained.
• Funding: label held by AbbVie Inc.

Crushing or chewing CREON capsules or mixing the capsule contents in foods having a pH greater than 4.5 can disrupt the protective enteric coating on the capsule contents and result in early release of enzymes, irritation of the oral mucosa, and/or loss of enzyme activity. Instruct the patient or caregiver of the following: Swallow capsules whole. For patients who cannot swallow the capsules whole, the capsules can be opened, and the contents sprinkled in a small amount of acidic soft food with a pH of 4.5 or less (e.g., applesauce, bananas, plain Greek yogurt). Do not crush or chew CREON capsules or capsule contents. Consume sufficient liquids (juice, water, breast milk, or formula) immediately following administration of CREON to ensure complete swallowing. Visually inspect the mouth of pediatric patients less than 12 months of age and of patients who are unable to swallow intact capsules to ensure no drug is retained in the mouth and irritation of the oral mucosa has not occurred [see Dosage and Administration (2.3)].

Pancreatic enzymes measurably impaired oral iron absorption in people with cystic fibrosis and in healthy controls. (Source 9)

• Randomized trial, Low certainty.
• Size: 13 stable young-adult patients with cystic fibrosis and 9 age-matched controls.
• Who: young adults with cystic fibrosis and age-matched control patients.
• How long: iron absorption measured over a 3-hour period, with and without enzymes.
• Result: no difference in iron absorption without enzymes; significant impairment of iron absorption in both patients and controls after enzymes were given. The study reports no numerical effect size in the abstract. Serum ferritin was under 25 micrograms/L in 5 of the 13 patients.
• Funding: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't (per the PubMed record)

Limit of this finding: The source itself prints an odd figure: it says no patient with cystic fibrosis had "a hemoglobin level less than 119 g/L", which is roughly 11.9 g/dL and reads as a mix-up between the two units. The quote matches the paper either way, but that number should not be relied on. This is also a single small 1989 crossover study in 13 patients and 9 controls with no effect size in the abstract, and the authors frame the consequence as a suggestion rather than a demonstration, so it should not be read as establishing that enzyme users become iron deficient.

There was no difference in iron absorption in the absence of exogenous pancreatic enzymes. Significant impairment of iron absorption was detected in both patients with cystic fibrosis and controls after administration of a preparation of pancreatic enzymes. There was an inverse relationship between iron stores, as measured by serum ferritin, and iron absorption. These findings suggest that long-term consumption of pancreatic enzymes by patients with cystic fibrosis may contribute to iron deficiency.

Until 2010 pancreatic enzyme products in the United States were marketed without ever having been formally reviewed, and the review that ended that found large variability between the unapproved products. (Source 23)

• Expert review, not systematic, Low certainty.
• Size: not applicable.
• Who: the United States market for pancreatic enzyme products.
• How long: 1938 to April 2010.
• Result: no effect size; the review records that the products were exempted in 1938, never formally reviewed, and that reported treatment failures on switching products prompted an FDA review which found large variability of response between unapproved products.
• Funding: not stated.

Limit of this finding: This is a 2011 review and the market it describes has moved on: its statement that three delayed-release, enteric-coated pancreatic enzyme products were "currently approved by the FDA (Creon, Zenpep, and Pancreaze)" was a snapshot of 2011 and more products have been approved since, so it is not a true description of what is available now. The same passage also reads circularly as printed - "In 1938, PEPs were exempted from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938" - because the exemption in fact rested on the products having been marketed before the Act. The paper's own recommendation, which is not in this passage, is that Creon was at that time an appropriate first-line agent.

In 1938, PEPs were exempted from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and never underwent a formal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review process. In response to reports of treatment failures during product interchange, the FDA conducted a review of available PEP products. This review found a large variability of response between the unapproved PEP products, which resulted in the FDA requiring approval of all PEP products by April 2010.

What the evidence supports

Pancrelipase substantially improved fat and nitrogen absorption against placebo in cystic fibrosis. (Source 2)

• Randomized trial, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 49 patients across two studies (Study 1 n=32, analysed 29; Study 2 n=17, analysed 16)
• Who: people aged 7 to 43 with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to cystic fibrosis, on a high-fat diet.
• How long: 5 to 6 days per treatment period, crossover.
• Result: Study 1 mean coefficient of fat absorption 89% on enzymes vs 49% on placebo, mean difference 41 percentage points (95% CI 34, 47), p<0.001; Study 2 83% vs 47%, difference 35 percentage points (95% CI 27, 44), p<0.001.
• Funding: industry-funded registration trials; label held by AbbVie Inc.

