Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Original research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

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

Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine volume 14, Article number: 25 (2019) Cite this article

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 profile of doxofylline and theophylline in asthma.

Methods

A pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to assess the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline and placebo on the change in asthma events, risk of adverse events (AEs), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and salbutamol use.

Results

Data obtained from 696 asthmatic patients were extracted from 4 randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2018. Doxofylline was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events (mean difference − 0.14, 95%CI -0.27 – 0.00) and risk of AEs (relative risk 0.76, 95%CI 0.59–0.99). Doxofylline was as effective as theophylline in improving FEV1, and a trend of superiority (P = 0.058) was detected for doxofylline over theophylline with respect to the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rank of effectiveness was doxofylline>theophylline> > placebo, and the rank of safety was placebo>doxofylline> > theophylline.

Conclusions

Doxofylline is an effective and safe methylxanthine for the treatment of asthma, with an efficacy/safety profile greater than that of theophylline.

Trial registration

Meta-analysis registration: CRD42019119849.

Background

Oral methylxanthines are recognized effective drugs for the clinical management of patients suffering from chronic obstructive respiratory disorders. The novel methylxanthine doxofylline, that is characterized by bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, seems to be not affected by the major drawback of theophylline [1,2,3,4,5]. Doxofylline has a favourable efficacy profile accompanied by a high level of tolerability, at least in COPD patients [6]. Moreover, an observational study aimed to assess the treatment plan in acute and chronic respiratory tract diseases, has demonstrated a significant difference in the unit cost per patient in favour of doxophylline compared to theophyllne. In fact, although the cost of doxophylline was higher than that of theophyllne, doxofylline resulted to be associated with a reduction of the overall cost related with COPD and/or asthma management [7].

Recently, the pooled analysis of two multicenter, double-blind, randomized trials, carried out in 38 US pulmonary clinics that investigated the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of doxofylline compared to theophylline, demonstrated that doxofylline is an effective and well tolerated agent in asthmatic patients [8]. Although the beneficial efficacy/safety profile of doxofylline has been reported in further smaller clinical trials and retrospective studies [9,10,11,12,13,14], to date large-scale quantitative synthesis comparing the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline vs. theophylline in the treatment of asthma is still lacking.

The hypothesis of this study is that a quantitative synthesis of clinical trials that directly compared the efficacy and safety of doxofylline vs. theophylline may provide more robust evidences than individual studies or pooled analyses. Therefore, we performed a pairwise and network meta-analysis to definitively clarify which of the two drugs should be prescribed when a methylxanthine is recommended in asthmatic patients.

Methods

Search strategy

This meta-analysis has been submitted to the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42019119849), and performed in agreement with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) [15]. The PRISMA flow diagram is reported in Fig. 1a. This quantitative synthesis satisfied all the recommended items reported by the PRISMA-P checklist [15].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for the identification of studies included in the meta-analysis (a) and diagram displaying the network across the treatments; the links between nodes indicate the direct comparisons between pairs of treatments; the numbers shown along the link lines indicate the number of patients comparing pairs of treatments head-to-head (b)

Full size image

Two reviewers performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the influence of doxofylline and theophylline in adolescent and adult asthmatic patients. The PICO (Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) framework was used to develop the literature search strategy, as previously described [16]. Namely, the “Patient problem” included subject affected by asthma; the “Intervention” regarded the administration of doxofylline and theophylline; the “Comparison” was performed with regard to placebo and across each active treatment; the “Outcomes” were the asthma events, adverse events (AEs), lung function expressed as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and use of salbutamol as rescue medication.

The terms “doxofylline” AND “theophylline” AND “asthma” were searched in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register databases in order to provide for relevant studies available up to December 7, 2018. No language restriction was applied. The following Query Translation was used: (“asthma” [MeSH Terms] OR “asthma”[All Fields]) AND (“theophylline” [MeSH Terms] OR “theophylline” [All Fields]) AND (“doxofylline” [Supplementary Concept] OR “doxofylline”[All Fields]).

