ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paggiaro, P.
Right arrow Articles by Testi, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paggiaro, P.
Right arrow Articles by Testi, R
Eur Respir J 1996; 9: 1689-1695
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1996


Clinical Trial

Comparison of inhaled salmeterol and individually dose-titrated slow-release theophylline in patients with reversible airway obstruction. European Study Group

PL Paggiaro, D Giannini, A Di Franco, and R Testi

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of salmeterol versus theophylline in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma. One hundred and eighty nine asthmatic patients (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) or peak expiratory flow (PEF) >50% of predicted) were randomized to receive either salmeterol dry powder, 50 microg b.i.d. via a Diskhaler (n=92) or dose-titrated slow-release theophylline capsules ("Theo-Dur") b.i.d. (n=97), in a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study for 4 weeks. Patients had previously been titrated with theophylline to a serum theophylline level of 10-20 microg x mL-1. The median percentage of nights with no asthma symptoms rose from 14% in both groups at baseline to 71% with salmeterol and to 46% with theophylline (p=0.044). There was also a significant increase for salmeterol in the median percentage of nights with no rescue salbutamol use (from 36 to 86%) compared with theophylline (from 71 to 78%; p=0.002). The mean morning PEF increased from 337 L x min-1 in the salmeterol group and 332 L x min-1 in the theophylline group to 372 and 357 L x min-1, respectively. No significant difference between the two treatments was observed for PEF, symptoms or additional salbutamol medication during the day. The incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms (gastric irritation, nausea and vomiting) was greater among patients receiving theophylline (11%) than with salmeterol (3%). These findings suggest that inhaled salmeterol is more effective in relieving symptoms of asthma, and better tolerated than theophylline in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
E. Bacci, A. Di Franco, M.L. Bartoli, S. Carnevali, S. Cianchetti, F.L. Dente, D. Giannini, B. Vagaggini, L. Ruocco, and P.L. Paggiaro
Comparison of anti-inflammatory and clinical effects of beclomethasone dipropionate and salmeterol in moderate asthma
Eur. Respir. J., July 1, 2002; 20(1): 66 - 72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Fam PractHome page
M. Eccles, N. Rousseau, B. Higgins, and L. Thomas
Evidence-based guideline on the primary care management of asthma
Fam. Pract., April 1, 2001; 18(2): 223 - 229.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
Adjuvant therapy
Can. Med. Assoc. J., November 1, 1999; 161(90111): s35 - 39.
[Full Text]


Home page
ThoraxHome page
M. Cazzola, C. F. Donner, and M. G. Matera
Long acting beta 2 agonists and theophylline in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Thorax, August 1, 1999; 54(8): 730 - 736.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the European Respiratory Society.