These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of inhaled salmeterol and oral theophylline in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SLMT02 Italian Study Group.
    Author: Di Lorenzo G, Morici G, Drago A, Pellitteri ME, Mansueto P, Melluso M, Norrito F, Squassante L, Fasolo A.
    Journal: Clin Ther; 1998; 20(6):1130-48. PubMed ID: 9916607.
    Abstract:
    The aims of management in mild-to-moderate stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), reduce decline in lung function, prevent and treat complications, increase survival while maintaining QOL, and minimize the adverse effects of treatment. Bronchodilator therapy is the keystone of improving COPD symptoms and functional capacity. The primary objective of this open-label study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of salmeterol 50 microg BID administered by metered-dose inhaler versus oral, titrated, sustained-release theophylline BID, both given for 3 months to patients with a clinical history of chronic bronchitis. The secondary objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety profile of the two drugs for an additional 9-month period and to assess changes in QOL both within and between treatment groups, using the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey. One hundred seventy-eight outpatients (122 men, 56 women; mean age, 56 +/- 12.9 years; mean body weight, 76.1 +/- 11.8 kg) were randomized to the two treatment groups. Patients receiving salmeterol showed significant improvement in mean morning peak expiratory flow rate (16.56 L/min) over the 3-month period compared with patients receiving theophylline (P = 0.02). Salmeterol also significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days and nights with no additional salbutamol requirement (P < 0.01). A significant difference was found between increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second compared with baseline for salmeterol compared with theophylline throughout the initial 3-month period (0.13, 0.16, and 0.16 L at months 1, 2, and 3, respectively) and during the additional 9 months. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (salmeterol, 49.5%; theophylline, 49.4%), with a lower percentage of pharmacologically predictable adverse events in patients receiving salmeterol (4%) compared with those receiving theophylline (14.8%). Both drugs improved QOL, as measured by effects on the eight aspects of life experience analyzed by the SF-36 questionnaire. Salmeterol therapy was effective in more aspects, and the improvements seen in each were numerically greater than those seen with theophylline therapy. Statistically different changes between the two treatment groups were reported for physical functioning, changes in health perception, and social functioning (P = 0.02, P = 0.03, and P = 0.004, respectively). These data suggest that inhaled salmeterol 50 microg BID was more effective and better tolerated than oral, titrated theophylline and allowed better long-term control of airways obstruction and symptoms with improved lung function in patients with COPD.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]