Citations of previously published analyses and relevant reviews were examined to identify further pertinent studies, if any [6, 8, 17,18,19].

Study selection

Published RCTs involving asthmatic patients treated with oral formulations of doxofylline and theophylline were included in this meta-analysis.

Two reviewers independently checked the relevant studies identified from literature searches obtained from the already mentioned databases. The studies were selected in agreement with the above-mentioned criteria, and any difference in opinion about eligibility was resolved by general consensus.

Endpoints

The primary endpoints of this meta-analysis were the impact of doxofylline on the change in asthma events and the risk of AEs, compared to theophylline and placebo. Asthma events were defined as episodes of increased symptoms or increased airflow limitation responsive to as needed short-acting β2 agonists or resulting in either unscheduled medical attention, unscheduled use of oral corticosteroids, hospital admission [20]. The secondary endpoints were the impact of doxofylline on the change in FEV1 and salbutamol use, compared to theophylline.

Quality score, risk of bias and evidence profile

The Jadad score, with a scale of 1 to 5 (score of 5 being the best quality), was used to assess the quality of the RCTs concerning the likelihood of biases related to randomization, double blinding, withdrawals and dropouts [21]. A Jadad score ≥ 3 was defined to identify high quality studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of individual studies, and any difference in opinion about the quality score was resolved by consensus.

In the pairwise meta-analysis moderate to high levels of heterogeneity between-studies were considered for I2 > 50%; the risk of publication bias was assessed by applying the funnel plot and Egger’s test, as previously described [21]. Evidence of asymmetry from Egger’s test was considered to be significant at P < 0.1, and the graphical representation of 90% confidence bands have been presented [21]. The risk of bias in the network meta-analysis was checked via the consistency/inconsistency analysis to assess whether the outcomes resulting from the consistency and inconsistency models fit adequately with the line of equality, as previously described [22].

The quality of the evidence was assessed for the primary endpoint in agreement with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, indicating ++++ for high quality of evidence, +++ for moderate quality of evidence, ++ for low quality of evidence, and + for very low quality of evidence [23].

Data extraction

Data from included RCTs were extracted and checked for study characteristics and duration, enrolled patients, treatments and doses, disease characteristics, age, gender, asthma events, previous hospitalizations, lung function, and Jadad score. Data have been extracted in agreement with DECiMAL recommendations [24].

Data analysis

A pairwise meta-analysis was performed to quantify the impact of doxofylline compared to theophylline on primary and secondary endpoints.

Results of the pairwise meta-analysis are expressed as mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Since data were selected from a series of studies performed by researchers operating independently, and a common effect size cannot be assumed, binary random-effects model was used in order to balance the study weights and adequately estimate the 95%CI of the mean distribution of drugs effect on the investigated variables [21].

A network meta-analysis was also carried out to perform a comparison across doxofylline, theophylline, and placebo with respect to the primary endpoints, and to rank their efficacy in reducing asthma events and the risk of AEs.

The network meta-analysis was carried out by including RCTs that introduced no significant heterogeneity and bias in the effect estimates of primary endpoint. Since heterogeneity and bias may propagate through a network of RCTs, and thus affect the estimates differentially across regions of the network, this approach permitted to identify those studies that might alter the correct results of the network meta-analysis [25].

Full Bayesian evidence network was used in the network meta-analysis (chains: 4; initial values scaling: 2.5; tuning iterations: 20.000; simulation iterations: 50.000; tuning interval: 10). The convergence diagnostics for consistency and inconsistency was assessed via the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method, as previously described [26]. Results of the network meta-analysis are expressed as relative effect (RE) and 95% credible interval (95%CrI). The probability that each intervention arm was the most effective was calculated by counting the proportion of iterations of the chain in which each intervention arm had the highest mean difference, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), representing the summary of these probabilities, was also calculated. The SUCRA is 1 when a treatment is certain to be the best, and 0 when a treatment is certain to be the worst [27].

Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the studies that introduced heterogeneity and bias in the effect estimate of primary endpoints, if any. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify the factors that might modulate the efficacy and safety profile of the investigated agents with regard to primary endpoints.

The specisafety profile of the investigated treatments was investigated through a pooled analysis of the frequency of specific AEs.

OpenMetaAnalyst [28] and GeMTC [29] software were used for performing the meta-analysis, GraphPad Prism (CA, US) software to graph the data, and GRADEpro GDT to assess the quality of evidence [23]. The statistical significance for the effect estimates resulting from the pairwise and network meta-analyses was assessed for P < 0.05.

Results

Studies characteristics

Data obtained from 696 asthmatic patients (44.68% treated with doxofylline, 31.62% treated with theophylline, and 23.71% treated with placebo) were selected from 4 RCTs published between 2015 and 2018 [8,9,10]. The relevant characteristics of studies, disease, and patients are described in Table 1; Fig. 1b shows the network across the treatments.

Table 1 Patient demographics, baseline and study characteristics
Full size table

All the RCTs were published as full-text papers [8,9,10]. The DOROTHEO 1, DOROTHEO 2, and the study of Margay et al. were published as high quality studies (Jadad score ≥ 3) [8, 9], whereas the study of Lal et al. as low-quality study (Jadad score = 1) [10]. The duration of treatment ranged from 6 weeks to 12 weeks.

Primary endpoints

The pairwise meta-analysis indicated that doxofylline was significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events (MD -0.14, 95%CI -0.27 – 0.00) (Fig. 2a). The effect estimate was not affected by heterogeneity (I2 0%, P = 0.53). Although a certain level of asymmetry resulted by the visual inspection of funnel plot, the Egger’s test found not significant publication bias (Fig. 2b and c). The risk of AEs was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in patients treated with doxofylline than in those that received theophylline (RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.59–0.99) (Fig. 2d). The substantial but not significant heterogeneity (I2 59%, P = 0.05) was confirmed by the visual inspection of funnel plot (Fig. 2e), and mainly related with the study of Lal et al. [10]. However, the analysis performed via Egger’s test indicated that, although the study of Lal et al. [10] was small and characterized by low quality, it introduced no significant publication bias in the effect estimate concerning the risk of AEs (Fig. 2f).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of pair-wise meta-analysis concerning the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline on asthma events (a) and adverse events (d), with relative publication bias assessment via funnel plots (b and e) and Egger’s test (c and f). Ranking plot resulting from the network meta-analysis of efficacy (g) and safety (h) in which treatments were plotted on X-axis according to SUCRA (score of 1 being the most effective) and on Y-axis according to the rank of being the best treatment (score of 1 being the most effective). *P < 0.05. AEs: adverse events; SND: standard normal deviate; SUCRA: surface under the cumulative ranking curve

Full size image

The results of the network meta-analysis indicated that doxofylline, but not theophylline, significantly (P < 0.05) reduced the daily asthma events (RE: − 0.33, 95%CrI -0.62 - -0.04, − 0.33; − 0.23 95%CrI -0.54 - 0.04; respectively, compared to placebo). Doxofylline was also safer than theophylline, reporting a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in the risk of AEs (RE 0.53, 95%CrI 0.27–0.87; doxofylline vs. theophylline). The network meta-analysis also showed that doxofyline was the most effective treatment (upper quartile in the SUCRA ranking) with respect to both theophylline (second quartile in the SUCRA ranking) and placebo (lower quartile in the SUCRA ranking) (Fig. 2 g). As expected, placebo was the safest arm (upper quartile in the SUCRA ranking), followed by doxofylline (second quartile in the SUCRA ranking); conversely, theophylline was the less safe treatment (lower quartile in the SUCRA ranking) (Fig. 2 h).