Limit of this finding: The label's arithmetic does not quite work: 89% minus 49% is 40 points, but it reports the difference as 41, and 83% minus 47% is 36 points while it reports 35 (with an interval of 27 to 44, centred on 35.5). These are almost certainly rounded model estimates of the paired within-patient differences rather than errors, but a reader doing the subtraction will get a different number, so the exact point estimate should not be relied on. Both studies lasted only 5 to 6 days per period and measured fat in the stool, not symptoms, weight or survival.

In Study 1, mean CFA was 89% with CREON treatment compared to 49% with placebo treatment. The mean difference in CFA was 41 percentage points in favor of CREON treatment with 95% CI: (34, 47) and p<0.001. In Study 2, mean CFA was 83% with CREON treatment compared to 47% with placebo treatment. The mean difference in CFA was 35 percentage points in favor of CREON treatment with 95% CI: (27, 44) and p<0.001.

In chronic pancreatitis and after pancreatectomy, pancrelipase improved fat absorption by about 21 percentage points more than placebo over 7 days. (Source 4)

• Randomized trial, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 54 adults randomised, 52 analysed (24 enzymes, 28 placebo in the fat-absorption table)
• Who: adults aged 32 to 75 with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatectomy, fat absorption under 80% at run-in.
• How long: 7 days double-blind, after a 5-day placebo run-in and 16 days of open enzyme therapy.
• Result: change in coefficient of fat absorption 32 (SD 18) on enzymes vs 9 (SD 13) on placebo; treatment difference 21 percentage points (95% CI 14, 28), p<0.0001.
• Funding: industry-funded registration trial; label held by AbbVie Inc.

Limit of this finding: Two numbers in this table do not follow from the rows above them. The change on enzymes was 32 points and on placebo 9 points, which subtract to 23, but the table reports a treatment difference of 21 (interval 14 to 28, centred on 21): 21 is a model-adjusted estimate, which the table does not say. The denominators also differ across the label - the table is headed CREON N = 24 and Placebo N = 28, while the narrative and the safety table use 25 and 29. The block now includes the label's explanation: 54 people were randomised, the analysis population was 52, and 2 were excluded for protocol violations.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was conducted in 54 adult patients, aged 32 to 75 years, with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatectomy (Study 4). The final analysis population was limited to 52 patients; 2 patients were excluded due to protocol violations. Ten patients had a history of pancreatectomy (7 were treated with CREON). In this study, patients received placebo for 5 days (run-in period), followed by pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy as directed by the investigator for 16 days; this was followed by randomization to CREON or matching placebo for 7 days of treatment (double-blind period). Only patients with CFA less than 80% in the run-in period were randomized to the double-blind period. All patients were to consume a high-fat diet (greater than or equal to 100 grams of fat/day) during the treatment period. The dosage of CREON during the double-blind period was 72,000 lipase units per main meal (3 main meals) and 36,000 lipase units per snack (2 snacks) [approximately 1,000 lipase units/kg/meal]. The mean exposure to CREON during this study was 7 days in the 25 patients that received CREON. Coefficient of Fat Absorption Endpoint and Results The CFA was determined by a 72-hour stool collection during the run-in and double-blind treatment periods, when both fat excretion and fat ingestion were measured. The mean change in CFA from the run-in period to the end of the double-blind period in the CREON and placebo groups is shown in Table 3. Table 3: Change in Coefficient of Fat Absorption in Adults with Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Due to Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatectomy (Study 4) CREON N = 24 Placebo N = 28 CFA [%] Run-in Period (Mean, SD) 54 (19) 57 (21) End of Double-Blind Period (Mean, SD) 86 (6) 66 (20) Change in CFA * [%] Run-in Period to End of Double-Blind Period (Mean, SD) 32 (18) 9 (13) Treatment Difference (95% CI) 21 (14, 28) *p<0.0001

A meta-analysis of 17 studies in chronic pancreatitis found enzyme therapy improved fat absorption against placebo, with high statistical heterogeneity. (Source 3)

