Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Low-dose theophylline in addition to ICS therapy in COPD patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Tiankui Shuai,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Chuchu Zhang,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Meng Zhang,

    Roles Software

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Yalei Wang,

    Roles Methodology

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Huaiyu Xiong,

    Roles Methodology, Software

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Qiangru Huang,

    Roles Methodology, Software

    Affiliations Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China, The Fist Clinical Medical College of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China

  • Jian Liu

    Roles Conceptualization

    medecinliu@sina.com

    Affiliation Department of Intensive Care Unit, Lanzhou University, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lan Zhou, Gansu Province, China

Abstract

Background

A synergism has been reported between theophylline and corticosteroids, wherein theophylline increases and restores the anti-inflammatory effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) by enhancing histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC) activity. Several studies have explored the efficacy of low-dose theophylline plus ICS therapy on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but the results are discrepant.

Method

We conducted searches in electronic database such as PubMed, Web Of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase to find out original studies. Stata/SE 15.0 was used to perform all data analysis.

Result

A total of 47,556 participants from 7 studies were included in our analysis and the sample size of each study varied from 24 to 10,816. Theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS was not associated with the reduction of COPD exacerbations (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.19, I2 = 95.2%). Instead, the theophylline group demonstrated a higher hospitalization rate (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.15, I2 = 20.4%) and mortality (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.25, I2 = 0%). Further, the anti-inflammatory effect of low-dose theophylline as an adjunct to ICS on COPD was controversial. Besides, the theophylline group showed significant improvement in lung function compared with the non-theophylline group.

Conclusion

Based on current evidence, low-dose theophylline as add-on therapy to ICS did not reduce the exacerbation rate. Instead, the hospitalization rate and mortality increased with theophylline. Thus, we do not recommend adding low-dose theophylline to ICS therapy in COPD patients.

Trial registration

PROSPERO Registration CRD42021224952.

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable, and treatable chronic inflammatory lung disease that results in irreversible and progressive airflow limitation [1]. The airflow limitation is caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases [1]. COPD has now become one of the top three causes of death worldwide, and 90% of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [2]. With aging of the population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors, the economic burden of COPD worldwide is projected to increase in the coming decades [3].

Theophylline is the most commonly used methylxanthine, a non-selective phosphodiesterase inhibitor, originally used as a bronchodilator in COPD [4]. Oral theophylline has been used as a bronchodilator to treat airway diseases for over 80 years and is currently widely used in resource-limited countries [57]. Because relatively high dose (10–20 mg/L) of theophylline are required and these are associated with frequent side effects [8], the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline indicated that theophylline is not recommended in COPD patients unless other long-term treatment bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable [1].

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been used as an effective anti-inflammatory drug in chronic pulmonary inflammatory diseases, such as asthma [9]. Furthermore, ICS in combination with long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) have previously been recommended for moderate-to-severe airflow limitation in COPD patients in GOLD guideline [1, 10, 11]. However, evidence indicated that corticosteroids provided little clinical benefit and did not reduce the progression or mortality rate in COPD [9, 12]. The lack of response to corticosteroids in COPD may be associated with the reduction in the activity and expression of the critical enzyme histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC) activity as a result of increased oxidative stress [9, 13, 14].

Interestingly, synergism between theophylline and corticosteroids has been reported, wherein theophylline increases and restores the anti-inflammatory effects of ICS by enhancing HDAC activity [1518]. It is worth noting that the abovementioned effect is achieved at a low plasma concentration of theophylline (1–5 mg/L) [16]. Furthermore, several randomized controlled trials and observational studies have explored the efficacy of low-dose theophylline added to ICS therapy in COPD, e.g., exacerbation frequency, lung function improvement, and changes in biomarkers [1925].

However, the results of these studies were discrepant. Several studies reported that low-dose theophylline as add-on therapy to ICS did not enhance the anti-inflammatory effect of ICS and reduce COPD exacerbation frequency [1921, 23]. In contrast, other research demonstrated that the addition of theophylline to ICS therapy was associated with the reduction of the exacerbation rate, improvement of lung function, and enhancement of anti-inflammatory effects [16, 22, 24]. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of adding theophylline to ICS therapy in COPD to provide reliable evidence for clinicians.

