tiotropium-bromide and doxofylline

Data comparing various second-line treatments for asthma with subjective and objective assessment are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with a low-dose budesonide in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.. Patients, all of whom were concurrently using inhaled budesonide (400 µg), were treated for 6 months with formoterol (12 µg), montelukast (10 mg), doxofylline (400 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg). Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, asthma symptom scores (daytime and nighttime), and assessment of tolerability and rescue medication use.. A total of 297 patients completed the study. In all 4 groups, significant improvements were observed in all the outcome measures, with formoterol treatment having greater and earlier improvements than the other 3 second-line controller medications with budesonide. Among the second-line treatments, monteradlukast improved the FEV1 from day 45 (P < 0.01), SGRQ scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), daytime scores from day 30 (P < 0.05), nighttime scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), and rescue medication use from day 15 (P < .0001) at a faster rate than doxofylline or tiotropium with budesonide. No patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse reactions.. Among the tested second-line treatment regimens, the budesonide/montelukast combination was found to be superior to either the budesonide/doxofylline or budesonide/tiotropium combination in all the outcome measures without adversely affecting the tolerability of the patients. Further clinical studies with blinding techniques are likely to be useful.

Topics: Acetates; Adolescent; Adult; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Male; Quinolines; Respiratory Function Tests; Sulfides; Theophylline; Tiotropium Bromide

There is no comparative study among asthma patients receiving first-line versus various second-line treatment regimens for mild to moderate persistent asthma.. We assessed the pulmonary function in asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide in a pilot group.. Patients were recruited as per the study criteria and randomly allocated to 4 groups to receive budesonide (400 µg) with formoterol (12 µg), doxofylline (400 mg), montelukast (10 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg) for a period of 3 months. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and rescue medication use.. A total of 167 patients were recruited; among them, 123 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all the groups. At day 90, between-group difference revealed that improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) high for budesonide plus formoterol followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and, lastly, budesonide plus tiotropium. Similarly, within-group comparison revealed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in rescue medication use in all the groups. The intensity in decrease was more in budesonide plus formoterol group followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and budesonide plus tiotropium groups.. On the basis of our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide plus doxofylline and budesonide plus montelukast was found to be better than budesonide plus tiotropium in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a larger sample size are likely to be useful.

Topics: Acetates; Adult; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quinolines; Respiratory Function Tests; Sulfides; Theophylline; Tiotropium Bromide

This study compared the efficacy and safety of tiotropium bromide inhalation powder (spiriva) and doxofylline oral tablet (doxofylline) in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-controlled study involved 127 eligible stable moderate to severe COPD patients treated with inhaled tiotropium dry powder (18 μg/day) or oral doxofylline tablets (0.2 g/time, 2 times a day) for 12 and 24 weeks. Before and after treatment for 12 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively, pulmonary function, 6-min walking distance and dyspnea index were recorded. The results showed that in both tiotropium group and doxofylline groups, after 12-week treatment, FEV(1), FEV(1)/FVC% and 6-min walk distance were significantly higher than those before the medication, while dyspnea index decreased as compared with that before treatment. After 24-week treatment, a slight improvement in the measures was observed as compared with that of 12-weeks treatment, but the difference was not statistically significant. With both 12-week and 24-week treatment, the effect of tiotropium was slightly better than that of doxofylline tablets, with the difference being statistically insignificant. The major adverse events in the tiotropium group and doxofylline group were observed in 9 cases (9.9%) and 12 cases (12.9%), respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found between them. We are led to conclude that both tiotropium at 18 μg a day and doxofylline tablets at 0.2 g/day (two times a day) are effective and safe for the treatment of COPD.

Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Function Tests; Scopolamine Derivatives; Theophylline; Tiotropium Bromide