Home|Journals|Articles by Year|Audio Abstracts

Original Research

Comparing the efficacy and safety of theophylline with doxofylline in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Pudutha Madhavi, M Vanitha.


Background: A significant public health concern, both preventable and treatable, is chronic pulmonary obstructive disorders (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]). It is one of the primary causes of chronic illness and mortality worldwide. The prominent safety concerns in the use of theophylline need to be addressed.

Aim and Objective: In Grade 1–2 COPD patients, the efficacy and effectiveness of oral doxofylline should be contrasted with theophylline.

Materials and Methods: Two groups of 25 patients, with one group getting theophylline and the other doxofylline, were randomized to a total of 50 patients in addition to the normal treatment for 12 weeks. Each patient was accompanied by a pulmonary function test (PFT), a COPD assessment test (CAT) evaluation questionnaire, and a drug-related safety review at 6 weeks and 12 weeks for the assessment of efficacy parameters.

Results: At 6 weeks and 12 weeks within their respective classes, theophylline and doxofylline showed substantial increases in PFT and CAT performance. However, there was no noticeable change relative to the two classes. In theophylline group, the amount of adverse drug reactions is larger relative to patients in the doxofylline community. Dyspnea was the most severe harmful effect of all categories.

Conclusion: Doxofylline is also useful in treating Grade 1–2 COPD (global obstructive lung disease criteria), which has a greater safety profile relative to theophylline.

Key words: Doxofylline; Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Theophylline

Full-text options

Share this Article

Online Article Submission
• ejmanager.com

ejPort - eJManager.com
Refer & Earn
About BiblioMed
License Information
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

The articles in Bibliomed are open access articles licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.