Effect of prolyl endopeptidase in patients with celiac disease on a long-term gluten-free diet.

Ana Florencia Costa, Sonia Isabel Niveloni, Roberto Puebla, Elena F Verdú, Julio César Bai, Juan Pablo Stefanolo, Isabel Comino, Verónica Segura, Carolina Sousa, Martina Grizzuti, Abel Heredia, María Paz Temprano, Gabriel de Diego, María E Oregui, Edgardo Gustavo Smecuol, Mauricio C de Marzi

Journal: World journal of gastroenterology 2024;30(11):1545-1555

PMID: 38617446

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The gluten-free diet (GFD) has limitations, and there is intense research in the development of adjuvant therapies.

AIM

To examine the effects of orally administered prolyl endopeptidase protease (AN-PEP) on inadvertent gluten exposure and symptom prevention in adult celiac disease (CeD) patients following their usual GFD.

METHODS

This was an exploratory, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled CeD patients on a long-term GFD. After a 4-wk run-in period, patients were randomized to 4 wk of two AN-PEP capsules (GliadinX; AVI Research, LLC, United States) at each of three meals per day or placebo. Outcome endpoints were: (1) Average weekly stool gluten immunogenic peptides (GIP) between the run-in and end of treatments and between AN-PEP and placebo; (2) celiac symptom index (CSI); (3) CeD-specific serology; and (4) quality of life. Stool samples were collected for GIP testing by ELISA every Tuesday and Friday during run-ins and treatments.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized for the intention-to-treat analysis, and three were excluded from the per-protocol assessment. Overall, 628/640 (98.1%) stool samples were collected. GIP was undetectable (< 0.08 μg/g) in 65.6% of samples, and no differences between treatment arms were detected. Only 0.5% of samples had GIP concentrations sufficiently high (> 0.32 μg/g) to potentially cause mucosal damage. Median GIP concentration in the AN-PEP arm was 44.7% lower than in the run-in period. One-third of patients exhibiting GIP > 0.08 μg/g during run-in had lower or undetectable GIP after AN-PEP treatment. Compared with the run- in period, the proportion of symptomatic patients (CSI > 38) in the AN-PEP arm was significantly lower ( < 0.03). AN-PEP did not result in changes in specific serologies.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study conducted in a real-life setting revealed high adherence to the GFD. The AN-PEP treatment did not significantly reduce the overall GIP stool concentration. However, given the observation of a significantly lower prevalence of patients with severe symptoms in the AN-PEP arm, further clinical research is warranted.

©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Address: Small Bowel Section, Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology Hospital of Buenos Aires "Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo", Buenos Aires 1264, Argentina.; Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Seville, Seville 41080, Spain.; Department of Medicine, Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires 1264, Argentina.; Basic and Applied Research Group in Immunology and Bioactives (GIBAIB), Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development (INEDES), National University of Lujan, Luján 6700, Buenos Aires, Argentina.; Department of Medicine, Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Medicine, Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires 1264, Argentina.; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires C1051ABB, Argentina. [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.