4.5 Article

Effect of theophylline on the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 40-50

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.02977.x

Keywords

administrative database; cohort study; COPD; exacerbations; theophylline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To determine the effectiveness of theophyllines in real clinical practice on moderate to severe exacerbations. METHODS A cohort of 36 492 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients aged >= 50 years was reconstructed from the health administrative databases of the province of Quebec, Canada, between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2002 to compare users of theophyllines with users of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and users of long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on their rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations. RESULTS Users of theophyllines were found to be less likely than users of LABA [crude rates 84 vs. 91 per 100 patient-years, adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 0.95] and users of theophyllines plus ICS were found to be less likely than users of LABA plus ICS ( crude rates 114 vs. 112 per 100 patient-years, adjusted RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87, 0.92) to have moderate to severe COPD exacerbations. Users of theophyllines were found to be more likely than users of ICS to have a COPD exacerbation (crude rates 84 vs. 77 per 100 patient-years, adjusted RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04, 1.10), and this association was even stronger among patients who had at least three exacerbations in the year prior to cohort entry ( crude rates 273 vs. 213 per 100 patient-years, adjusted RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.19, 1.38). CONCLUSION The use of theophyllines was found to be associated with a reduction in the rate of COPD exacerbations among all COPD patients, but to be less effective than ICS among patients with frequent exacerbations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available