Methods

All methods for conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines [25, 26]. The procedure is based on a protocol registered in the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42021224952).

Data source and searches

We conducted searches in electronic database such as PubMed, Web Of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to October 31th, 2020 to find out original studies that described the efficacy of theophylline as add-on therapy to ICS on COPD patients. There was no languages restriction in our search process. We reviewed reference of all primary studies to make our search more comprehensive. When a duplicate publication of the same trial was found, the study with the most complete, recent, and updated report was included. The search was conducted with following keywords: theophylline, and ICS (beclomethasone, triamcinolone, flunisolide, budesonide or fluticasone) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The detailed search strategies in databases are shown in supplementary.

Studies that met the following eligible criteria were included:

  1. Studies that compared the efficacy between ICS plus theophylline therapy and without theophylline therapy in COPD patients.
  2. Studies with subjects including individuals who had been predominantly diagnosed with COPD: a post-bronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) < 0.7.
  3. Studies that reported at least one of the following outcomes: hazard ratio (HR) for exacerbation frequency, HR for hospitalization rate, HR for mortality, improvement of FEV1, and changes in inflammatory or anti-inflammatory biomarkers (such as IL-6, IL-8, HDAC, TNF-α, and NFκB).

The exclusion criteria included the following:

  1. Studies that used drugs with the potential to influence plasma theophylline concentration.
  2. Studies that described the use of theophylline on other respiratory diseases, such as asthma.
  3. Studies that included animal research, reviews, case reports, letters, and commentaries.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two authors (S.T.K and Z.C.C) reviewed the titles and/or abstracts of all retrieved studies independently, read the full text of included studies, and extracted data from original studies. We extracted the following data: first author, publication year, study design, location, sample size, mean age, gender, current smoking status, intervention, HR for exacerbation frequency, HR for hospitalizations, HR for mortality, improvement of FEV1, and changes in inflammatory or anti-inflammatory biomarkers. The primary outcome was HR for exacerbation frequency.

Two authors (Z.M and W.Y.L) individually performed the quality assessments. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the quality of the cohort studies [27], which contained three main concepts: selection, comparability, and outcome assessment. We characterized scores ≥7 as low risk of bias, 5–7 as moderate risk, and <5 as high risk. We assessed the methodology quality of randomized controlled trials based on Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [28], which included six perspectives: random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding (performance bias and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (attrition bias), and other potential sources of bias. Besides, the criteria for grading studies were as follows: (1) trials were graded as low quality if either randomization or allocation concealment was assessed to have a high risk of bias, regardless of other items; (2) trials were graded as high quality when both randomization and allocation concealment were assessed to have a low risk of bias, and all other items were assessed to have a low or unclear risk of bias in a trial; (3) trials were graded as moderate quality if they did not meet the criteria for high or low risk. In case of any discrepancy, an agreement was reached through discussion among all authors.

Data analysis

Stata/SE 15.0 was used to perform all extracted data. We pooled the adjusted HR and 95% CI to analyze the exacerbation rates, mortality, and hospitalization rate. Regarding the improvement of lung function and inflammatory biomarkers, we performed a systematic review because of lack of original data. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic versus the P-value. We considered P-value ≤ 0.05 and I2 ≥ 50% as high heterogeneity; I2 ≤ 50% indicated heterogeneity in an acceptable range. In this case, we selected a fixed effect model to analyze data. Otherwise, a random effect model was chosen. We conducted sensitivity analysis to detect if the results were reliable and stable. Egger’s Test and Begg’s Test were used to assess publication bias [29]. We constructed a funnel plot when the studies were more than 10 [30]. P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

Eligible studies and risk of bias

We finally obtained 4,010 studies from four databases and additional records identified through other sources. After removing duplication, there remained 3,671 studies. After screening the titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. We reviewed the full texts of these 17 studies, and finally 7 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The detailed process for this is shown in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Study selection process: PRISMA flow diagram identifying studies included in the meta-analysis.

Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.g001

Description of included studies

A total of 47,556 participants were included from 7 studies and the sample size for a single study ranged between 24 and 10,816. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. In a single study, the proportion of males ranged from 53.7% to 100%, the proportion of participants who smoked ranged from 2.95% to 57.7%. Of the seven included records, four studies were RCTs and three were observational cohort studies. The results of quality assessment were as follows: NOS scores were ranged from 5 to 7 in three cohort studies. All cohort studies were at moderate risk. Of the four RCTs, two were high quality and two were moderate quality. The risk of bias in the six items of the Cochrane instrument are displayed in S1 and S2 Figs.

Exacerbation rate of COPD

Five records described the HR of COPD exacerbations [1921, 23, 25]. The meta-analysis result demonstrated that theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS was not associated with the reduction of COPD exacerbation (HR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.97 to 1.19, I2 = 95.2%, Fig 2). In a subgroup analysis based on theophylline dose, the result demonstrated that high-dose theophylline led to a significant increase in COPD exacerbation (Fig 2). Apart from this, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on study design. RCTs and cohort studies both indicated that adding theophylline to ICS did not reduce COPD exacerbation (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Forest plot of acute exacerbation rate (Subgroup analysis based on the dose of theophylline).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.g002

thumbnail
Fig 3. Forest plot of acute exacerbation rate (Subgroup analysis based on study design).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.g003

Hospitalization rate and mortality of COPD

In this meta-analysis, the theophylline group demonstrated a higher hospitalization rate compared with the non-theophylline group [19, 20, 23, 24] (HR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.10 to 1.15, I2 = 20.4%, Fig 4). Similarly, the theophylline group was associated with an increased mortality of COPD patients compared with the non-theophylline group [20, 23] (HR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.25, I2 = 0%, Fig 5).

Lung function and inflammatory biomarkers.

Lee et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to explore the anti-inflammatory effect of low-dose theophylline as an adjunct to ICS in COPD patients [23]. The results described that the theophylline arm was associated with a statistically significant increase in HDAC activity and a further reduction in TNF-⍺ and IL-8 concentrations in the sputum compared with the non-theophylline arm. However, a double-blind RCT by Cosio et al. reported that the HDAC activity and inflammatory biomarkers were not different in both groups either at baseline or at the end of the study [21]. Besides, Subramanian et al. conducted a single-blinded RCT to assess the safety profile of theophylline as an adjunct to ICS in COPD [22]. This study demonstrated that the theophylline group showed significant improvement in FEV1.

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

After sensitivity analysis, we observed the overall findings remained consistent. We used funnel plots to access the publication bias (S3 Fig), and these results did not show any evidence of obvious bias (Egger’s test, P = 0.419, S4 Fig).

Discussion

This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy and safety of theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS in COPD. We found that theophylline was not associated with a reduction of exacerbation rates. Instead, the hospitalization rates, and mortality of COPD patients increased with the use of theophylline. Besides, the anti-inflammatory effect of theophylline on COPD in original studies was inconsistent. Furthermore, there was a study that indicated that the use of theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS improved lung function in patients with COPD [22]. Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis do not support the use of theophylline as an adjunctive therapy to ICS treatment for COPD patients.

This meta-analysis indicated theophylline as an adjunct to ICS did not reduce exacerbation. Instead, the hospitalization rate and mortality of COPD patients increased. Likewise, Horita N et al. conducted a meta-analysis to explore the impact of theophylline on mortality in COPD patients [31]. The study found that theophylline slightly increased all-cause mortality in COPD patients. In contrast, there was a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled RCT that evaluated the therapeutic effect of low-dose theophylline treatment (100 mg twice daily) [32]. This one-year study demonstrated a different result reporting that theophylline reduced the COPD exacerbation frequency (P = 0.047 and P = 0.035, respectively). Importantly, theophylline was considered to be an anti-inflammatory agent apart from being a bronchodilator [33].

