Dose response relation to oral theophylline in severe chronic obstructive airways disease. Efficacy of inhaled metaproterenol and orally-administered theophylline in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Physiologic effects of oral bronchodilators during rest and exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomized, controlled trial of theophylline in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The usefulness of theophylline in nonasthmatic airway obstruction. Safety and efficacy of once-daily Uniphyl tablets compared with twice-daily Theo-Dur tablets in elderly patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Bronchodilators in chronic air-flow limitation. Effects on airway function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. Sustained-release theophylline in chronic bronchitis. Physiological and neuropsychological effects of theophylline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Sustained-release theophylline reduces dyspnea in nonreversible obstructive airway disease. Theophylline improves gas exchange during rest, exercise, and sleep in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Dyspnea and diaphragmatic fatigue in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Responses to theophylline. Effect of theophylline on exercise performance in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Is oral theophylline effective in combination with both inhaled anticholinergic agent and inhaled beta 2-agonist in the treatment of stable COPD? The additive effect of theophylline on a high-dose combination of inhaled salbutamol and ipratropium bromide in stable COPD. Theophylline and salbutamol improve pulmonary function in patients with irreversible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
To evaluate measurement of the trapped gas volume as a measure of respiratory function in patients with chronic obstructive airways disease and their response to treatment with theophylline.
                Patients able to produce consistent results on testing of respiratory function spent two weeks having dosage of theophylline adjusted to give individual pharmacokinetic data. This was followed by random assignment to four consecutive two month treatment periods--placebo and low, medium, and high dose, as assessed by serum concentrations of theophylline. Respiratory function and exercise performance was assessed at the end of each two month period.
                Chest unit in district hospital.
                Thirty eight patients with chronic bronchitis and moderate to severe chronic obstruction to airflow were recruited; 33 aged 53-73 years completed the study.
                Dosage of oral theophylline increased during two week optimisation period to 800 mg daily unless toxicity was predicted, when 400 mg was given. Targets for the steady state serum theophylline concentrations were 5-10 mg/l in the low dose period, 10-15 mg/l in the medium dose, and 15-20 mg/l in the high dose period.
                Respiratory function as measured by forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow rate, slow vital capacity, and static lung volumes using helium dilution and body plethysmography from which trapped gas volume was derived. Exercise performance assessed by six minute walking test and diary cards using visual analogue scale.
                The forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow rate changed only slightly (about 13%) over the range of doses. There was a linear dose dependent fall of trapped gas volume from 1.84 l (SE 0.157) to 1.42 l (0.152), 1.05 l (0.128), and 0.67 l (0.102) during the placebo and low, medium, and high dose treatment periods. Mean walking distance increased by up to 55.6 m (20%). There was a modest improvement in dyspnoea as the dose of theophylline was increased. Side effects were mostly minor but they became more frequent as the dose was increased.
                The fall in trapped gas volume may reflect an improvement in peripheral ventilation (associated with treatment with theophylline) which is less apparent in the more common tests of lung function used in patients with chronic obstructive airways disease. To evaluate comparative bronchodilator efficacy with chronic airflow obstruction (CAO), we randomly administered to ten patients week-long treatments consisting of: inhaled metaproterenol from a metered dose canister (1.30 mg six times a day) and doses of a sustained-release theophylline formulation sufficient to achieve plasma levels of 10-15 micrograms/ml; metaproterenol-placebo; theophylline-placebo; or placebo-placebo. At the end of each period, treatment responses were evaluated by spirometric tests, by exercise tolerance (12 minute walk and progressive cycle ergometry) and by subjective perception of dyspnea (oxygen cost diagram and breathlessness rating). Metaproterenol as a single treatment caused statistically significant improvements in spirometric variables and in the breathlessness rating. Theophylline as a single treatment caused significant changes in none of the test variables, though favorable trends were observed. Combined drug therapy was significantly better than metaproterenol only in the case of the breathlessness rating. We conclude that in the treatment of patients with CAO, inhaled metaproterenol is superior to oral theophylline. Our results permit no definite conclusion concerning added benefits of combined drug therapy. At