012 布德松对克罗恩病患者药物缓解的维持：一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照临床试验的整合分析

克罗恩病（CD）是一个慢性复发的过程。急性发作期和自发缓解或药物诱导的缓解期不断交替。克罗恩病的治疗目标是诱导缓解及维持缓解。大剂量全身性激素的使用可以使轻中度活动性CD得到缓解，但因不良作用较大不能作维持治疗，而小剂量全身性激素亦不能维持缓解。非全身性激素（布德松）也可以诱导轻中度活动性CD的缓解，且不良事件较少。本研究旨在评价口服布德松对轻中度活动性CD患者维持缓解的效果及安全性。     

诱导缓解治疗对系统性红斑狼疮患者外周血CD4^＋CD25^＋T细胞表达的影响

目的探讨CD4^＋CD25^＋调节性T细胞在系统性红斑狼疮（SLE）患者诱导缓解治疗前后外周血的表达及其临床意义。方法入选28例SLE患者和15例正常对照者（对照组）。用流式细胞仪检测SLE患者和对照组的外周血CD4^＋CD25^＋T细胞阳性率。结果SLE患者在诱导缓解治疗前后CD4^＋CD25^＋调节性T细胞比率均低于对照组（P〈0．05）;诱导缓解治疗后患者外周血CD4^＋CD25^＋调节性T细胞比率较治疗前回升,两者间比较无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;SLE合并肾损害者CD4^＋CD25^＋T细胞比率显著低于未合并肾损害者（P〈0．05）。结论SLE患者外周血CD4^＋CD25^＋调节性T细胞数量显著低于正常人,合并肾损害者更明显,且CD4^＋CD25^＋T细胞比率和狼疮活动性指数之间存在相关性。诱导缓解治疗上调了患者外周血CD4^＋CD25^＋T细胞的数量。     

新型生物制剂英夫利西治疗克罗恩病10例

目的 观察新型生物制剂英夫利西(infliximab)治疗10例克罗恩病(CD)患者的疗效及安全性.方法 前瞻性开放性研究英夫利西静脉滴注治疗经常规治疗无效或激素依赖的中、重度活动性CD患者8例和以反复下消化道大出血为主要临床表现的CD患者2例.在第0、2、6周给予5 mg/kg荆量作为诱导缓解,随后每隔8周给予相同剂量维持,临床与内镜随访30周.结果 ①治疗2周时,8例活动性CD患者中5例有效;30周时4例临床缓解(其中3例停用激素),1例有效;②2例以反复下消化道出血为主要临床表现者随访30周无再出血;③30周时复查肠镜6例,其中溃疡完全愈合或基本愈合4例;④7例发生不良事件,其中严重不良反应2例,分别为肺炎和迟发型过敏反应各1例.结论 英夫利西可诱导并维持部分活动性CD缓解,促进CD肠黏膜病变愈合,严重不良反应发生率不高.     

雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液在AECOPD的作用

目的以随机、对照试验比较雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液和口服泼尼松龙对AECOPD的作用。方法实验分3组,布地奈德组给予布地奈德雾化液4mg,雾化吸入,每12h1次;泼尼松龙组给予泼尼松龙片20mg,口服,每天2次,7d后减为10mg口服,每天2次;对照组不使用任何糖皮质激素。观察期为24、48h,7d和14d。结果布地奈德组、泼尼松龙组与对照组比较,FEV1、PaO2、PaCO2、pH改善值具有显著性差异（P〈0．05）;布地奈德组、泼尼松龙组两组各项指标改善程度相似（P〉0．05）,但布地奈德组副作用明显低于泼尼松龙组（P〈0．05）。结论雾化吸入布地奈德混悬液可有效改善AECOPD的气流受限,疗效与口服泼尼松龙相似,全身副作用小,可作为皮质激素治疗的另一选择。     

布地奈德治疗胶原性结肠炎疗效和安全性的荟萃分析

背景:胶原性结肠炎以慢性水样腹泻和结肠黏膜上皮下胶原带增厚为特征,目前尚无标准治疗方案。目的:系统评价口服布地奈德治疗胶原性结肠炎的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(1995～2008.1)、MEDLINE/PubMed(1978～2009.12)、Ovid(1978～2009.12)、EMBASE(1978～2009.12)、中国期刊全文数据库(1980～2009.12)和万方数据资源系统(1980～2009.12),纳入所有口服布地奈德治疗胶原性结肠炎的随机对照试验(RCT),按Cochrane协作网推荐的方法进行荟萃分析。结果:共纳入5项RCT,包括179例患者,3项研究评价了诱导缓解治疗,2项评价了维持治疗。在诱导缓解方面,布地奈德的临床和组织学缓解率均优于安慰剂(OR=15.04,95% CI:5.47～41.33,P0.000 01;OR=34.02,95% CI:5.90～196.20,P0.0001)。在维持治疗方面,布地奈德的临床复发率和组织学缓解维持率亦优于安慰剂(OR=0.11.95% CI:0.04～0.31,P0.0001;0R=5.88,95% CI:1.90～18.17,P=-0.002)。布地奈德不良反应轻微,耐受性良好。结论:口服布地奈德能有效诱导并维持胶原性结肠炎的临床和组织学缓解,耐受性良好。由于本荟萃分析纳入研究的样本量较小,故应谨慎对待上述结论,并设计、开展大样本、高质量的RCT作进一步验证。     

糖皮质激素在炎症性肠病中的应用

炎症性肠病(IBD)是糖皮质激素(简称激素)治疗的适应证.IBD包括溃疡性结肠炎(UC)和克罗恩病(CD).对UC患者,激素可经静脉、口服、直肠灌注或栓剂给药.直肠灌注或栓剂的成分可以是传统使用的激素、布地奈德或人体生物利用度低的其他激素.对CD患者,传统使用的激素可以口服给药,亦可静脉给药.布地奈德可以口服.     

乌司奴单抗治疗中-重度活动性克罗恩病疗效和安全性的Meta分析

目的系统评价乌司奴单抗治疗中-重度活动性克罗恩病(Crohn’s disease, CD)的有效性和安全性。方法系统检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library数据库关于乌司奴单抗治疗中-重度活动性CD疗效的随机对照试验(RCTs),应用Revman 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入10项研究,共10 536例患者。Meta分析结果显示:(1)疗效:(1)诱导期:乌司奴单抗治疗中-重度活动性CD临床反应率、临床缓解率、内镜缓解率均高于安慰剂组(OR=2.36,95%CI:2.09～2.65,P0.00001;OR=2.27,95%CI:1.85～2.77,P0.00001;OR=2.90,95%CI:1.88～4.48,P0.00001),其中乌司奴单抗在诱导既往TNF-拮抗剂治疗失败或常规治疗失败中-重度活动期CD的临床反应率、临床缓解率均优于安慰剂;1篇文献认为,乌司奴单抗(9%,14/155)在诱导中-重度活动期CD的黏膜愈合疗效方面优于安慰剂(4%,4/97)。(2)维持期:乌司奴单抗治疗维持期CD临床缓解率、临床反应率均高于安慰剂组(OR=1.97,95%CI:1.63～2.38,P0.00001;OR=2.09,95%CI:1.69～2.59,P0.00001);1篇文献认为,乌司奴单抗(13%,6/46)在诱导中-重度活动期CD的黏膜愈合疗效方面优于安慰剂(4%,1/24)。(2)安全性:在诱导期和维持期,乌司奴单抗组和安慰剂组引发的不良反应相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论乌司奴单抗用于中-重度活动性CD的诱导和维持缓解有效、安全。     

