Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Doxofylline: The next generation methylxanthine

  • Special Article
  • Published:
The Indian Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methylxanthines are widely used in the treatment of asthma. Being one of the few drugs that can be administered orally, they are especially helpful in resource restricted settings. Theophylline, the commonly used methylxanthine drug is associated with a wide range of adverse effects accounting for the poor compliance and high drop-out rates. Moreover, a narrow therapeutic index warrants routine monitoring of its levels in the blood. Doxofylline, a new methylxanthine derivative, is shown to have similar efficacy with significantly less side effects in both animal studies as well as human adults. However, there is a paucity of studies in children with asthma. Retrospective data suggest that 11% patients experienced some side effects, but only 5% reported moderate side effects. Available evidence suggests that it improves spirometric parameters in children with asthma as compared to placebo. Extrapolating data from adult patients, it may be used in place of theophylline as an add on therapy in step 3 and step 4 in children with asthma. Dosage recommended for children >6 yrs of age is 6 mg/Kg/dose BID. Doxofylline produces stable serum concentrations, hence plasma monitoring is required only in patients with hepatic insufficiency and intolerance to xanthine drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Global initiative for asthma (GINA). Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. Revised 2006. www.ginasthma.org.

  2. Guglani L, Lodha R, Kabra SK. Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Natural History of Asthma. In Kabra SK, Lodha R, eds. Essential Pediatric Pulmonology. 1st ed. Delhi; Noble Vision 2006; 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barnes PJ, Pauwels RA. Theophylline in the management of asthma: time for reappraisal? Eur Respir J 1994; 7: 579–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinberger M, Hendeles L. Theophylline in asthma. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1380–1388.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bierman CW, William PV. Therapeutic monitoring of theophylline: rationale and current status. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989; 17: 377–384.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Franzone JS, Cirillo R, Barone D. Doxofylline and theophylline are xanthines with partly different mechanisms of action in animals. Drug Exp Clin Res 1988; 14: 479–489

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bagnato G, Fodale P, Bottari M. Clinical evaluation of doxofylline sachets in a pediatric population. Riv Eur Sci Med Farmacol 1989; 11: 359–363.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bagnato GF. Tolerability of doxofylline in the maintenance therapy of pediatric patients with bronchial asthma. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 1999; 3: 255–260.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Melillo G et al. Treatment of reversible chronic airways obstruction with doxofylline compared with slow-release theophylline: a double-blind, randomized, multicentre trial. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1989; 9: 397–405.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldstein MF, Chervinsky P. Efficacy and safety of doxofylline compared to theophylline in chronic reversible asthma — a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled multicentre clinical trial. Med Sci Monit 2002; 8: 297–304

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dini, FL Cogo R. Doxofylline: A new generation xanthine brochodilator devoid of major cardiovascular adverse effects. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 16: 258–268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Poggi R, Brandolese R, Bernasconi M et al. Doxofylline and respiratory mechanics. Short-term effects in mechanically ventilated patients with airflow obstruction and respiratory failure. Chest 1989; 96: 772–778.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bologna E, Laganà A, Terracino D, Bolignari P, Biffignandi P. Oral and intravenous pharmacokinetic profiles of doxofylline in patients with chronic bronchitis. J Int Med Res 1990; 18: 282–288.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolcetti A, Osella D, De Filippis G, Carnuccio C, Grossi E. Comparison of intravenously administered doxofylline and placebo for the treatment of severe acute airways obstruction. J Int Med Res 1988; 16: 264–269.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lazzaroni M, Grossi E, Banchi PG. The effect of intravenous doxofylline or aminophylline on gastric secretion in duodenal ulcer patients. Aliment Pharmacol Therapy 1990; 4: 643–649.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cipri A, Pozzar F, Dini FL. Heart rhythm changes in patients with chronic obstructive bronchopneumopathies: effects of different methylxanthine drugs. Minerva Cardioangiol 1992; 40: 31–39.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sacco C, Braghiroli A, Grossi E et al. The effects of doxofylline versus theophylline on sleep architecture in COPD patients. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 1995; 50: 98–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. K. Kabra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sankar, J., Lodha, R. & Kabra, S.K. Doxofylline: The next generation methylxanthine. Indian J Pediatr 75, 251–254 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-008-0054-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-008-0054-1

Key words

Navigation