4.2 Review

Medical management of Crohn's disease

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 2505-2525

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2011.609556

关键词

Crohn's; medical management; therapy

资金

  1. Abott
  2. Schering Plough
  3. Abbott

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The medical approach to Crohn's disease has been modified in recent years thanks to the introduction of new therapies, like biologics. Also, well-designed studies and systematic reviews have allowed better evaluation of the role of old drugs like steroids and immunosuppressors. This review aims to evaluate the recent evidence on the medical approach to Crohn's disease in the different settings of the disease. Areas covered: Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included in the review. The research on all the studies discussed was based on the Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase, using the following medical subject headings: Crohn's disease, clinical trial, therapy, 5-aminosalicylicacid, steroid, budesonide, immunosuppressant, anti-meta-analysis TNF and biologics. Expert opinion: In a mild active inflammatory ileocecal disease, budesonide is considered the best approach. The efficacy of aminosalicylates is limited, but a trial that has recently compared aminosalicylates and budesonide has shown that the two drugs are comparable. In a mild colonic disease, sulfasalazine, antibiotics and steroids are effective but the evidence for antibiotics is less clear. The maintenance of remission in this setting is debatable, but sulfasalazine seems the better choice. In a moderate severe ileal and colonic disease, steroids are the best therapy to induce remission. Once remission is reached, immunosuppressors remain today the better choice to maintain the remission. Anti-TNF therapy is indicated in patients intolerant or not responding to steroids and immunosuppressors and in fistulizing Crohn's disease. Early therapy with biologics may be considered in patients with severe disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据