• Meta-analysis, Low certainty.
• Size: 17 studies, 511 patients with chronic pancreatitis; quantitative data from 14 studies.
• Who: adults with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency from chronic pancreatitis.
• How long: as reported in the included trials.
• Result: coefficient of fat absorption 83.2±5.5 on enzymes vs 67.4±7.0 on placebo, p=0.0001, I2=86%; versus baseline 83.7±6.0 vs 63.1±15.0, p<0.00001, I2=89%. Nitrogen absorption, faecal fat, faecal nitrogen, faecal weight and abdominal pain all improved.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

Limit of this finding: Heterogeneity was very high (I-squared of 86% and 89%, printed in the plain-text abstract as "I2"), and the reviewers name sample size, diagnostic criteria, study design and enzyme dose as contributors. A reader should treat the pooled percentages as a rough summary of dissimilar trials rather than a precise estimate, and note that the comparison against baseline is not a controlled comparison.

PERT improved CFA compared with baseline (83.7±6.0 vs 63.1±15.0, p<0.00001; I2=89%) and placebo (83.2±5.5 vs 67.4±7.0, p=0.0001; I2=86%). PERT improved coefficient of nitrogen absorption, reduced faecal fat excretion, faecal nitrogen excretion, faecal weight and abdominal pain, without significant adverse events.

A 2026 meta-analysis of 14 placebo-controlled trials found large improvements in both fat and protein absorption, consistent across cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis. (Source 24)

• Meta-analysis, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 14 randomised controlled trials, 684 patients.
• Who: people with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency of any cause, in placebo-controlled trials.
• How long: as reported in the included trials.
• Result: coefficient of fat absorption SMD = 1.57 (95% CI 1.20-1.94); coefficient of nitrogen absorption SMD = 1.52 (0.97-2.06); cystic fibrosis subgroup CFA SMD = 1.87 (1.48-2.25); chronic pancreatitis subgroup CFA SMD = 1.08 (0.67-1.49)
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

Fourteen RCTs involving 684 patients were included. PERT significantly improved fat absorption compared with placebo (CFA: SMD = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.20-1.94) and also enhanced protein absorption (CNA: SMD = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.97-2.06). Etiology-based subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in CFA among patients with cystic fibrosis (CF)-related EPI (SMD = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.48-2.25) and chronic pancreatitis-related EPI (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.67-1.49). Similarly, PERT significantly increased CNA in CF-associated EPI (SMD = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.30-2.50) and in EPI secondary to chronic pancreatitis (SMD = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.31-1.18).

With an uncoated tablet plus a proton pump inhibitor, fat absorption improved by 28 percentage points more than placebo in chronic pancreatitis or after pancreatectomy. (Source 25)

• Randomized trial, Low certainty.
• Size: 50 adults randomised; 29 received the drug and 20 placebo in the double-blind period.
• Who: adults aged 24 to 70 with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatectomy; 96% White, 82% male.
• How long: 6 to 7 days double-blind after a 6 to 7 day washout.
• Result: coefficient of fat absorption rose from 48 (SD 24) at washout to 86 (SD 9); placebo 57 (SD 22) to 58 (SD 24). Treatment difference 28 percentage points (95% CI 18, 37), p<0.0001.
• Funding: industry-funded registration trial; label held by Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

Limit of this finding: The label contradicts itself on the denominator: the narrative says 29 patients received VIOKACE while this table, headed "Intent to Treat Population", is headed VIOKACE n = 30. Neither figure should be treated as settled; the table count is the randomised one. The block also now carries the label's own limits on the result: the gain was larger in people who started with worse fat absorption, and only 2 of the 11 treated patients with a pancreatectomy history had had the whole pancreas removed. Everyone in the trial also took a proton pump inhibitor, so this is not a test of the tablet alone, and the whole double-blind period lasted 6 to 7 days.