The consistency/inconsistency analysis showed that all points fit adequately with the line of equality (efficacy: R2 0.99; slope 1.05, 95%CI 0.96–1.15), indicating that the network meta-analysis was not affected by significant bias.

Meta-regression analysis confirmed that the patient demographics, baseline and study characteristics did not modulate the efficacy and safety profile of the investigated agents.

The GRADE analysis indicated high quality of evidence (++++) for doxofylline vs. theophylline with respect to efficacy and safety profile in both pairwise and network meta-analysis.

Secondary endpoints

There was no significant difference between doxofylline and theophylline on the change in change in FEV1 (P > 0.05) (Fig. 3a). A trend of superiority (P = 0.058) was detected for doxofylline over theophylline with respect to the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of pair-wise meta-analysis concerning the impact of doxofylline vs. theophylline on the change in FEV1 (a) and salbutamol use as recue medication (d), with relative publication bias assessment via funnel plots (b and e) and Egger’s test (c and f). FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; SND: standard normal deviate

Full size image

The pooled analysis of safety profile showed that the AEs with a frequency greater than 5% were headache (doxofylline 20.61%, theophylline 23.64%), nausea (doxofylline 10.96%, theophylline 21.82%), nervousness (doxofylline 4.39%, theophylline 11.36%), and dyspepsia (doxofylline 6.58%, theophylline 8.18%). AEs were generally mild in severity, and detailed frequencies of further specific AEs are reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Pooled analysis of AEs (sorted by descending order) extracted from the studies that directly compared doxofyline with theophylline in asthmatic patients
Full size table

Discussion

This meta-analysis showed that treatment with doxofylline was significantly more effective than theophylline in reducing the daily asthma events and preventing the risk of AEs, which were the primary endpoints of this meta-analysis. As expected, the SUCRA analysis performed by considering high quality RCTs reported that doxofylline had a better efficacy profile than both theophylline and placebo, and that theophylline was ranked as the less safe treatment in this quantitative synthesis. Interestingly, the pooled analysis indicated that the percentage of the most frequently recorded AEs (i.e. headache, nausea, nervousness, insomnia, dyspepsia, and vomiting) was generally greater in asthmatic patients treated with theophylline than in those that received doxofylline. Overall, the results of this study are strong, as they were not affected by publication bias, and with high quality of evidence for both the pariwise and network meta-analyses.

Concerning the secondary endpoints, doxofylline was as effective as theophylline in improving FEV1, although a trend toward significance [30] suggested that doxofylline was superior than theophylline concerning the reduction in the use of salbutamol as rescue medication.

Although significant, the difference in efficacy outcomes between doxofylline and theophylline did not reach the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs), when considering the comparison across active treatments [31]. Nevertheless, in the network meta-analysis the range of protection against the risk of AEs was clinically meaningful for doxofylline vs. theophylline, as the 95%CrI of RR was prevalently below the 0.75 value, with the mean set at RR 0.53 [32]. The small differences in results between the pairwise and network meta-analyses may be due to the presence of the placebo node in the Bayesian analysis that reinforced the comparison across the investigated arms.

Taken together the findings of this meta-analysis support the rationale for using doxofyilline to treat chronic obstructive respiratory disorders, and its superiority with respect to theophylline [6, 8, 17]. Considering also the beneficial cost-effectiveness profile of the pharmacological treatment with doxofyilline [7], and the advantage of not needing the monitoring of theophyllinemia, there is no reason not to choose doxofylline as first line treatment when a methylxanthine is indicated in asthmatic patients.

Indeed, meta-analyses have evolved as a technique useful for summarizing the evidences form a large number of RCTs and for resolving discrepancies raised by clinical studies. Nevertheless, meta-analyses mainly deal with populations and not with single patients [33]. In this respect, the use of an effective, safe and inexpensive orally active drug as doxofylline should be encouraged especially in those patients who find inhalers difficult to use. The use of doxofylline, instead of theophylline, may have a strong rationale also in those patients who do not get adequate control from other pharmacological classes, such as inhaled corticosteroids in smokers asthmatics or β2-adrenoceptor agonists in subjects with a genetic polymorphism resulting in homozygosity for arginine at amino acid residue 16 of the β2-adrenergic receptor [34, 35].

