The best data to date: D Lee et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 1786-93. In this prospective study, the authors studied treatment initiation in children (N=90), comparing partial enteral nutrition (PEN, n=16), exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN, n=22), and anti-TNF therapy (n=52).
- Clinical response, defined by PCDAI reduction ≤15 or final PCDAI ≤10, was achieved by 64% PEN, 88% EEN, and 84% anti-TNF.
- Fecal calprotectin ≤250 noted in 14% PEN, 45% EEN, and 62% anti-TNF
Because of the discrepancy between EEN and PEN, the authors speculate that the “efficacy of EEN may be a consequence of elimination of table food rather than providing a uniquely therapeutic method of delivering nutrients.” They note that “choice of formula has not impacted the efficacy of enteral nutrition.”
More extensive information on this subject: D Lee et al. Gastroenterol 2015; 148: 1087-1106.
Bottomline: Anti-TNF therapy was as effective or more effective than EEN. And, “for patients who prefer treatment with a nutrition-based therapy, EEN seems superior to PEN.”
Related blog posts:
Pingback: Nutrition Symposium Georgia AAP (Part 3) | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: Why Does Enteral Nutrition Work for Crohn’s Disease? Is it due to the Microbiome? | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: My Favorite Posts 2015 | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: “Eternal Nutrition” Therapy | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: Gold Medal Winner: Infliximab (anti-TNF competition) | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: February Briefs | gutsandgrowth
Pingback: Dietary Therapy for Adults with Crohn’s Disease | gutsandgrowth