选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗对溃疡性结肠炎诱导缓解和维持治疗的荟萃分析

不同研究显示选择性白细胞分离法对溃疡性结肠炎（UC）的疗效差异很大.目的：系统性评价选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗对UC诱导缓解和维持治疗的作用.方法：检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Science Citation Index和中文科技期刊数据库.纳入所有比较选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗与传统药物治疗对UC诱导缓解和维持治疗疗效的随机对照试验（RCTs）.采用RevMan 5.0软件分析两者的诱导缓解率、维持缓解率和不良反应发生率.结果：共9项RCTs、685例患者符合人选标准,7项评估诱导缓解率,2项评估维持缓解率.选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗组的诱导缓解率显著高于传统药物治疗组（40.7%对29.1%,OR值为2.19,P〈0.0001）,维持缓解率亦显著高于传统药物治疗组（70.4%对25.0%,OR值为8.14,P=0.002）.选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗组的轻中度不良反应发生率明显低于传统药物治疗组（44.7%对65.3%,OR值为0.16,P=0.003）.结论：与传统药物治疗相比,选择性白细胞分离法联合药物治疗能明显提高UC患者的诱导缓解率和维持缓解率,并能降低不良反应发生率.     

肾上腺皮质激素在肝衰竭治疗中应用的新认识

迄今为止,急性、亚急性和慢加急性肝衰竭的临床救治仍十分棘手,内科多采用综合支持治疗,使用肾上腺皮质激素（GCs）是治疗肝衰竭的潜在方法之一.对于免疫抑制治疗停止后,出现乙型肝炎病毒（HBV）再激活的患者,及早重新给予长期大剂量的GCs,可防止出现重型肝炎或肝衰竭.但以后的临床实践结果未能予以肯定.上世纪80年代以前应用GCs较多,但各家疗效不一,90年代则有否定的趋势,近年来随着核苷（酸）类似物（NUCs）抗病毒治疗的增多,GCs应用也有所增多[1].目前临床上仍存争议,主要包括以下两个方面：一是对适应证选择、剂量及疗程的掌握;二是对GCs不良反应及并发症的防治.     

布地奈德吸入联合N-乙酰半胱氨酸治疗特发性肺纤维化

目的客观评价吸入性表面激素联合抗氧化剂治疗特发性肺纤维化（IPF）及口服激素治疗特发性肺纤维化这两种治疗方法的疗效及不良反应。方法 42例IPF进展期患者随机分为试验组和对照组,试验组给予布地奈德雾化吸入联合口服N-乙酰半胱氨酸治疗,对照组给予口服泼尼松治疗。对两组治疗前后进行呼吸困难评分,检测血气分析、肺功能及不良反应指标。结果两组对比治疗前各项检测指标均无差异（P〉0.05）。两组治疗后的呼吸困难评分、血气分析、肺功能的相关指标比治疗前均有所改善（P〈0.05）。试验组治疗后的呼吸困难评分、血气分析、肺功能的相关指标优于对照组（P〈0.01）。试验组治疗前后的不良反应指标无差异（P〉0.05）。对照组治疗后不良反应指标比治疗前明显（P〈0.05）。结论布地奈德雾化吸入联合口服N-乙酰半胱氨酸治疗IPF的疗效比口服泼尼松好,而不良反应发生明显降低。表面激素联合抗氧化剂对IPF进展期的治疗值得临床推广。     

Replacement of conventional glucocorticoids by oral pH-modified release budesonide in active and inactive Crohn's disease: results of an open,prospective, multicenter trial

Glucocorticosteroids (GCS) are established in the treatment of active Crohn's ileitis and ileocolitis. Recently, the topical steroid budesonide was found to be effective in untreated patients with Crohn's disease (CD) causing less side effects than conventional GCS. No clinical data have been reported about the effects of switching from conventional GCS to budesonide in terms of side effects and disease activity. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the development of side effects after switching from conventional GCS treatment to Eudragit L-coated budesonide (pH-modified release formulation) in patients taking 5–30 mg prednisolone equivalent per day for at least two weeks. In all, 178 patients with active CD (N = 88) or CD in remission during GCS treatment (N = 90) were included. Conventional GCS treatment was tapered down during a maximum of three weeks, with simultaneous intake of 3 × 3 mg budesonide. Thereafter, patients received 3 × 3 mg budesonide alone for six weeks. GCS-related side effects, disease activity and adverse events were documented at study entry and after 0, 2, 4, and 6 weeks of budesonide treatment. The percentage of patients with GCS-related side effects decreased from 65.2% (intention-to-treat-population) at entry to 43.3% (P < 0.0001) at the end of the trial. The total number of GCS-related side effects decreased significantly from 269 to 90. Of the patients who entered the study with active disease under conventional GCS therapy, 38.6% were in remission at the end of the study. Of the patients who entered the study with CD in remission, 78% stayed in remission after switching from conventinal GCS to budesonide. In conclusion, switching from conventional GCS treatment to budesonide leads to a significant reduction of GCS related side effects in patients with CD without causing rapid deterioration of the disease.     