The mean change in CFA at the end of the double-blind treatment period in the VIOKACE and placebo groups is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Change in Coefficient of Fat Absorption in Adults with Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Due to Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatectomy - Intent to Treat Population VIOKACE n = 30 Placebo n = 20 CFA [%] Washout Period (Mean, SD) 48 (24) 57 (22) End of Double-Blind Period (Mean, SD) 86 (9) 58 (24) Change in CFA * [%] Treatment Difference (95% CI) 28 (18, 37) * p<0.0001

What the evidence does not support

The Cochrane review found no evidence on long-term effectiveness or risks of pancreatic enzyme replacement in cystic fibrosis, and only limited evidence that enteric-coated preparations beat uncoated ones. (Source 14)

• Systematic review, Low certainty.
• Size: 14 trials, 641 children and adults with cystic fibrosis; individual trials of 14 to 129 participants.
• Who: children and adults with cystic fibrosis taking enzyme replacement.
• How long: 13 trials lasted four weeks and one lasted seven weeks.
• Result: no meta-analysis was possible for most comparisons; the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low; most trials had unclear randomisation risk of bias and high risk of attrition and reporting bias.
• Funding: Cochrane review; funding not stated in the abstract.

Limit of this finding: The passage contains the source's own missing space, in "individual trials.There is no evidence"; the words are the review's. "No evidence" here means no trial looked, not that long-term enzyme therapy has been shown to be ineffective or unsafe.

There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over trials is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the trials due to over-inflation of CIs from the individual trials.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with PERT.

The Cochrane review could not pool the cystic fibrosis trials and rated their quality from moderate down to very low. (Source 26)

• Systematic review, Low certainty.
• Size: 14 trials, 641 participants.
• Who: children and adults with cystic fibrosis.
• How long: four weeks in 13 trials, seven weeks in one.
• Result: the reviewers state the individual trials gave insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations.
• Funding: Cochrane review; funding not stated in the abstract.

The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. We mostly could not combine data from the trials as they compared different formulations and the findings from individual trials provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations.

For enzyme therapy during or after acute pancreatitis the outcome evidence is inconsistent and graded low certainty. (Source 5)

• Systematic review, Low certainty.
• Size: 28 studies, 14,874 patients.
• Who: adults during or after an episode of acute pancreatitis.
• How long: varies; prescribing rates pooled from non-randomised studies.
• Result: pooled prescribing 17.8% (95% CI 11.4-26.7%) overall, 28.4% (15.5-46.0%) in necrotising and 42.7% (23.8-64.0%) in severe disease; outcome data inconsistent, heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis of treatment effect, overall certainty low.
• Funding: not stated in the abstract.

Outcomes data were inconsistent across biochemical, symptom, and quality-of-life endpoints; heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis of treatment effect. Overall evidence certainty was low.

Adding a proton pump inhibitor or H2 blocker made no measurable difference to how well pancrelipase worked in a pooled analysis of 34 trials. (Source 27)

• Cohort study, Low certainty.
• Size: 34 trials, 1142 unique subjects; 254 on acid suppression versus 449 not, for the fat-absorption endpoint.
• Who: people with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, mostly cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic surgery.
• How long: as reported in the pooled trials.
• Result: end-of-treatment coefficient of fat absorption 82.7% with concomitant acid suppression versus 84.2% without; no meaningful differences by disease type.
• Funding: industry-funded (a retrospective analysis of trials supported by Abbott, the manufacturer)

Limit of this finding: This is a retrospective, non-randomised comparison inside a dataset of trials funded by Abbott, the manufacturer of the product being evaluated, and the people on acid suppression chose it or were prescribed it for their own reasons. The comparison also rests on 703 subjects (254 against 449) out of the 1142 named in the methods, with no explanation in the abstract of the other 439. The result is reported with no confidence interval, no p-value and no equivalence margin, so it shows that this pooling found no difference, not that acid suppression has no effect.

There were no meaningful differences in mean CFA values at the end of pancrelipase/pancreatin treatment by concomitant PPI/H2RA use: yes (n = 254), 82.7% versus no (n = 449), 84.2%. No meaningful differences were observed when the same analysis was carried out by disease type (cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreatic surgery).