rest and during exercise, noninvasive studies of cardiopulmonary physiology in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were carried out to determine the objective benefits of commonly used oral bronchodilator drugs in 15 stable patients without cardiovascular disease or reversible obstruction of airflow. Theophylline, terbutaline, a combination of theophylline and terbutaline, and placebo were given for ten days each in a randomly sequenced double-blind protocol for outpatients. Spirometric values, the ratio of physiologic dead space to tidal volume (VDp/VT), and the alveolar-arterial oxygen pressure difference (P[A-a]O2) were studied at rest on each regimen. During steady-state exercise the changes in VDp/VT and P(A-a)O2, as well as the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen and oxygen pulse, were measured. When compared with placebo, no significant change was noted in the previously mentioned measurements with any regimen, with the exception of a small improvement in the forced expiratory volume in one second, which was significant for all regimens. These findings suggest that commonly used oral bronchodilator drugs in usual doses may have small effects on airflow even in "irreversible" COPD but that the objective effect of these agents on gas exchange during rest and exercise is not significant. To assess the effects of theophylline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, we conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial in 60 patients with severe but stable disease. The patients (mean age, 61 years) were studied before and after two months of placebo and two months of treatment with a sustained-release preparation of theophylline (10 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), administered orally. The two treatments were administered in a random order and separated by an eight-day washout period. After taking theophylline for two months (mean plasma concentration, 14.8 mg per liter), as compared with the two months of placebo, the patients had significant improvements in dyspnea, pulmonary gas exchange (partial pressure of arterial oxygen, 66 vs. 61 mm Hg [P less than 0.0001]; partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, 44 vs. 49 mm Hg [P less than 0.0001]), vital capacity (63 percent vs. 58 percent of the predicted value [P less than 0.0001]), and forced expiratory volume in one second (36 percent vs. 32 percent of the predicted value [P less than 0.0001]), with no significant change in airway resistance or functional residual capacity. Minute ventilation increased by a mean of 18 percent (P less than 0.0001) in the patients taking theophylline because of increased tidal volume, with no change in respiratory frequency. The respiratory-muscle performance of the patients taking theophylline improved by approximately 29 percent (P less than 0.0001), as indicated by a decline in the ratio of inspiratory pleural pressure during quiet breathing to maximal pleural pressure. We conclude that theophylline improves respiratory function and dyspnea in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and that these improvements are probably due to better respiratory-muscle performance. This study evaluated the effectivness of oral bronchodilator therapy using theophylline in patients with nonreversible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Twelve chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients were entered into a doubleblind crossover study using either active drug theophylline in 200 mg capsules (Elixophyllin) or placebo for 3 months, followed by 3 months of the alternate capsule. At baseline and monthly visits, data were recorded, including history, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Clinically, 7 of 11 patients responded favorably to theophylline, 3 were unchanged, and 1 improved on placebo. Comparison of each sign and symptom individually revealed no statistically significant differences. Pulmonary function (FEV1 and FVC) showed slight deterioration with placebo, but not with active drug therapy. These findings suggest that nonasthmatic patients may improve clinically during theophylline therapy whereas their pulmonary function may deteriorate during placebo therapy. Oxygen desaturation and subclinical coronary artery disease may predispose older patients with chronic airflow obstruction to cardiac arrhythmias, especially when high concentrations of theophylline are present in the blood. To assess the safety and efficacy of Uniphyl tablets, an oral theophylline preparation formulated for once-daily dosing, in elderly patients with chronic airflow obstruction, we conducted a randomized, three-phase, double-blind crossover study comparing evening dosing with Uniphyl tablets, Theo-Dur tablets administered twice daily, and placebo. The patients in the study were scheduled to receive each treatment for two weeks. Each day, symptoms, side effects, peak expiratory flow rates, and use of metered-dose inhalers were recorded. Near the end of each phase, serum theophylline concentrations were measured every two hours between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on two consecutive days. The patients underwent ambulatory Holter monitoring during the final 48 hours of each phase. Twelve patients completed the active-drug phases of the study, but seven of the 12 were removed from the placebo phase because of increasing symptom severity. The