P518 Partial enteral nutrition use for Crohn’s disease management: a systematic review
Jatkowska, A.(1);White, B.(1);Gkikas, K.(1);Seenan, J.P.(2);MacDonald, J.(2);Gerasimidis, K.(1);
(1)University of Glasgow, Human Nutrition, Glasgow, United Kingdom;(2)Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Glasgow, United Kingdom;
Background
Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is an established treatment for the induction of clinical remission in children with active Crohn’s disease (CD). However, the benefit of partial enteral nutrition (PEN), in which only some diet is replaced with enteral nutrition, is not well-documented for the management of CD. This review explored the effectiveness of PEN as sole or adjunctive induction and maintenance therapy in patients with CD.
Methods
The protocol for this review was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, protocol ID: CRD42021239325). Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic bibliographic databases. Eligible study designs included: randomised control trials (RCTs), prospective, retrospective, and case control studies. Level of evidence was assessed with CASP tools with an emphasis on study design, and assessment of compliance and objective disease activity biomarkers. Two researchers evaluated each paper separately and when needed, consensus was resolved by a third.
Results
56 articles met the inclusion criteria, grouped under the following 6 distinct areas for PEN use in CD: 1) induction treatment; 2) maintenance treatment; 3) prevention of post-operative recurrence; 4) prevention of loss of response (LOR) to anti-TNFα therapies; 5) nutritional rehabilitation; 6) improvement of quality of life (QOL). Low-quality evidence suggests PEN may improve disease activity in patients with active CD; treatment efficacy was observed to be better in studies using higher proportions of energy intake from PEN. Good quality evidence suggests PEN combined with exclusion diets may be effective in active CD. However, most available studies originated from a single research group, and the additional benefits of exclusion diets over PEN are unclear, particularly as most studies used either high PEN volumes (>75% of energy requirements), or EEN prior to PEN initiation. Good quality evidence shows that PEN at high volumes (≥35-50%) may prolong medically or surgically induced remission and improve the nutritional status of patients with malnutrition or growth delay. Low-quality evidence suggests that PEN may improve response and remission rates to infliximab therapy in CD. Three retrospective studies found that concomitant PEN with anti-TNFα therapies could prevent LOR. Some evidence indicates that PEN is associated with better QOL in patients with active disease or in remission.
Conclusion
PEN may have a beneficial role in various aspects of CD management; however, more robust data including RCTs are needed before specific recommendations can be made.