Where the research disagrees

Whether acid suppression improves how well pancreatic enzyme replacement works

• de la Iglesia-García and colleagues (meta-analysis in chronic pancreatitis), systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies, 511 patients, with high heterogeneity: PERT is indicated to correct EPI and malnutrition in CP and may be improved by higher doses, enteric coating, administration during food and acid suppression. Further studies are required to determine optimal regimens, the impact of health inequalities and long-term effects on nutrition. (Source 28)
• Sander-Struckmeier and colleagues (pooled manufacturer trial data), retrospective, non-randomised analysis of 34 manufacturer-supported trials, 1142 subjects: This analysis of data from clinical trials enrolling patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency suggests that the efficacy of pancrelipase/pancreatin is not affected by concomitant PPI/H2RA use, as determined by end-of-treatment CFA values, and supports the treatment guidelines' recommendation that acid suppression is not routinely required with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. (Source 29)
• Ng and the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis review authors, Cochrane systematic review of 17 trials, 273 participants, mostly crossover, no meta-analysis possible, reporting too poor to judge risk of bias: However, one trial found that drug therapies that reduce gastric acidity improved gastro-intestinal symptoms such as abdominal pain; seven trials reported significant improvement in measures of fat malabsorption; and two trials reported no significant improvement in nutritional status. Only one trial reported measures of respiratory function and one trial reported an adverse effect with prostaglandin E2 analogue misoprostol. No trials have been identified assessing the effectiveness of these agents in improving quality of life, the complications of increased gastric acidity, or survival. (Source 30)

Whether enteric-coated preparations are better than uncoated ones

• Somaraju and the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis review authors, Cochrane systematic review of 14 trials, 641 participants, quality moderate to very low: There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over trials is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the trials due to over-inflation of CIs from the individual trials.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with PERT. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed trial that can answer these questions. (Source 14)
• de la Iglesia-García and colleagues, meta-analysis of chronic pancreatitis trials; described as a trend, not a demonstrated difference: High-dose or enteric-coated enzymes showed a trend to greater effectiveness than low-dose or non-coated comparisons, respectively. Subgroup, sensitive and meta-regression analyses revealed that sample size, CP diagnostic criteria, study design and enzyme dose contributed to heterogeneity; data on health inequalities were lacking. (Source 3)

Whether the dose of enzymes, or the product itself, drove fibrosing colonopathy

• FitzSimmons and colleagues, case-control study of 29 cases and 105 matched controls; product strength, coating and manufacturer were not associated with risk: In young children with cystic fibrosis, we found a strong relation between high daily doses of pancreatic-enzyme supplements and the development of fibrosing colonopathy. Our findings support recommendations that the daily dose of pancreatic enzymes for most patients should remain below 10,000 units of lipase per kilogram. (Source 31)
• The current Creon label, regulatory position (effective 2024-02-28) carrying the dose association while stating the mechanism is unknown: Pancreatic enzyme products exceeding 6,000 lipase units/kg/meal have been associated with colonic stricture, a complication of fibrosing colonopathy, in pediatric patients less than 12 years of age. The underlying mechanism of fibrosing colonopathy remains unknown. (Source 16)

How much

• Reference intake: There is no reference intake: this is a prescription medicine dosed in lipase units by the prescriber. As a regulatory position, the Creon label (AbbVie Inc., effective 2024-02-28) states that dosing is based on lipase units, that treatment starts at the lowest recommended dosage and is individualised to symptoms, the degree of fatty stool and the fat content of the diet, and that the total daily amount should reflect about three meals plus two or three snacks. (Source 32)
• Upper limit: There is no tolerable upper intake. The label's ceiling, which exists because of fibrosing colonopathy, is a do-not-exceed statement: 2,500 lipase units/kg/meal, 10,000 lipase units/kg/day, or 4,000 lipase units/g of fat eaten per day, in adults and children over 12 months, without further investigation. The same section records that doses above 6,000 lipase units/kg/meal have been linked after marketing to fibrosing colonopathy and colonic strictures in children under 12. (Source 33)
• Studied: The two cystic fibrosis registration studies gave 4,000 lipase units per gram of fat eaten per day, or matching placebo, for 5 to 6 days each way, on a diet of at least 90 grams of fat per day. (Source 2)
• Studied: The chronic pancreatitis and pancreatectomy study gave 72,000 lipase units per main meal (three meals) and 36,000 per snack (two snacks), about 1,000 lipase units/kg/meal, for 7 days. (Source 4)
• Studied: The uncoated-tablet study gave 125,280 lipase units per meal and 41,760 per snack with a proton pump inhibitor for 6 to 7 days. (Source 34)
• Studied: In the fibrosing colonopathy case-control study the mean daily amount was 50,046 lipase units/kg/day in cases and 18,985 in controls. (Source 15)

A common belief, and what the research shows

The belief: Pancreatic enzyme capsules are digestive enzyme supplements, so a higher dose is simply better digestion.