difference between the number of patients completing the active-drug and placebo phases was statistically significant (p less than 0.001). Treatment with Uniphyl tablets resulted in a significantly (p less than 0.05) greater increase in peak expiratory flow rate than Theo-Dur tablet therapy, and both active drugs increased peak expiratory flow rate more than placebo. Circadian variation in peak expiratory flow rate was seen during the placebo and Theo-Dur tablet phases but not during the Uniphyl tablet phase. Symptoms and side effects were similar during the two active-drug phases. Cardiac ectopy was observed in most of the patients, but it was not significantly greater during the theophylline phases than during the placebo phase. Furthermore, ectopic activity was not directly related to the times of maximal serum theophylline concentration. We conducted a trial of inhaled salbutamol and orally administered theophylline in patients whose acute response to inhaled salbutamol was less than 25% of their baseline FEV1. Patients underwent 4 treatment periods, each of 2 wk duration, during which they received the following combinations: placebo-placebo, placebo-salbutamol, placebo-theophylline, and salbutamol-theophylline. The 19 patient who completed the study were all males with a mean age of 65 +/- 7.4 yr, mean FEV1 of 1.02 +/- 0.38, and mean VC of 2.73 +/- 0.19. Outcomes included twice-daily recordings of peak flow rates, spirometry, the distance patients could walk in 6 min, and clinical symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, and emotional function. Clinically important and statistically significant differences between the 4 periods were noted on both physiologic and functional outcomes. For the group as a whole, improvement with inhaled salbutamol and orally administered theophylline was comparable, and additional benefit was gained from a combination of the 2 drugs. We conclude that both inhaled salbutamol and orally administered theophylline can improve airflow obstruction, functional exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with primarily fixed air-flow limitation. Twenty-one patients with chronic bronchitis entered a double-blind, cross-over study in which they received sustained-release theophylline ('Nuelin'SA) 350 mg daily for 4 days followed by 700 mg daily for 4 days and matching placebo tablets for 8 days with one week separation. Seventeen patients completed the study. Three patients receiving higher doses for weight than the mean for the group were withdrawn because of side-effects. Mild side-effects only were reported in six other patients. Theophylline given twice daily produced a steady-state mean serum concentration of 13.9 micrograms/ml, 13 patients having concentrations inthe range of 10-20 micrograms/ml. There was no demonstrable improvement of symptoms but pulmonary function measurements in the clinic at the end of active treatment showed a statistically significant improvement in PEFR, 1-second forced expiratory volume and forced vital capacity. The effect of oral theophylline on clinical course, exercise, neuropsychological performance and bronchial reactivity was studied in chronic airflow obstruction. Twelve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [mean age 62.4 +/- 1.6 years (SE), and forced expiratory volume in 1 sec of 1.15 +/- 0.1 l] were randomized to 4 weeks treatment with oral theophylline followed by 4 weeks of placebo, in a double-blind fashion. During each period, patients underwent clinical evaluation, incremental exercise, a battery of neuropsychological tests measuring a wide range of cognitive functions, and an inhaled methacholine provocation. On the active drug (levels 9.5 +/- 1 mg/l), vital capacity and maximal breathing capacity were 16 +/- 7% and 20 +/- 7% respectively, higher relative to placebo (P < 0.04). Exercise capacity, as reflected by peak O2 uptake and the anaerobic threshold, improved 14 +/- 5% and 18 +/- 5% (P < 0.04). In contrast, bronchial responsiveness to inhaled methacholine and the mean scores on the neuropsychological tests were not significantly altered by the drug. Clinical symptoms were unaltered, but mild side effects were more common on theophylline. We concluded that in moderate to severe COPD, theophylline treatment, at the low range of the therapeutic dose, improves lung function and exercise capacity. This improvement is achieved with no detectable alteration of bronchial reactivity to methacholine and with no deleterious effect on cognitive functions. Although orally administered theophylline has been prescribed widely in patients with nonreversible airway obstruction, symptomatic benefit has not been established. To assess the effects of orally administered theophylline on dyspnea, we performed a randomized, double-bind, crossover, placebo-theophylline clinical trial in 12 ambulatory male patients with moderate to severe nonreversible airway obstruction. Dyspnea was rated using 2 clinical indexes based on 3 components affecting breathlessness: functional impairment, magnitude of task that evokes dyspnea, and the associated magnitude of effort. Dyspnea and physiologic parameters were measured on 4 occasions: at baseline, 4 wk after initial treatment, a second baseline after a 2-wk washout period, and 4 wk after the second medication. For the 12 patients, mean age (+/- SD) was 60 +/- 7 yr, forced expiratory volume in one second was 1.36 +/- 0.67 L (mean, 40% of predicted), and arterial oxygen tension was 71 +/- 10 mmHg. During the treatment phase, all patients had a therapeutic theophylline blood level (range, 12 to 19 micrograms/ml). Theophylline significantly decreased the components of functional impairment (p = 0.02) and magnitude of task (p = 0.02) relating to dyspnea, as well as the overall dyspnea rating (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences between placebo and theophylline therapy for spirometry, arterial blood gas tensions, and the 12-min walking distance. Thus, sustained-release theophylline significantly reduced dyspnea in these ambulatory patients with moderate to severe nonreversible airway obstruction without altering lung function, gas exchange, or exercise performance. The effects of theophylline on pulmonary function and gas exchange during rest, sleep, and exercise were assessed in 10 patients with severe but stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; median FEV1, 31% of predicted). The study was randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, and crossover in design, with each study period lasting 3 wk, and all other usual bronchodilator therapy was continued unchanged. All patients had detailed pulmonary function tests, in addition to exercise testing and overnight sleep studies by standard polysomnography. Theophylline significantly improved gas exchange during rest, exercise, and sleep. Awake resting arterial blood gases showed a higher PaO2 on theophylline (78 [53 to 93] mm Hg, median [range]) than placebo (72 [47 to 83] mm Hg; p < 0.01 by ANOVA), and PaCO2 was lower on theophylline (42 [38 to 54]) compared with placebo (45 [40 to 51], p < 0.05 by ANOVA). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) was significantly higher on theophylline than placebo during exercise and sleep (p < 0.01), and transcutaneous CO2 was lower during sleep (p < 0.05). Theophylline also resulted in significantly improved pulmonary function and reduced trapped gas volume (p < 0.05). Exercise performance was no different during theophylline or placebo phases of the study. Sleep quality, however, was significantly impaired on theophylline. We conclude that theophylline has clinically significant benefits in patients with severe COPD. This study sought answers to 2 questions: (1) Is severe dyspnea to the point of exhaustion regularly accompanied by diaphragmatic fatigue in patients with moderately severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? (2) When diaphragmatic fatigue occurs in such patients, does theophylline prevent or delay its onset? Eight eucapnic patients with moderately severe COPD were subjected to 2 different stresses to the point of severe dyspnea requiring cessation of the stress. The stresses were cycle exercise and inspiratory resistive breathing, the latter requiring a tidal Pdi equal to 60% of Pdimax. Despite incapacitating dyspnea, objective evidence of diaphragmatic fatigue was not encountered during cycle exercise. During inspiratory resistive breathing, diaphragmatic fatigue was encountered in all patients as defined by consistent inability to attain a target Pdi during final moments of the resistance run. Patients were uniformly extremely dyspneic at this point. In neither stressful maneuver did oral sustained-release theophylline show a convincing or significant advantage over placebo when administered in a randomized double-blind crossover protocol. These results suggest that the diaphragmatic fatigue encountered in this sort of COPD patient may be of predominantly central rather than peripheral (myogenic) origin and that theophylline may not be effective in this type of fatigue. Theophylline is a well known bronchodilator which has been used for more than 50 years in the treatment of obstructive pulmonary diseases. In patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease whose cardiopulmonary performance is limited by their ventilatory capacity the administration of theophylline may improve exercise performance.
                A randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, crossover trial was conducted in 22 patients with severe but stable disease. The patients (mean age 68 years) were studied before and after one month of placebo and one month of treatment with a sustained release preparation of theophylline administered orally. The theophylline dose was adjusted until a blood level above 55.5 mumol/l was achieved. The two treatments were administered in random order and separated by a two week washout period. After theophylline was administered for one month a mean level of 68.2 mumol/l was achieved. Pulmonary function tests, arterial blood gas measurements, maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV), and an incremental exercise test were performed before (baseline) and at the end of the first and second month of treatment.
                Pulmonary function tests showed no improvement in the flow parameters but showed an improvement in MVV after treatment with theophylline. Pulmonary gas exchange was improved after theophylline (resting arterial PO2 8.91 v 8.59 kPa, PCO2 5.38 v 5.56 kPa). The incremental exercise study showed improvement in maximal work rate (86.5 v 75.0 watts) and maximal ventilation (VEmax) (46.7 v 43.01/min). The dyspnoea index on maximal effort (VEmax/MVV), anaerobic threshold, and oxygen pulse remained unchanged. Resting and exercise heart rate were higher after theophylline.
                Theophylline improved cardiorespiratory performance in these patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mainly by increasing the ventilatory capacity. To investigate the additive effect of oral theophylline on combined inhaled anticholinergic agent and beta 2-agonist therapy, 12 patients with stable COPD (64.6 +/- 5.9 years) completed a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial of oral theophylline for a 4-week period (400 mg for 2 weeks, followed by 600 mg for 2 weeks). All of the patients continued to inhale both salbutamol, 200 micrograms, and ipratropium bromide, 40 micrograms, using a metered-dose inhaler four times a day. Spirometry was assessed before, and 15 and 60 min after the inhalation of bronchodilators at 2-week intervals. Even after the inhalation of salbutamol and ipratropium, theophylline significantly improved FEV1 and daily peak expiratory flow rate compared with the placebo. No significant improvement in the daily symptom scores for cough, sputum, wheezing, or shortness of breath was observed throughout the different phases of treatment. This study shows that the additive bronchodilating effect of theophylline, when used in combination with salbutamol, 200 micrograms, and ipratropium, 40 micrograms, is significant but small in stable COPD. The addition of theophylline did not significantly improve the patient's symptoms. Oral theophylline, when used in combination with an inhaled anticholinergic agent and an inhaled beta 2-agonist, may be of limited value in the treatment of stable COPD. To determine the additive effect of oral theophylline in patients with stable COPD who received both inhaled salbutamol, 400 micrograms, and ipratropium bromide, 80 micrograms, four times daily administered with a metered-dose inhaler.
                Twenty-four male patients with stable COPD (FEV1, 0.96 +/- 0.43 L; 36.8 +/- 17.0 percent predicted [% pred]) completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial with oral theophylline for 4 weeks.
                The average serum theophylline level was 15.0 +/- 5.5 micrograms/mL during treatment. On the whole, without inhalation of bronchodilators, FEV1 was 0.93 +/- 0.42 L during the placebo period and 1.00 +/- 0.43 L (significantly different from placebo; p < 0.01) during the theophylline period. At 15 and 60 min after inhalation of salbutamol, 400 micrograms, and ipratropium, 80 micrograms, the FEV1 with placebo was 1.12 +/- 0.43 L and 1.14 +/- 0.46 L, respectively, and the FEV1 with theophylline was 1.18 +/- 0.45 L (p < 0.01) and 1.20 +/- 0.47 L (p < 0.01), respectively. Daily peak expiratory flow rate also improved. Daily symptom scores were not significantly different between theophylline and placebo periods. Nevertheless, eight patients reported a subjective benefit during the theophylline administration period, and they were thus considered subjective responders. While FEV1 after inhalation was significantly improved during the theophylline periods in subjective responders (change in FEV1 between theophylline and placebo treatment 15 min after inhalation, 3.1 %pred; 60 min, 3.5 %pred), postbronchodilator FEV1 was not significantly different between the placebo and theophylline periods in subjective nonresponders (15 min, 1.7 %pred; 60 min, 1.6 %pred).
                On the whole, theophylline has a small bronchodilating effect but does not improve the symptoms of patients with stable COPD. However, one third of patients with COPD may respond subjectively to theophylline. The additive bronchodilating effect of theophylline may be related to the symptomatic improvement in subjective responders. To investigate the efficacy of bronchodilators in patients with irreversible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we conducted a double-blind, randomized, four-phase, crossover comparison between placebo, oral theophylline, inhaled salbutamol, and a combination of both drugs in 12 patients with stable COPD (mean age, 63 years) whose increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was less than or equal to 15 percent following 200 micrograms of inhaled salbutamol. Patients received two weeks of therapy with each of the test regimens. Both theophylline and salbutamol resulted in statistically significant improvement in FEV1, forced vital capacity (FVC), slow vital capacity (SVC), residual volume (RV), airway resistance (Raw), and maximum expiratory flow rate at 50 percent of vital capacity (V50). In most instances, there were no significant differences between theophylline and salbutamol. Combination therapy produced significantly greater improvement in FEV1, FVC, V50, Raw, and RV than either agent alone. The two drugs interacted in an additive fashion. Neither of the drugs, used singly, significantly reduced the severity or incidence of symptoms. The reduction in dyspnea and wheeze during combination therapy approached statistical significance (p = 0.06) and patient preference was significantly in favor of the combination regimen. None of the active treatments produced significantly more side effects than placebo. We conclude that theophylline and inhaled salbutamol produce significant, and approximately equal, improvement in pulmonary function in patients traditionally classified as suffering from "irreversible" COPD. The combination of theophylline and inhaled salbutamol generally results in additional improvement over that obtained with either drug used alone and this improvement is reflected by reduced symptomatology and treatment preference.
Theophylline has a modest effect on FEV1 and FVC and slightly improves arterial blood gas tensions in moderate to severe COPD. These benefits were seen in participants receiving a variety of different concomitant therapies. Improvement in exercise performance depended on the method of testing. There was a very low dropout rate in the studies that could be included in this review, which suggests that recruited participants may have been known by the investigators to be theophylline tolerant . This may limit the generalisability of these studies.