Budesonide for maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease in medically induced remission: a predetermined pooled analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral budesonide for maintenance of remission in patients with mild to moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) of the ileum and/or ascending colon. METHODS: Four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with identical protocols were combined according to a predetermined analysis plan. Three hundred eighty patients with CD in medically induced remission (CD activity index [CDAI]< or =150) were randomized to receive oral budesonide 3 mg, 6 mg, or placebo daily for 12 months. The primary outcome measure was time to relapse (increase in CDAI of 60 points above baseline and >150). RESULTS: The median time to relapse was 268, 170, and 154 days for budesonide 6 mg, budesonide 3 mg, and placebo groups, respectively (p= 0.0072). The frequency of adverse events and glucocorticosteroid side effects were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION: Budesonide 6 mg/day is effective for prolonging time to relapse and for significantly reducing rates of relapse at 3 and 6 months but not 12 months in patients with CD in medically induced remission.     

Initial therapy for mild to moderate Crohn's disease: mesalamine or budesonide?

The initial choice of therapy for mild to moderately active Crohn's disease is controversial. Both the National Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study (NCCDS) and the European Cooperative Crohn's Disease Study (ECCDS) demonstrated that sulfasalazine is effective for the induction of remission. Subsequent studies of new mesalamine formulations showed inconsistent results; two trials, however, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement with Pentasa and Asacol treatment, and meta-analyses suggest a modest benefit of mesalamine maintenance therapy. The NCCDS and ECCDS trials found that corticosteroid therapy is much more effective than sulfasalazine for induction of remission, but corticosteroids did not show maintenance benefits. Corticosteroid use is frequently associated with adverse effects, and the majority of patients treated with prednisone become either steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent; many of these patients ultimately need treatment with immunosuppressives and/or surgery. Budesonide, a topical corticosteroid with high first-pass hepatic metabolism, is slightly less effective in inducing remission than conventional corticosteroids but is significantly less likely to cause side effects. Budesonide 9 mg/day was shown to be more effective than mesalamine (Pentasa 4 g/day) for induction therapy, but budesonide has been ineffective as a maintenance therapy. Mesalamine may be useful for patients with more extensive disease, those intolerant of sulfasalazine, or those with contraindications or intolerance to budesonide. Alternatively, sulfasalazine is effective in the presence of colonic disease. Clinicians must decide on the basis of the existing evidence whether budesonide or mesalamine is the preferred initial therapy for active Crohn's disease.     

Corticosteroid-sparing treatments in patients with Crohn's disease

Conventional corticosteroid therapy effectively induces remission of Crohn's disease (CD) across a range of disease severity. However, alternative treatments are needed for patients with disease unresponsive to corticosteroids, patients requiring maintenance therapy (for which corticosteroids are ineffective), corticosteroid-dependent patients, and patients with corticosteroid-related toxicities. Thus, corticosteroid-sparing effects are an important clinical endpoint for treatments of CD. Budesonide offers comparable efficacy with less short-term toxicity than conventional corticosteroids (prednisone, prednisolone); this agent has also demonstrated short-term remission maintenance efficacy, while potentially enabling withdrawal of more toxic corticosteroids in corticosteroid-dependent patients. However, budesonide has not shown long-term maintenance benefit in clinical studies, and the risk for and implications of budesonide dependency need further evaluation. The immunomodulators, azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine, are most effective for maintenance of remission in quiescent disease, but may be useful in conjunction with other therapies in inducing remission in active CD; methotrexate may be considered an alternative because of its efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission. In clinical trials, treatment with azathioprine/6-methotrexate has enabled corticosteroid withdrawal in 55% of patients, and methotrexate, in 39% of patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD, while maintaining clinical response. Monitoring for infrequent hematological or hepatic toxicity is recommended during use of these immunomodulators. Infliximab is effective for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with refractory CD participating in randomized placebo-controlled studies and, in open-label experience, has enabled corticosteroid withdrawal in approximately three quarters of patients. This biological agent is generally well tolerated. Infusion reactions are the most commonly occurring side effects; such reactions may require adjustment of infusion rate and/or treatment with an antihistamine or acetaminophen. The investigational biological agent CDP-571 has also shown corticosteroid-sparing efficacy in patients with CD. In conclusion, recent research has helped identify corticosteroid-sparing treatments that can provide benefit in patients with corticosteroid-dependent and/or corticosteroid-refractory CD or patients at risk for corticosteroid-induced toxicities.     