What the research shows: The dose ceiling on these products exists because of a specific scarring bowel disease. In a case-control study of 29 children, "The mean dose of pancreatic-enzyme supplement was 50,046 units of lipase per kilogram of body weight per day for the case patients and 18,985 units per kilogram per day for the controls", and the adjusted relative risk above 50,000 units/kg/day was 199.5. The label therefore carries a do-not-exceed statement rather than a target. The other half of the misconception is that these are interchangeable supplements: until 2010 they were sold in the United States without ever having been formally reviewed, and the review that ended that "found a large variability of response between the unapproved PEP products".

Questions and answers

What is it?

Pancrelipase is an extract of pig pancreas containing lipase, protease and amylase, the three enzyme families the pancreas normally secretes to digest food. It is sold as prescription delayed-release capsules of enteric-coated spheres, and as one uncoated tablet product. The coating is designed to open at about pH 5.5 or above, so the enzymes survive the stomach and act in the small intestine. Strengths are stated in lipase units. (Source 7)

What does it do in the body?

It does the pancreas's digestive job from outside. The lipases split fats into monoglyceride, glycerol and free fatty acids; the proteases break proteins into peptides and amino acids; the amylases break starches into dextrins and short sugars. This happens in the duodenum and upper small intestine, the same place and the same chemistry as the body's own pancreatic juice. (Source 1)

Is it good or bad for you?

For someone whose pancreas genuinely cannot make enough enzymes it is clearly beneficial: a meta-analysis of 14 placebo-controlled trials in 684 people found large improvements in both fat and protein absorption. The dose is where it turns harmful. Very high daily lipase doses in young children with cystic fibrosis were strongly associated with fibrosing colonopathy, a scarring narrowing of the colon, which is why every label carries a do-not-exceed statement. There is also no evidence at all on long-term effects. (Source 24)

How do you get more of it?

The amount a person takes is set by the prescriber in lipase units, starting at the lowest recommended dosage and adjusted to symptoms, the degree of fatty stool and the fat in the diet, which can take several days to settle. The label's daily total assumes about three meals plus two or three snacks, with roughly half a meal dose at each snack, and sets ceilings of 2,500 lipase units/kg/meal, 10,000 units/kg/day and 4,000 units per gram of fat eaten per day for anyone over 12 months of age. Taking the capsules during meals and snacks, swallowed whole, is how the enzymes reach the gut intact. There is no food or supplement that supplies pancrelipase. (Source 32)

If it is harmful, what reduces it?

The enzymes are not absorbed and are not removed by any procedure; the question is one of dose. Where the dose is the problem, the labelling describes monitoring and titrating downward rather than any method of clearance. For overdose the recorded consequences are the dose-related ones: fibrosing colonopathy with colonic strictures, and raised uric acid in blood and urine. (Source 35)

Why might someone be low in it or missing it?

The reason someone needs it at all is that their own pancreas no longer delivers enough enzymes: cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis, or surgical removal of part or all of the pancreas. Most people with cystic fibrosis need it, and the Cochrane review puts that at 80% to 90%. Someone can also be functionally without it while taking it, by crushing or chewing the capsules or mixing them into non-acidic food, which destroys the enzymes before they arrive. (Source 36)

Which whole foods contain it or feed it?

No whole food contains pancrelipase; it is a pig-derived enzyme preparation. Food matters here because of acidity: the label says the capsule contents may be sprinkled only on a small amount of soft food at pH 4.5 or less, naming applesauce, bananas and plain Greek yogurt, because less acidic food can break the coating and release the enzymes in the mouth. These are the instructions for adults and children over 12 months of age; infants under 12 months have separate instructions in the same section. (Source 6)

What happens if you do not have it?

Without enzyme replacement, someone with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency absorbs far less of what they eat. The placebo arms of the cystic fibrosis trials show the size of it: fat absorption of 49% and 47% untreated against 89% and 83% on treatment, and nitrogen (protein) absorption of 49% and 45% against 86% and 80%. The Cochrane review states that most people with cystic fibrosis need the therapy to prevent malnutrition. (Source 37)

How can you test for it?