Regarding lung function, the results of our systematic review demonstrated that the theophylline group showed significant improvement in FEV1 compared with the ICS plus LABA group in COPD. Coincidently, Broseghini C et al. studied the efficacy of theophylline compared with LABA or placebo and reported that theophylline improved significantly, but less, the FEV1 (about 80 ml, on average) without affecting any of the other lung function variables [34]. Another systematic review and meta-analysis found that theophylline treatment improved FEV1 with a weighted mean difference of 100 mL compared with the placebo [4]. Rossi A et al. also indicated that the effectiveness of theophylline in lung function improvement was less than that of LABA [35]. Additionally, reports indicating adverse events following the use of theophylline such as palpitation, tremor, and other arrhythmias were frequently reported [8, 3638]. Thus, the effect of theophylline on improving lung function was limited. Because of the adverse events associated with theophylline use, it should be cautiously prescribed clinically.

Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effect of theophylline as an additional therapy to ICS in COPD is debated in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Theoretically, theophylline inhibits phosphodiesterase [39] and other inflammatory mediators [40], increases apoptosis [41], and inhibits NF-κB [42] at higher concentrations than those used in practice (>20 mg/L). At lower doses, theophylline increases HDAC2 activity by inhibiting phosphoinositide-3-kinase-δ (PI3Kδ) [15, 17], which is activated by oxidative stress [17]; reduces neutrophil concentration in the sputum [43, 44] and large airways [45]; and enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids [46]. The possible explanation for why theophylline did not increase HDAC activity and reduce the inflammatory biomarker levels were as follows. First, there was a lack of in vivo biological effect of low-dose theophylline treatment. Second, theophylline level was too low to achieve an effect. Finally, the anti-inflammatory effect did not sustain in the long term.

The heterogeneity was high for the exacerbation rate. A subgroup analysis for detecting the source of heterogeneity identified the study design as the source of heterogeneity. We considered the heterogeneity was because of several reasons. First, the exact dosage of theophylline was different in the included studies and the dosage may influence the pharmacological effect of theophylline in vivo. Second, the intervention following in the exposure group of included studies was not exactly the same; other than theophylline and ICS, LABA and ipratropium were also included in some studies. The difference in interventions may have caused the different effect on COPD patients. Accordingly, this could be a possible source of high heterogeneity. Third, the duration of study varied from 60 days to 4 years. We believe that the duration may influence the effect of theophylline on COPD; accordingly, it was also regarded as a source of heterogeneity.

This systematic review and meta-analysis have several limitations. First, because of a lack of original studies, we conducted a systematic review for inflammatory biomarkers and FEV1, which may have reduced the reliability of results inevitably. Thus, further studies to support our conjecture are needed in the future. Second, although we conducted a comprehensive search to identify as many studies as possible, the number of studies eventually included in the analysis was still small and the sample size was insufficient; this may have reduced the generalizability of our meta-analysis results. Finally, the quality of life for COPD patients was not explored based on the existing data. This needs to be analyzed in the future.

Conclusion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, low-dose theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS did not reduce the exacerbation rate of COPD. Instead, the hospitalization rate and mortality increased. There was a controversy concerning the anti-inflammatory effect of low-dose theophylline. Furthermore, theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS improved lung function compared with non-theophylline group. Thus, we do not recommend adding low-dose theophylline to ICS therapy in COPD patients based on current evidence.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Risk of bias graph presenting each risk of bias item as percentages across all included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Risk of bias summary for included studies, showing each risk of bias item for every included study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Funnel plot for publication bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251348.s003

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the sharing of results provided by the authors of the included studies.

