4.2 Article

Chronic Use of Theophylline and Mortality in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis

Journal

ARCHIVOS DE BRONCONEUMOLOGIA
Volume 52, Issue 5, Pages 233-238

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2015.02.021

Keywords

Emphysema; Death; Adverse effect; Drug toxicity; Bronchodilator

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Theophylline has been shown to improve respiratory function and oxygenation in patients with chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the impact of theophylline on mortality in COPD patients has not been not sufficiently evaluated. Method: Two investigators independently searched for eligible articles in 4 databases. The eligibility criterion for this meta-analysis was an original research article that provided a hazard ratio for theophylline for all-cause mortality of COPD patients. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were accepted. After we confirmed no substantial heterogeneity (I-2 <50%), the fixed-model method with generic inverse variance was used for meta-analysis to estimate the pooled hazard ratio. Results: We screened 364 potentially eligible articles. Of the 364 articles, 259 were excluded on the basis of title and abstract, and 99 were excluded after examination of the full text. Our final analysis included 6 observational studies and no randomized controlled trials. One study reported 2 cohorts. The number of patients in each cohort ranged from 47 to 46,403. Heterogeneity (I-2=42%, P=.11) and publication bias (Begg's test r = 0.21, P=.662) were not substantial. Fixed-model meta-analysis yielded a pooled hazard ratio for theophylline for all-cause death of 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.13, P=.003). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of 7 observational cohorts suggests that theophylline slightly increases all-cause death in COPD patients. (C) 2014 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available