In very old attempts to treat PA in a study I looked at some time back, they used similarly nonhuman-animal-derived intrinsic factor under the theory that it might help replace the lost or disabled intrinsic factor due to PA.
It's a while since I looked at the paper but my recollection is that not only did it not work, but in fact measured antibodies against the intrinsic factor rose (perhaps there is some difference in porcine intrinsic factor vs human such that, like a transplant , the body rejects it.)
If you don't already have antibodies against intrinsic factor, it is possible that taking such a product might even cause new antibodies against intrinsic factor to arise. And that wouldn't be good. A situation I would not wish on my worst enemy in fact. If you already had antibodies due to PA, its likely they would attack the new intrinsic factor also, perhaps negating any benefit.
We might have an old thread about this or I might discover the old study with some digging but the outcome was not positive that I recall.
I would stay well clear of this and other products like it at the moment.
I think this was the paper. I have not made a systematic review to find more recent papers so there could be advances I haven't come across but I just remember bumping into this one:
Some years ago, I noticed in some UK document a phrase something like: Products containing intrinsic factor derived from animals have no place in the treatment of pernicious anaemia.
I thought it was the British National Formulary but I couldn't find it today - whether I have mis-remembered or they have changed the BNF, I don't know. Nor did it explain!
Scientist, not medic. There are some things that are just too confusing here!
Back in the mists of time we had Schilling Tests, We had a package, DiCoPak, which allowed us to measure B12 absorption simultaneously. This consisted of two capsules; one of radioactive B12, and the other of radioactive B12 bound to intrinsic factor. We had different isotopes of cobalt so it was possible to count these simultaneously. So, in the absence of 'intrinsic' intrinsic factor, the unbound B12 wasn't absorbed, whereas the bound B12 was, so the inclusion of [not sure if it was porcine or bovine] IF allowed absorption of B12. The test worked even when IFAb were present, so oral IF did work.
When Castle proved the existence of IF in his famous experiments, no doubt some of his subjects probably had IFAb but still benefitted from the treatment.
When Minot and Murphy used large doses of liver to treat patients successfully, there was no IF present in the liver, but it still worked. Megadose oral B12 can still work in some cases, but not all.
So there's evidence that oral IF has worked in the past under laboratory conditions, but that's as far as it goes.
Technoid's response sums it up nicely. I'd avoid this preparation too!
It made Schilling tests very easy from our end, apart from the trail to hospital, the B12 injection, the 'swallow these please!' and 'take this home, and collect your next 24 hours-worth of pee', then bring it back.
Plus the cost of the capsules. I don't think we will ever have given anyone mad cow disease, or mad sheep disease, from the IF in the pack. But you never know!
It was possible to farm the kit out to other labs for administration and return of the urine, but even that added extra risks, which I'd best not share.
I tried something similar, when, years back I was grasping at straws to avoid self - injecting . Useless for me . Self - injecting is the only thing that works for me.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.