Oral budesonide in gastrointestinal and liver disease: A practical guide for the clinician

Oral budesonide is a second‐generation steroid that allows local, selective treatment of the gastrointestinal tract and the liver, minimizing systemic exposure. The results of randomized trials comparing budesonide versus placebo or active comparators have led to expert recommendations that budesonide be used to treat mild or moderate active ileocecal Crohn's disease, microscopic colitis (including both collagenous and lymphocytic colitis), ulcerative colitis, and non‐cirrhotic autoimmune hepatitis. The mechanism of budesonide action obviates the need for dose tapering due to safety reasons after induction therapy. Where low‐dose budesonide is used to maintain remission, usually in microscopic colitis, it does not appear to have adverse safety implications other than slight reductions in cortisol levels on rare occasions. As a gut‐selective and liver‐selective corticosteroid, budesonide offers an appealing alternative to conventional systemic glucocorticoids in diseases of these organs.     

Budesonide prolongs time to relapse in ileal and ileocaecal Crohn's disease. A placebo controlled one year study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the topical corticosteroid budesonide, given in an oral controlled release formulation for maintenance of remission in patients with ileal and ileocaecal Crohn's disease (CD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Out of 176 patients with active CD who had achieved remission (CD activity index score < or = 150) after 10 weeks' treatment with either budesonide or prednisolone, 90 were randomised to continue with once daily treatment of 6 mg budesonide, or 3 mg budesonide or placebo for up to 12 months in a double blind, multicentre trial. Time to symptomatic relapse was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Morning plasma cortisol was measured at clinic visits and a corticotropin stimulation test was performed after three months of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty two patients were allocated to the 6 mg budesonide group, 31 to the 3 mg group, and 27 to the placebo group. After three months, 19 per cent of the patients in the 6 mg group had relapsed, compared with 45 per cent in the 3 mg group and 44 per cent in the placebo group (p = 0.047). The corresponding results after 12 months was 59 per cent in the 6 mg budesonide group, 74 per cent in the 3 mg group, and 63 per cent in the placebo group (p = 0.44). The median time to relapse or discontinuation was 258 days in the 6 mg group, 139 days in the 3 mg group, and 92 days in the placebo group (p = 0.021). Mean morning plasma cortisol values increased from entry in all three groups with no statistically significant differences at 12 months. All 13 patients remaining in the placebo group after three months had a normal corticotropin stimulation response, compared with 18 of 23 patients in the 6 mg, and 19 of 21 in the 3 mg budesonide groups (p = 0.14). Acne and moon face were slightly more common in the budesonide groups. CONCLUSION: 6 mg budesonide once daily is significantly more efficacious than placebo in prolonging time to relapse in CD, and causes only minor systemic side effects.     

Effect of budesonide enema on remission and relapse rate in distal ulcerative colitis and proctitis

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticosteroid enemas are equally effective as 5-ASA enemas in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis (UC). With the introduction of budesonide, the risk of systemic side effects may be reduced. We investigated whether budesonide enema, 2 mg/100 ml, administered twice daily (b.i.d.) could increase the remission rate in comparison with the once daily (o.d.) standard regimen. Furthermore, we evaluated whether 2 mg budesonide enema, given twice weekly, could have a relapse preventing effect. METHODS: 149 patients with active distal UC were treated in a controlled, double-blind multicentre study with two parallel groups: placebo enema in the morning and budesonide enema in the evening (i.e. 2 mg/day) or budesonide enema b.i.d. (i.e. 4 mg/day) until remission (absence of clinical symptoms and endoscopic healing) or at most 8 weeks. Patients in remission were randomized to either budesonide enema or placebo enema twice weekly for 24 weeks or until relapse. RESULTS: The remission rates at 4 weeks were 33% for o.d. and 41% for b.i.d. regimens (NS) and correspondingly 51% and 54% at 8 weeks (NS). The b.i.d. group had an increased frequency of impaired adrenal function, 32% versus 4.8% (P = 0.001). The relapse rates during maintenance treatment with budesonide enema and placebo were 15% versus 24% after 8 weeks, 31% versus 27% after 16 weeks and 41% versus 51% after 24 weeks (NS). CONCLUSION: Budesonide enema 2 mg o.d. appears to be the optimal dosage in active distal UC. We could not show that budesonide enema twice weekly is sufficient to maintain remission.     

Effect of Budesonide Enema on Remission and Relapse Rate in Distal Ulcerative Colitis and Proctitis

Background: Glucocorticosteroid enemas are equally effective as 5-ASA enemas in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis (UC). With the introduction of budesonide, the risk of systemic side effects may be reduced. We investigated whether budesonide enema, 2 mg/100 ml, administered twice daily (b.i.d.) could increase the remission rate in comparison with the once daily (o.d.) standard regimen. Furthermore, we evaluated whether 2 mg budesonide enema, given twice weekly, could have a relapse preventing effect. Methods: 149 patients with active distal UC were treated in a controlled, double-blind multicentre study with two parallel groups: placebo enema in the morning and budesonide enema in the evening (i.e. 2 mg/day) or budesonide enema b.i.d. (i.e. 4 mg/day) until remission (absence of clinical symptoms and endoscopic healing) or at most 8 weeks. Patients in remission were randomized to either budesonide enema or placebo enema twice weekly for 24 weeks or until relapse. Results: The remission rates at 4 weeks were 33% for o.d. and 41% for b.i.d. regimens (NS) and correspondingly 51% and 54% at 8 weeks (NS). The b.i.d. group had an increased frequency of impaired adrenal function, 32% versus 4.8% ( P = 0.001). The relapse rates during maintenance treatment with budesonide enema and placebo were 15% versus 24% after 8 weeks, 31% versus 27% after 16 weeks and 41% versus 51% after 24 weeks (NS). Conclusion: Budesonide enema 2 mg o.d. appears to be the optimal dosage in active distal UC. We could not show that budesonide enema twice weekly is sufficient to maintain remission.     

Oral locally active steroids in inflammatory bowel disease

IBD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disorder of the gut that demands long-lasting treatment targeting both flare-up periods and maintenance of remission. Oral systemic steroids have been used to induce remission in patients with active IBD for over 50 years due to their potent anti-inflammatory effects. The efficacy of systemic steroids in this setting has been largely demonstrated. However, the wide range of adverse events associated with these drugs has prompted the development of equally effective but less toxic steroid compounds. Currently, topically acting oral steroids are an important therapeutic option for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and microscopic colitis, being oral budesonide and oral beclomethasone established elements of the IBD armamentarium. At present, oral budesonide is the first-line therapy to induce remission in microscopic colitis and mild to moderate ileocaecal CD patients and oral beclomethasone is effective treating mild to moderate UC patients with left-sided or extensive disease. This review aims at evaluating the current role of these compounds in IBD clinical practice.     

Nutritional therapy for active Crohn’s disease

Nutritional therapy for active Crohn’s disease （CD） is an underutilised form of treatment in adult patients, though its use is common in the paediatric population. There is evidence that nutritional therapy can effectively induce remission of CD in adult patients. Enteral nutrition therapy is safe and generally well tolerated. Meta-analysis data suggest that corticosteroids are superior to nutritional treatment for induction of remission in active CD. However, the potential side effects of such pharmacotherapy must be taken into consideration. This review examines the evidence for the efficacy of elemental and polymeric diets, and the use of total parenteral nutrition in active CD.