Finally, but not less important, the current evidence clearly indicates that the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations [36] should be updated by considering doxofylline as a more effective and safer alternative to theophylline in Step 1 to 4 treatments, and as optional treatment in acute care settings.

Conclusions

The results of this quantitative synthesis of the current literature proves that doxofylline is an effective and safe methylxanthine for the treatment of asthma, and that its efficacy/safety profile is greater than that of theophylline.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

AEs:

adverse events

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CI:

confidence interval

CrI:

credible interval

FEV1 :

forced expiratory volume in 1 s

GINA:

Global Initiative for Asthma

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

MD:

mean difference

PICO:

Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome

PRISMA-P:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols

PROSPERO:

prospectively registered systematic reviews

RCTs:

randomized controlled trials

RE:

relative effect

RR:

relative risk

SUCRA:

surface under the cumulative ranking curve

References

  1. Page CP. Doxofylline: a “novofylline”. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2010;23(4):231–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Franzone JS, Cirillo R, Barone D. Doxofylline and theophylline are xanthines with partly different mechanisms of action in animals. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1988;14(7):479–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cirillo R, Barone D, Franzone JS. Doxofylline, an antiasthmatic drug lacking affinity for adenosine receptors. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1988;295:221–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dolcetti A, Osella D, De Filippis G, Carnuccio C, Grossi E. Comparison of intravenously administered doxofylline and placebo for the treatment of severe acute airways obstruction. J Int Med Res. 1988;16(4):264–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Poggi R, Brandolese R, Bernasconi M, Manzin E, Rossi A. Doxofylline and respiratory mechanics. Short-term effects in mechanically ventilated patients with airflow obstruction and respiratory failure. Chest. 1989;96(4):772–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cazzola M, Calzetta L, Barnes PJ, Criner GJ, Martinez FJ, Papi A, et al. Efficacy and safety profile of xanthines in COPD: a network meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27(148).

  7. Mennini F, Sciattella P, Marcellusi A, Marcobelli A, Russo A, Caputi A. Treatment plan comparison in acute and chronic respiratory tract diseases: an observational study of doxophylline vs. theophylline. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(5):503–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Calzetta L, Hanania NA, Dini FL, Goldstein MF, Fairweather WR, Howard WW, et al. Impact of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: a pooled analysis of functional and clinical outcomes from two multicentre, double-blind, randomized studies (DOROTHEO 1 and DOROTHEO 2). Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2018;53:20–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Margay SM, Farhat S, Kaur S, Teli HA. To study the efficacy and safety of doxophylline and theophylline in bronchial asthma. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2015;9(4):FC05–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lal D, Manocha S, Ray A, Vijayan VK, Kumar R. Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of theophylline and doxofylline in patients with bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2015;26(5):443–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rajanandh MG, Nageswari AD, Ilango K. Assessment of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide for the treatment of asthma: which is the best among the second-line treatment? A randomized trial. Clin Ther. 2015;37(2):418–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rajanandh MG, Nageswari AD, Ilango K. Pulmonary function assessment in mild to moderate persistent asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide: a randomized controlled study. Clin Ther. 2014;36(4):526–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel YA, Patel P, Bavadia H, Dave J, Tripathi CB. A randomized, open labeled, comparative study to assess the efficacy and safety of controller medications as add on to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 agonist in the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. J Postgrad Med. 2010;56(4):270–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bagnato GF. Tolerability of doxofylline in the maintenance therapy of pediatric patients with bronchial asthma. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 1999;3(6):255–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1).

