Comparison of a sustained-release preparation (Theo-Dur) with a conventional preparation (Nuelin) in the treatment of chronic asthma.
In a double-blind, cross-over trial comprising 19 adult asthmatic patients a sustained-release preparation of theophylline (Theo-Dur), given twice daily, was compared with a conventional fast-release preparation (Nuelin), given three times daily. The theophylline doses were individually titrated to give plasma concentrations in the lower region of the therapeutic interval. The sustained-release preparation gave higher morning theophylline concentrations than the fast-release preparation (9.2 vs 5.9 mg/l). This resulted in somewhat higher morning peak flow values during Theo-Dur treatment. However, the difference in asthma symptoms was not significant and the patients showed no preference for either preparation. We conclude that the advantage of a sustained-release preparation over a conventional fast-release theophylline preparation is the lower dosing frequency rather than the better clinical effect in patients who suffer from chronic asthma, but whose disease is in a relatively stable phase.
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001249:Asthma / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000188:drug therapy*; D002908:Chronic Disease; D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010366:Peak Expiratory Flow Rate; D013806:Theophylline / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000097:blood / Q000627:therapeutic use*
D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D013806:Theophylline