Background Oral methylxanthines are effective drugs for the treatment of chronic obstructive respiratory disorders. The novel methylxanthine doxofylline, that has bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, is not affected by the major drawback of theophylline. Nowadays large-scale quantitative synthesis comparing the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline vs. theophylline in the treatment of asthma is still lacking. Therefore, we performed a quantitative synthesis to compare the efficacy/safety profile of doxofylline and theophylline in asthma. Methods A pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to assess the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline and placebo on the change in asthma events, risk of adverse events (AEs), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and salbutamol use. Results Data obtained from 696 asthmatic patients were extracted from 4 randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2018. Doxofylline was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events (mean difference - 0.14, 95%CI -0.27 - 0.00) and risk of AEs (relative risk 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.99). Doxofylline was as effective as theophylline in improving FEV1, and a trend of superiority (P = 0.058) was detected for doxofylline over theophylline with respect to the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rank of effectiveness was doxofylline>theophylline> > placebo, and the rank of safety was placebo>doxofylline> > theophylline. Conclusions Doxofylline is an effective and safe methylxanthine for the treatment of asthma, with an efficacy/safety profile greater than that of theophylline.

Rogliani, P., Calzetta, L., Ora, J., Cazzola, M., Matera, M.g. (2019). Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: A meta-analysis. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 14(1) [10.1186/s40248-019-0189-0].

Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: A meta-analysis

Rogliani P.;Calzetta L.;Cazzola M.;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Background Oral methylxanthines are effective drugs for the treatment of chronic obstructive respiratory disorders. The novel methylxanthine doxofylline, that has bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, is not affected by the major drawback of theophylline. Nowadays large-scale quantitative synthesis comparing the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline vs. theophylline in the treatment of asthma is still lacking. Therefore, we performed a quantitative synthesis to compare the efficacy/safety profile of doxofylline and theophylline in asthma. Methods A pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to assess the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline and placebo on the change in asthma events, risk of adverse events (AEs), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and salbutamol use. Results Data obtained from 696 asthmatic patients were extracted from 4 randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2018. Doxofylline was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events (mean difference - 0.14, 95%CI -0.27 - 0.00) and risk of AEs (relative risk 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.99). Doxofylline was as effective as theophylline in improving FEV1, and a trend of superiority (P = 0.058) was detected for doxofylline over theophylline with respect to the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rank of effectiveness was doxofylline>theophylline> > placebo, and the rank of safety was placebo>doxofylline> > theophylline. Conclusions Doxofylline is an effective and safe methylxanthine for the treatment of asthma, with an efficacy/safety profile greater than that of theophylline.
2019
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MED/10 - MALATTIE DELL'APPARATO RESPIRATORIO
English
Asthma; Doxofylline; Theophylline; Meta-analysis
Rogliani, P., Calzetta, L., Ora, J., Cazzola, M., Matera, M.g. (2019). Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: A meta-analysis. MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 14(1) [10.1186/s40248-019-0189-0].
Rogliani, P; Calzetta, L; Ora, J; Cazzola, M; Matera, Mg
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/219130
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact