Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Hunt, S.N., W.J. Jusko andA.M. Yurchak (1976)Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 19, 546–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman, J.H.G., R. Schoenmaker, N. Grimberg andR.A. De Zeeuw (1981)Int. J. Pharmaceutics 8, 153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Li, T.M., J.L. Benovic, R.T. Buckler andJ.F. Burd (1981)Clin. Chem. 27, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piafsky, K.M., andR.I. Ogilvie (1975)New Engl. J. Med. 292, 1218–1222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C.J., R.K. Elwood, C. Kinney andD.G. Mcdevitt (1980)Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 18. 351–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangler, D.L., D.D. Kalof, F.L. Bloom andH.J. Wittig (1978)Ann. Allergy 40, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M., L. Hendeles andL. Bighley (1978)New Engl. J. Med. 299, 852–857.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Hospital Pharmacy Bennekom/Ede, Edeseweg 118, 6720, GA Bennekom, The Netherlands

    Y. G. Van Der Meer & A. C. Van Loenen

  2. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Regional Hospital Bennekom, Edeseweg 118, 6720, GA Bennekom, The Netherlands

    A. C. Van Alphen & R. Van Altena

Authors
  1. Y. G. Van Der Meer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. C. Van Alphen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Van Altena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. C. Van Loenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Der Meer, Y.G., Van Alphen, A.C., Van Altena, R. et al. A double-blind comparative trial between two sustained-release theophylline preparations with individual doses in asthmatic in-patients. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Scientific Edition 4, 183–190 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01959137

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01959137

Keywords

Search

Navigation