I've been reading about the success of EEN in inducing remission, but I haven't heard much about people staying on it for months or years. Does anyone have experience with this? Why do people transition off EEN if it's working?
More detailed version:
My 10 year old son was diagnosed with Crohn's a few months ago, and he was treated with antibiotics, Remicade, and a feeding tube with nighttime feeds for about 10 weeks. The doctor's perspective on the feeding tube was that it was intended to improve nutrition and weight but not intended to replace eating or really treat the inflammation itself. We were told he could continue eating what he felt like, and since the tube itself was an annoyance it was nice for him to get it out.
I noticed a dramatic improvement in his condition almost immediately after he got the feeding tube. Since the tube has been out, he's been drinking a few bottle of Pediasure every day, and I've been starting to notice a connection between eating more other foods and him feeling worse. At this point I'm starting to wonder why we're bothering with feeding him other foods if it's just going to make him feel bad--he'd probably be just as happy on the all-Pediasure diet anyway. Even before diagnosis, we tried feeding him some Pediasure and noticed a sudden improvement in diarrhea.
The goal has been to get him eating normally through drugs, but I'm wondering if this is not a worthwhile tradeoff. Why hurry him onto a normal diet? Remicade is a very scary drug with many side-effects. If patients can just go on an all-formula diet and have similar or better long-term results, why subject people to these risks? I've also heard of people transitioning from EEN to the specific carbohydrate diet, usually involving a great deal of difficulty, but if EEN is working why try so hard to switch away from it? (I understand why people don't want to use a feeding tube, specifically, for the rest of their lives, but why not drink the same formula if it works?)
More detailed version:
My 10 year old son was diagnosed with Crohn's a few months ago, and he was treated with antibiotics, Remicade, and a feeding tube with nighttime feeds for about 10 weeks. The doctor's perspective on the feeding tube was that it was intended to improve nutrition and weight but not intended to replace eating or really treat the inflammation itself. We were told he could continue eating what he felt like, and since the tube itself was an annoyance it was nice for him to get it out.
I noticed a dramatic improvement in his condition almost immediately after he got the feeding tube. Since the tube has been out, he's been drinking a few bottle of Pediasure every day, and I've been starting to notice a connection between eating more other foods and him feeling worse. At this point I'm starting to wonder why we're bothering with feeding him other foods if it's just going to make him feel bad--he'd probably be just as happy on the all-Pediasure diet anyway. Even before diagnosis, we tried feeding him some Pediasure and noticed a sudden improvement in diarrhea.
The goal has been to get him eating normally through drugs, but I'm wondering if this is not a worthwhile tradeoff. Why hurry him onto a normal diet? Remicade is a very scary drug with many side-effects. If patients can just go on an all-formula diet and have similar or better long-term results, why subject people to these risks? I've also heard of people transitioning from EEN to the specific carbohydrate diet, usually involving a great deal of difficulty, but if EEN is working why try so hard to switch away from it? (I understand why people don't want to use a feeding tube, specifically, for the rest of their lives, but why not drink the same formula if it works?)
Last edited: