Haahtela T, Vilkka V, Kulstad S
Allergy. 1983 Nov;38(8):589-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1983.tb04144.x.
In a double-blind, cross-over trial comprising 19 adult asthmatic patients a sustained-release preparation of theophylline (Theo-Dur), given twice daily, was compared with a conventional fast-release preparation (Nuelin), given three times daily. The theophylline doses were individually titrated to give plasma concentrations in the lower region of the therapeutic interval. The sustained-release preparation gave higher morning theophylline concentrations than the fast-release preparation (9.2 vs 5.9 mg/l). This resulted in somewhat higher morning peak flow values during Theo-Dur treatment. However, the difference in asthma symptoms was not significant and the patients showed no preference for either preparation. We conclude that the advantage of a sustained-release preparation over a conventional fast-release theophylline preparation is the lower dosing frequency rather than the better clinical effect in patients who suffer from chronic asthma, but whose disease is in a relatively stable phase.
在一项纳入19名成年哮喘患者的双盲交叉试验中，将每日给药两次的茶碱缓释制剂（Theo-Dur）与每日给药三次的传统速释制剂（Nuelin）进行了比较。茶碱剂量经个体化滴定，以使血浆浓度处于治疗区间的较低范围。缓释制剂早晨的茶碱浓度高于速释制剂（9.2 vs 5.9毫克/升）。这导致在使用Theo-Dur治疗期间早晨的呼气峰流速值略高。然而，哮喘症状的差异并不显著，患者对两种制剂均无偏好。我们得出结论，对于患有慢性哮喘但病情处于相对稳定阶段的患者，缓释制剂相对于传统速释茶碱制剂的优势在于给药频率较低，而非临床效果更好。
