A long-term clinical trial on the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline in Asthma: The LESDA study.

Doxofylline, an oral methylxanthine with bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, offers a promising alternative to theophylline due to its superior efficacy/safety profile. No long-term studies on the efficacy and safety of doxofylline are currently available in asthma. The aim of the Long-term clinical trial on the Efficacy and Safety profile of Doxofylline in Asthma (LESDA) study was to investigate the safety and efficacy profile of doxofylline administered for one year in asthmatic patients. LESDA was a multicenter, open-label, Phase III, clinical trial in which adult asthmatic patients received the same treatment (oral doxofylline 400 mg t.i.d.) for one year. Efficacy was assessed through periodic pulmonary function tests and by having the subjects keep monthly records of asthma events rates and use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rate of adverse events (AEs) was recorded during the study. Three-hundred nine patients were screened and allocated in the study. Doxofylline significantly improved the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (+16.90 ± 1.81%, P < 0.001 vs. baseline). Doxofylline also significantly improved the rate of asthma events (events/day: -0.57 ± 0.18, P < 0.05 vs. baseline) and the use of salbutamol as rescue medication (puffs/day: -1.48 ± 0.25, P < 0.01 vs. baseline). The most common AEs were nausea (14.56%), headache (14.24%), insomnia (10.68%), and dyspepsia (10.03%). There were neither serious AEs nor deaths during or shortly after the study. Concluding, doxofylline is effective and well tolerated when administered chronically in asthmatic patients.

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).

This pooled analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials aimed to investigate the impact of DOxofylline compaRed tO THEOphylline (DOROTHEO 1 and DOROTHEO 2 studies) on functional and clinical outcomes in asthma. Asthmatic patients ≥16 years of age with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥50% and <80% and with ≥15% post-bronchodilator increase in FEV1 were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio in DOROTHEO 1 to receive doxofylline 200 mg, doxofylline 400 mg, theophylline 250 mg, or placebo; in DOROTHEO 2 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive doxofylline 400 mg, theophylline 250 mg, or placebo. All double-blind treatments were taken orally with immediate release formulations and three times daily. Data evaluating the effect of doxofylline 400 mg, theophylline 250 mg and placebo on FEV1, asthma events rate, use of salbutamol as rescue medication and adverse events (AEs) were pooled from both studies. The pooled-analysis of 483 patients demonstrated that both doxofylline 400 mg and theophylline 250 mg significantly increased FEV1, reduced the rate of asthma events and use of salbutamol to relieve asthma symptoms compared to placebo (p < 0.01). No significant differences were detected between doxofylline 400 mg and theophylline 250 mg. Doxofylline 400 mg did not significantly (p > 0.05) increase the risk of AEs compared to placebo, conversely in patients treated with theophylline 250 mg the risk of AEs was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than in those that received placebo. We conclude that doxofylline seems to offer a promising alternative to theophylline with a superior efficacy/safety profile in the management of patients with asthma.