Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp 183–190 | Cite as

A double-blind comparative trial between two sustained-release theophylline preparations with individual doses in asthmatic in-patients

  • Y. G. Van Der Meer
  • A. C. Van Alphen
  • R. Van Altena
  • A. C. Van Loenen
Original Articles

Abstract

Twenty-one patients, suffering from bronchial asthma with a moderate and clearly reversible airway obstruction, completed a double-blind cross-over trial of two theophylline sustained-release preparations, Theolair Retard® (=Theolair S.R.®=Nuelin S.R.®) and Theolin Retard® (=Theo-Dur®). The serum theophylline concentration curves of Theolin Retard® were significantly flatter than the curves of Theolair Retard®, with less peak-trough variation. Pulmonary function in both treatment groups appeared to be the same. There were no differences in side effects, nor in asthma symptoms. However, patients complained significantly more of coughing during treatment with Theolin Retard®. In two patients using antacids, the peak-trough variation with Theolair Retard® was considerably larger than average. The favourable theophylline concentration profile of Theolin Retard® is not reflected in pulmonary function, side effects or asthma symptoms. For this group of asthmatic hospitalized inpatients the practical differences between the two preparations are not distinctive.

Keywords

Asthma Theophylline Pulmonary Function Airway Obstruction Asthma Symptom 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hunt, S.N., W.J. Jusko andA.M. Yurchak (1976)Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 19, 546–551.Google Scholar
  2. Jonkman, J.H.G., R. Schoenmaker, N. Grimberg andR.A. De Zeeuw (1981)Int. J. Pharmaceutics 8, 153–156.Google Scholar
  3. Klein, J.J., M. De Groot, M. Lefkowitz, S.L. Spector andR.M. Chernak (1981) Abstracts from the 12th International Meeting of pulmonologists, Antwerpen, October 1981.Google Scholar
  4. Li, T.M., J.L. Benovic, R.T. Buckler andJ.F. Burd (1981)Clin. Chem. 27, 22–26.Google Scholar
  5. Piafsky, K.M., andR.I. Ogilvie (1975)New Engl. J. Med. 292, 1218–1222.Google Scholar
  6. Russell, C.J., R.K. Elwood, C. Kinney andD.G. Mcdevitt (1980)Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 18. 351–354.Google Scholar
  7. Spangler, D.L., D.D. Kalof, F.L. Bloom andH.J. Wittig (1978)Ann. Allergy 40, 6–11.Google Scholar
  8. Weinberger, M., L. Hendeles andL. Bighley (1978)New Engl. J. Med. 299, 852–857.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. G. Van Der Meer
    • 1
  • A. C. Van Alphen
    • 2
  • R. Van Altena
    • 2
  • A. C. Van Loenen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacyHospital Pharmacy Bennekom/EdeGA BennekomThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Pulmonary DiseasesRegional Hospital BennekomGA BennekomThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations