BACKGROUND: Asthma treatment guidelines recommend addition of controller medications for patients with poorly controlled asthma. We compared the effectiveness of once-daily oral controller therapy with either an antileukotriene receptor antagonist (montelukast) or low-dose theophylline added to existing medications in patients with poorly controlled asthma. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial in 489 participants with poorly controlled asthma randomly assigned toplacebo, theophylline (300 mg/d), or montelukast (10 mg/d). Participants were monitored for 24 wk to measure the rate of episodes of poor asthma control (EPACs) defined by decreased peak flow, increased beta-agonist use, increased oral corticosteroid use, or unscheduled health care visits. OBSERVATIONS: There was no significant difference in EPAC rates (events/person/yr) compared with placebo: low-dose theophylline, 4.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-6.7; not significant); montelukast, 4.0 (95% CI, 3.0-5.4; not significant); and placebo, 4.9 (95% CI, 3.8-6.4). Both montelukast and theophylline caused small improvements in prebronchodilator FEV(1) of borderline significance. Nausea was more common with theophylline only during the first 4 wk of treatment. Neither treatment improved asthma symptoms or quality of life. However, in patients not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, addition of low-dose theophylline significantly (p < 0.002) improved asthma control and symptoms as well as lung function. CONCLUSIONS: Neither montelukast nor low-dose theophylline lowered the EPAC rate of poor asthma control in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite improved lung function. For patients not using inhaled corticosteroids, low-dose theophylline improved asthma symptom control more than montelukast or placebo, and provides a safe and low-cost alternative asthma treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Asthma treatment guidelines recommend addition of controller medications for patients with poorly controlled asthma. We compared the effectiveness of once-daily oral controller therapy with either an antileukotriene receptor antagonist (montelukast) or low-dose theophylline added to existing medications in patients with poorly controlled asthma. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial in 489 participants with poorly controlled asthma randomly assigned to placebo, theophylline (300 mg/d), or montelukast (10 mg/d). Participants were monitored for 24 wk to measure the rate of episodes of poor asthma control (EPACs) defined by decreased peak flow, increased beta-agonist use, increased oral corticosteroid use, or unscheduled health care visits. OBSERVATIONS: There was no significant difference in EPAC rates (events/person/yr) compared with placebo: low-dose theophylline, 4.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-6.7; not significant); montelukast, 4.0 (95% CI, 3.0-5.4; not significant); and placebo, 4.9 (95% CI, 3.8-6.4). Both montelukast and theophylline caused small improvements in prebronchodilator FEV(1) of borderline significance. Nausea was more common with theophylline only during the first 4 wk of treatment. Neither treatment improved asthma symptoms or quality of life. However, in patients not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, addition of low-dose theophylline significantly (p < 0.002) improved asthma control and symptoms as well as lung function. CONCLUSIONS: Neither montelukast nor low-dose theophylline lowered the EPAC rate of poor asthma control in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite improved lung function. For patients not using inhaled corticosteroids, low-dose theophylline improved asthma symptom control more than montelukast or placebo, and provides a safe and low-cost alternative asthma treatment.
Authors: John G Mastronarde; Nicholas R Anthonisen; Mario Castro; Janet T Holbrook; Frank T Leone; W Gerald Teague; Robert A Wise Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T E Albertson; M Schivo; N Gidwani; N J Kenyon; M E Sutter; A L Chan; S Louie Journal: Clin Rev Allergy Immunol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 8.667
Authors: Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Sami A Alhaider; Abdullah A Alangari; Mohammed O Al Ghobain; Mohammed O Zeitouni; Majdy M Idrees; Abdullah F Alanazi; Adel S Al-Harbi; Abdullah A Yousef; Hassan S Alorainy; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2019 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.219
Authors: Heidi M Schambra; Isis E Martinez-Hernandez; Kevin J Slane; Amelia K Boehme; Randolph S Marshall; Ronald M Lazar Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Michael J McGeachie; Eli A Stahl; Blanca E Himes; Sarah A Pendergrass; John J Lima; Charles G Irvin; Stephen P Peters; Marylyn D Ritchie; Robert M Plenge; Kelan G Tantisira Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.089