  16. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cazzola M, Calzetta L, Rogliani P, Page C, Matera MG. Impact of doxofylline in COPD: a pairwise meta-analysis. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2018;51:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Matera MG, Page C, Cazzola M. Doxofylline is not just another theophylline! Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:3487–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Spina D, Page CP. Xanthines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2017;237:63–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pavord ID, Beasley R, Agusti A, Anderson GP, Bel E, Brusselle G, et al. After asthma: redefining airways diseases. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):350–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Calzetta L, Rogliani P, Matera MG, Cazzola M. A systematic review with meta-analysis of dual bronchodilation with LAMA/LABA for the treatment of stable COPD. Chest. 2016;149(5):1181–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cazzola M, Rogliani P, Calzetta L, Hanania NA, Matera MG. Impact of mucolytic agents on COPD exacerbations: a pair-wise and network meta-analysis. COPD. 2017;14(5):552–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pedder H, Sarri G, Keeney E, Nunes V, Dias S. Data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL) guide. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, Dickersin K. Ad hoc network meta-analysis methods meeting working G. network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med. 2011;9:79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Calzetta L, Rogliani P, Ora J, Puxeddu E, Cazzola M, Gabriella Matera M. LABA/LAMA combination in COPD: a meta-analysis on the duration of treatment. Eur Respir Rev 2016;0:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0043-2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cazzola M, Calzetta L, Rogliani P, Matera MG. Tiotropium formulations and safety: a network meta-analysis. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2016:2042098616667304. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098616667304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Trow P, Schmid CH. Closing the gap between methodologists and end-users: R as a computational Back-end. J Stat Softw. 2012;49(5):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bangalore S, Messerli FH. Of statistical significance: “trends” toward significance and optimism bias. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1471 author reply.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones PW, Beeh KM, Chapman KR, Decramer M, Mahler DA, Wedzicha JA. Minimal clinically important differences in pharmacological trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(3):250–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cazzola M, Rogliani P, Calzetta L, Matera MG. Triple therapy versus single and dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2018;52:6.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kanazawa H. Anticholinergic agents in asthma: chronic bronchodilator therapy, relief of acute severe asthma, reduction of chronic viral inflammation and prevention of airway remodeling. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2006;12(1):60–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Matera MG, Calzetta L, Gritti G, Gallo L, Perfetto B, Donnarumma G, et al. Role of statins and mevalonate pathway on impaired HDAC2 activity induced by oxidative stress in human airway epithelial cells. Eur J Pharmacol. 2018;832:114–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. GINA. Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2018. Available at: https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/wms-GINA-2018-report-V1.3-002.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2019.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

ABC Farmaceutici (Italy) has provided unconditional support and funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Paola Rogliani, Luigino Calzetta & Mario Cazzola

  2. Division of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Josuel Ora

  3. Unit of Pharmacology, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

    Maria Gabriella Matera

Authors
  1. Paola Rogliani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigino Calzetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josuel Ora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Cazzola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Gabriella Matera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PR and LC: designed and executed the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, prepared the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript; JO: interpreted the data, prepared the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript; MC and MGM: designed the study, interpreted the data, prepared the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigino Calzetta.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

PR has participated as an advisor in scientific meetings the sponsorship of ABC Farmaceutici; LC has participated as an advisor in scientific meetings the sponsorship of ABC Farmaceutici; he is or has been a consultant to ABC Farmaceutici; JO has no competing interests; MGM has participated as an advisor in scientific meetings the sponsorship of ABC Farmaceutici; MC has participated as an advisor in scientific meetings the sponsorship of ABC Farmaceutici; he is or has been a consultant to ABC Farmaceutici. MC is a member of the Editorial Board of Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rogliani, P., Calzetta, L., Ora, J. et al. Efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline compared to theophylline in asthma: a meta-analysis. Multidiscip Respir Med 14, 25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0189-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0189-0

Keywords

Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine

ISSN: 2049-6958

Contact us