2019
DOI: 10.4081/mrm.2019.26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: a meta-analysis

Abstract: Background: Oral methylxanthines are effective drugs for the treatment of chronic obstructive respiratory disorders. The novel methylxanthine doxofylline, that has bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, is not affected by the major drawback of theophylline. Nowadays large-scale quantitative synthesis comparing the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline vs. theophylline in the treatment of asthma is still lacking. Therefore, we performed a quantitative synthesis to compare the efficacy/safety prof… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another important point arising from this systematic review is that ICS can be ineffective in preventing AHR in smoking patients with asthma, a condition related to the presence of relative steroid resistance due to the impairment of histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) [ 28 , 46 ]. In these smoking asthmatics, perhaps adding drugs that are able to restore HDAC2 activity such as doxofylline may help support the therapeutic effect of ICS [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another important point arising from this systematic review is that ICS can be ineffective in preventing AHR in smoking patients with asthma, a condition related to the presence of relative steroid resistance due to the impairment of histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) [ 28 , 46 ]. In these smoking asthmatics, perhaps adding drugs that are able to restore HDAC2 activity such as doxofylline may help support the therapeutic effect of ICS [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%