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.
METHODS: We reviewed all children with gastroesophageal varices seen in our unit from 2000 to 2019. Primary prophylaxis was defined as endoscopic procedure without a preceding spontaneous bleeding and secondary prophylaxis as preceded by spontaneous bleeding. High-risk varices were defined as presence of grade III esophageal varices, cardia gastric varices or cherry red spots on the varices. Outcome measures (spontaneous rebleeding within 3 months after endoscopic procedure, number of additional procedures to eradicate varices, liver transplant [LT], death) were ascertained.
RESULTS: Sixteen of 62 (26%) patients (median [± S.D.] age at diagnosis = 5.0 ± 4.3 years) with varices had primary prophylaxis, 38 (61%) had secondary prophylaxis while 8 (13%) had no prophylaxis. No difference in the proportion of patients with high-risk varices was observed between primary (88%) and secondary (92%; P = 0.62) prophylaxis. As compared to secondary prophylaxis, children who had primary prophylaxis were significantly less likely to have spontaneous rebleeding (6% vs. 38%; P = 0.022) and needed significantly fewer repeated endoscopic procedures (0.9 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 2.5; P = 0.021). After 8.9 ± 5.5 years of follow-up, overall survival was 85%; survival with native liver was 73%. No statistical difference was observed in the eventual outcome (alive with native liver) between primary and secondary (71% vs. 78%, P = 0.78).
CONCLUSION: Children with PHT who had primary prophylaxis had less subsequent spontaneous rebleeding and needed fewer additional endoscopic procedures as compared to secondary prophylaxis but did not have an improved eventual outcome. Screening endoscopy in all children who have signs of PHT and primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices should be considered before eventual LT.
METHODS: In this retrospective review on children 452 μmol/L and peak GGT