References

  1. 1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) [database on Internet]. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2021.Available from: http://goldcopd.org. Accessed November 17, 2020.
  2. 2. Halpin DMG, Celli BR, Criner GJ, Frith P, López Varela MV, Salvi S, et al. The GOLD Summit on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in low- and middle-income countries. The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease: the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2019;23(11):1131–41. pmid:31718748
  3. 3. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3(11):e442. pmid:17132052
  4. 4. Ram FS, Jones PW, Castro AA, De Brito JA, Atallah AN, Lacasse Y, et al. Oral theophylline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2002;2002(4):Cd003902. pmid:12519617
  5. 5. Shen N, Yao WZ, Zhu H. [Patient’ s perspective of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Yanqing county of Beijing]. Zhonghua jie he he hu xi za zhi = Zhonghua jiehe he huxi zazhi = Chinese journal of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases. 2008;31(3):206–8. pmid:18785520
  6. 6. Miravitlles M, Murio C, Tirado-Conde G, Levy G, Muellerova H, Soriano JB, et al. Geographic differences in clinical characteristics and management of COPD: the EPOCA study. International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2008;3(4):803–14. pmid:19281096
  7. 7. Desalu OO, Onyedum CC, Adeoti AO, Gundiri LB, Fadare JO, Adekeye KA, et al. Guideline-based COPD management in a resource-limited setting—physicians’ understanding, adherence and barriers: a cross-sectional survey of internal and family medicine hospital-based physicians in Nigeria. Primary care respiratory journal: journal of the General Practice Airways Group. 2013;22(1):79–85.
  8. 8. Barnes PJ. Theophylline. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2013;188(8):901–6. pmid:23672674
  9. 9. Barnes PJ. Corticosteroid resistance in airway disease. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society. 2004;1(3):264–8. pmid:16113444
  10. 10. Nannini LJ, Lasserson TJ, Poole P. Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012;2012(9):Cd006829. pmid:22972099
  11. 11. Nannini LJ, Poole P, Milan SJ, Kesterton A. Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled corticosteroids alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;2013(8):Cd006826. pmid:23990350
  12. 12. Calverley PM, Anderson JA, Celli B, Ferguson GT, Jenkins C, Jones PW, et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;356(8):775–89. pmid:17314337
  13. 13. Barnes PJ. Corticosteroid resistance in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2013;131(3):636–45. pmid:23360759
  14. 14. Barnes PJ, Ito K, Adcock IM. Corticosteroid resistance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: inactivation of histone deacetylase. Lancet (London, England). 2004;363(9410):731–3. pmid:15001333
  15. 15. Cosio BG, Tsaprouni L, Ito K, Jazrawi E, Adcock IM, Barnes PJ. Theophylline restores histone deacetylase activity and steroid responses in COPD macrophages. The Journal of experimental medicine. 2004;200(5):689–95. pmid:15337792
  16. 16. Cosio BG, Iglesias A, Rios A, Noguera A, Sala E, Ito K, et al. Low-dose theophylline enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of steroids during exacerbations of COPD. Thorax. 2009;64(5):424–9. pmid:19158122
  17. 17. To Y, Ito K, Kizawa Y, Failla M, Ito M, Kusama T, et al. Targeting phosphoinositide-3-kinase-delta with theophylline reverses corticosteroid insensitivity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2010;182(7):897–904. pmid:20224070
  18. 18. Marwick JA, Caramori G, Stevenson CS, Casolari P, Jazrawi E, Barnes PJ, et al. Inhibition of PI3Kdelta restores glucocorticoid function in smoking-induced airway inflammation in mice. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2009;179(7):542–8. pmid:19164702
  19. 19. Wilairat P, Kengkla K, Thayawiwat C, Phlaisaithong P, Somboonmee S, Saokaew S. Clinical outcomes of theophylline use as add-on therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A propensity score matching analysis. Chronic respiratory disease. 2019;16. pmid:30558448
  20. 20. Devereux G, Cotton S, Fielding S, McMeekin N, Bames PJ, Briggs A, et al. Effect of Theophylline as Adjunct to Inhaled Corticosteroids on Exacerbations in Patients With COPD A Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2018;320(15):1548–59. pmid:30326124
