Untitled

Abstract

Pulsed steroid therapy may induce rapid remission in patients with moderately severe ulcerative colitis in outpatient clinics. A total of 19 patients with moderately severe active ulcerative colitis who refused hospitalization were treated between October 1999 and September 2001 in the outpatient clinic. Patients were treated with either conventional oral steroid therapy or intravenous pulsed steroid therapy followed by conventional oral steroid therapy. Eight patients received conventional steroid therapy and 11 patients received pulsed steroid therapy followed by conventional steroid therapy. The efficacies of the two types of steroid therapy were equal, but patients with active colitis responded more quickly to pulsed steroid therapy than to conventional steroid therapy. No serious adverse effects were observed. Moderately severe colitis can be safely treated with either conventional or pulsed steroid therapy in the outpatient clinic, but pulsed steroid therapy may induce clinical remission more quickly than conventional steroid therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Pulse Steroid Therapy in Japanese Pediatric Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Survey of the Japanese Society for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

“…When remission induction was implemented using dexamethasone pulse therapy for UC patients, remission was maintained for 30 days in 79% of the patients [5]. Oshitani et al [4 ]indicate that while the clinical efficacy of pulse steroid therapy and conventional steroid therapy are equivalent, cases of more active UC react more quickly and without any side effects to pulse steroid therapy. The rate of remission in previous reports ranged from 45 to 80%, similar to the findings of our current study [4,5,11,12].…”

“…Corticosteroids can be administered to patients with UC orally, intravenously, by enema, with pulsed therapy or intra-arterially [3]. Pulse steroid therapy may theoretically be useful for the induction of remission in UC because it may have maximal beneficial effects and minimal side effects [4,5,6]; however, its efficacy as an induction therapy remains uncertain.…”