The measure used throughout the trial literature is the coefficient of fat absorption, worked out from a 72-hour stool collection while fat intake is measured, with the placebo period giving each person their own untreated value. It is accurate but demanding, which is why it belongs to research rather than routine care. The sources we reached describe no simpler validated test of whether a given dose is working, and the Cochrane review notes variability between centres in how pancreatic function is assessed at all. (Source 4)

References

1. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 12.1 Mechanism of Action. 2024. Read the source
2. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 14.1 Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Due to Cystic Fibrosis. 2024. Read the source
3. Gut. Efficacy of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreatitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2017. PMID 27941156, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312529. Read the source
4. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 14.2 Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Due to Chronic Pancreatitis or Pancreatectomy. 2024. Read the source
5. HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy use in acute pancreatitis - a systematic review of current practice.. 2026. PMID 42436070, DOI 10.1016/j.hpb.2026.06.010. Read the source
6. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 2.3 Preparation and Administration Instructions. 2024. Read the source
7. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 11 DESCRIPTION. 2024. Read the source
8. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (DailyMed SPL). VIOKACE (pancrelipase) tablets - prescribing information - 1. INDICATIONS AND USAGE. 2025. Read the source
9. American journal of diseases of children (1960). Effect of pancreatic enzyme supplements on iron absorption.. 1989. PMID 2756973, DOI 10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150200131032. Read the source
10. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.2 Irritation of the Oral Mucosa. 2024. Read the source
11. Physicians Total Care, Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - archived 2012 prescribing information (Physicians Total Care repackager) - 7 DRUG INTERACTIONS. 2012. Read the source
12. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 2.1 Important Dosing Information (do not substitute). 2024. Read the source
13. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.1 Fibrosing Colonopathy. 2024. Read the source
14. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.. 2020. PMID 32761612, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008227.pub4. Read the source
15. The New England journal of medicine. High-dose pancreatic-enzyme supplements and fibrosing colonopathy in children with cystic fibrosis.. 1997. PMID 9113931, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199705013361803. Read the source
16. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.1 Fibrosing Colonopathy. 2024. Read the source
17. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 6.1 Clinical Trials Experience. 2024. Read the source
18. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 6.1 Clinical Trials Experience. 2024. Read the source
19. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 6.2 Postmarketing Experience. 2024. Read the source
20. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.4 Risk of Viral Transmission. 2024. Read the source
21. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.3 Hyperuricemia. 2024. Read the source
22. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 5.5 Hypersensitivity Reactions. 2024. Read the source
23. The Annals of pharmacotherapy. Pancreatic enzyme products: digesting the changes.. 2011. PMID 21540403, DOI 10.1345/aph.1P770. Read the source
24. European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. Efficacy of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy on exocrine pancreatic insufficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2026. PMID 42467921, DOI 10.1097/MEG.0000000000003225. Read the source
25. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (DailyMed SPL). VIOKACE (pancrelipase) tablets - prescribing information - Coefficient of Fat Absorption Endpoint and Results. 2025. Read the source
26. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.. 2020. PMID 32761612, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008227.pub4. Read the source
27. Pancreas. Retrospective analysis to investigate the effect of concomitant use of gastric acid-suppressing drugs on the efficacy and safety of pancrelipase/pancreatin (CREON®) in patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency.. 2013. PMID 23587850, DOI 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31828784ef. Read the source
28. Gut. Efficacy of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in chronic pancreatitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2017. PMID 27941156, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312529. Read the source
29. Pancreas. Retrospective analysis to investigate the effect of concomitant use of gastric acid-suppressing drugs on the efficacy and safety of pancrelipase/pancreatin (CREON®) in patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency.. 2013. PMID 23587850, DOI 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31828784ef. Read the source
30. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Drug therapies for reducing gastric acidity in people with cystic fibrosis.. 2021. PMID 33905540, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003424.pub5. Read the source
31. The New England journal of medicine. High-dose pancreatic-enzyme supplements and fibrosing colonopathy in children with cystic fibrosis.. 1997. PMID 9113931, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199705013361803. Read the source
32. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 2.1 Important Dosing Information. 2024. Read the source
33. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 8.4 Pediatric Use. 2024. Read the source
34. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (DailyMed SPL). VIOKACE (pancrelipase) tablets - prescribing information - 14. CLINICAL STUDIES. 2025. Read the source
35. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 10 OVERDOSAGE. 2024. Read the source
36. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE. 2024. Read the source
37. AbbVie Inc. (DailyMed SPL). CREON (pancrelipase) delayed-release capsules - prescribing information - 14.1 Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Due to Cystic Fibrosis. 2024. Read the source