METHODS: All children diagnosed with CD between 1995 and 2019 were reviewed. Response to induction was compared between EEN and standard immunosuppression (IS) using Paediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index, growth failure, perianal disease and extra-intestinal manifestations. Two study groups were analysed: (i) primary induction and (ii) re-induction for relapses.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine children (mean age (± standard deviation) at diagnosis 9.4 ± 8.5 years old, ileo-colonic 35%, non-stricturing 79%) were studied. At primary induction (group 1; n = 18), no difference was observed in remission rates (9/13 vs. 5/5; P = 0.278), efficacy for improving growth failure (6/8 vs. 0/1; P > 0.999), perianal disease (4/6 vs. 0/2; P > 0.999) and extra-intestinal manifestations (2/2 vs. 0/0; P > 0.999) with EEN or standard IS. Group 2 (n = 38 relapses), no difference was observed in remission rates (16/19 vs. 15/19, P > 0.999), growth failure (0/7 vs. 4/14; P = 0.328), perianal disease (1/10 vs. 7/7; P > 0.999) and extra-intestinal manifestations (0/0 vs. 1/1; P > 0.999) with EEN or standard IS. Both treatment modalities were equally effective as re-induction in relapses in patients previously treated with EEN (P = 0.191).
CONCLUSION: As compared to standard IS, EEN was equally effective in primary induction and re-induction for relapse in Asian children with CD and can be repeatedly used for recurrent relapses.