  21. 21. Cosío BG, Shafiek H, Iglesias A, Yanez A, Córdova R, Palou A, et al. Oral Low-dose Theophylline on Top of Inhaled Fluticasone-Salmeterol Does Not Reduce Exacerbations in Patients With Severe COPD: A Pilot Clinical Trial. Chest. 2016;150(1):123–30. pmid:27107490
  22. 22. Subramanian S, Ragulan , Jindal A, Vis Wambhar V, Arun Babu V. The study of efficacy, tolerability and safety of theophylline given along with formoterol plus budesonide in COPD. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2015;9(2):OC10–OC3. pmid:25859479
  23. 23. Lee TA, Schumock GT, Bartle B, Pickard AS. Mortality risk in patients receiving drug regimens with theophylline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(9):1039–53. pmid:19698009
  24. 24. Cyr MC, Beauchesne MF, Lemière C, Blais L. Effect of theophylline on the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2008;65(1):40–50. pmid:17764476
  25. 25. Wang X, Chen Y, Yao L, Zhou Q, Wu Q, Estill J, et al. Reporting of declarations and conflicts of interest in WHO guidelines can be further improved. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;98:1–8. pmid:29292204
  26. 26. Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, Pan JX, Li G, Wei D, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;93:45–55. pmid:29111471
  27. 27. Peterson J WV, Losos M, Tugwell PJOOHRI. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed 1 January 2011). 2011.
  28. 28. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Systematic reviews. 2014;3:54. pmid:24886533
  29. 29. Song F, Gilbody S. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;316(7129):471. pmid:9492690
  30. 30. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2006;333(7568):597–600. pmid:16974018
  31. 31. Horita N, Miyazawa N, Kojima R, Inoue M, Ishigatsubo Y, Kaneko T. Chronic Use of Theophylline and Mortality in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis. Arch Bronconeumol. 2016;52(5):233–8. pmid:26612542
  32. 32. Zhou Y, Wang X, Zeng X, Qiu R, Xie J, Liu S, et al. Positive benefits of theophylline in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of low-dose, slow-release theophylline in the treatment of COPD for 1 year. Respirology. 2006;11(5):603–10. pmid:16916334
  33. 33. Barnes PJ. Theophylline: new perspectives for an old drug. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2003;167(6):813–8. pmid:12623857
  34. 34. Broseghini C, Testi R, Polese G, Tosatto R, Rossi A. A comparison between inhaled salmeterol and theophylline in the short-term treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2005;18(2):103–8. pmid:15649852
  35. 35. Rossi A, Kristufek P, Levine BE, Thomson MH, Till D, Kottakis J, et al. Comparison of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of formoterol dry powder and oral, slow-release theophylline in the treatment of COPD. Chest. 2002;121(4):1058–69. pmid:11948033
  36. 36. Ram FS, Jardin JR, Atallah A, Castro AA, Mazzini R, Goldstein R, et al. Efficacy of theophylline in people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiratory medicine. 2005;99(2):135–44. pmid:15715180
  37. 37. Barr RG, Rowe BH, Camargo CA Jr. Methylxanthines for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003;327(7416):643. pmid:14500434
  38. 38. Rusinowicz T, Zielonka TM, Zycinska K. Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients with Exacerbation of COPD. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 2017;1022:53–62. pmid:28573445
  39. 39. Rabe KF, Magnussen H, Dent G. Theophylline and selective PDE inhibitors as bronchodilators and smooth muscle relaxants. The European respiratory journal. 1995;8(4):637–42. pmid:7664866
  40. 40. Mascali JJ, Cvietusa P, Negri J, Borish L. Anti-inflammatory effects of theophylline: modulation of cytokine production. Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 1996;77(1):34–8. pmid:8705632
  41. 41. Yasui K, Hu B, Nakazawa T, Agematsu K, Komiyama A. Theophylline accelerates human granulocyte apoptosis not via phosphodiesterase inhibition. The Journal of clinical investigation. 1997;100(7):1677–84. pmid:9312165
  42. 42. Tomita K, Chikumi H, Tokuyasu H, Yajima H, Hitsuda Y, Matsumoto Y, et al. Functional assay of NF-kappaB translocation into nuclei by laser scanning cytometry: inhibitory effect by dexamethasone or theophylline. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s archives of pharmacology. 1999;359(4):249–55. pmid:10344522
  43. 43. Ford PA, Durham AL, Russell RE, Gordon F, Adcock IM, Barnes PJ. Treatment effects of low-dose theophylline combined with an inhaled corticosteroid in COPD. Chest. 2010;137(6):1338–44. pmid:20299628
  44. 44. Culpitt SV, de Matos C, Russell RE, Donnelly LE, Rogers DF, Barnes PJ. