Comparison of high dose inhaled steroids, low dose inhaled steroids plus low dose theophylline, and low dose inhaled steroids alone in chronic asthma in general practice
Sam Lima, Anon Jatakanona, David Gordonb, Christopher Macdonaldb, Kian Fan Chunga, Peter J Barnesa
a National Heart and
Lung Institute, Imperial College School of Medicine and Royal Brompton
Hospital, London SW3 6LY, UK, b Napp
Laboratories Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Correspondence to: Professor K F Chung email: f.chung{at}ic.ac.uk
Received 3 November 1999; Returned to authors 20 January 2000; Revised version received 23 June 2000; Accepted for publication 12 July 2000
BACKGROUND
Theophylline
is widely used in the treatment of asthma, and there is evidence that
theophylline has anti-inflammatory or immunomodulatory effects. A
study was undertaken to determine whether theophylline added to low
dose inhaled steroids would be as efficacious as high dose inhaled
steroids in asthma.
METHODS
In a study in
general practice of 155 recruited asthmatic patients with continuing
symptomatic asthma while on 400 µg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)
daily and inhaled
2 agonist as required, the effect of
(1) continuing low dose inhaled steroids alone (LDS, 200 µg BDP
twice daily), (2) low dose inhaled steroids plus low dose theophylline
(LDT, 400 mg daily), or (3) high dose inhaled steroids (HDS, 500 µg
BDP) over a six month period was examined.
RESULTS
One
hundred and thirty patients completed the study. Between group
comparison using analysis of variance showed no overall differences in
peak flow measurements, diurnal variation, and symptom scores. Changes
in evening peak flows approached significance at the 5% level
(p=0.077). The mean improvement in evening peak flow in the LDT
compared with the LDS group was 20.6 l/min (95% confidence interval
(CI) -2.5 to 38.8). In the LDT group there was an increase in evening
peak flows at the end of the study compared with entry values
(22.5 l/min), while in the LDS and HDS groups evening peak flows
increased by 1.9 and 8.3 l/min, respectively. There was no significant
difference in exacerbations or in side effects.
CONCLUSION
There were
no overall significant differences between the low dose steroid, low
dose steroid with theophylline, and the high dose steroid groups. The
greatest within-group improvement in evening peak flows was found after
theophylline. A larger study may be necessary to show significant effects.
Keywords: asthma; theophylline; inhaled corticosteroids; dosage; general practice
© 2000 by Thorax
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Barnes, P. J., Adcock, I. M., Ito, K.
(2005). Histone acetylation and deacetylation: importance in inflammatory lung diseases. Eur Respir J
25: 552-563
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Sin, D. D., Man, J., Sharpe, H., Gan, W. Q., Man, S. F. P.
(2004). Pharmacological Management to Reduce Exacerbations in Adults With Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA
292: 367-376
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Barnes, P. J., Adcock, I. M.
(2003). How Do Corticosteroids Work in Asthma?. ANN INTERN MED
139: 359-370
[Full Text] -
Green, R H, Brightling, C E, Pavord, I D, Wardlaw, A J
(2003). Management of asthma in adults: current therapy and future directions. Postgrad. Med. J.
79: 259-267
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Barnes, P. J.
(2003). Theophylline: New Perspectives for an Old Drug. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.
167: 813-818
[Full Text] -
Lipworth, B. J., Chung, F., Barnes, P., Lim, S.
(2002). EFFECTS OF THEOPHYLLINE ON AIRWAY EOSINOPHILS. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.
165: 845-845
[Full Text] -
Barnes, P.J.
(2002). Scientific rationale for inhaled combination therapy with long-acting {beta}2-agonists and corticosteroids. Eur Respir J
19: 182-191
[Abstract] [Full Text]
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
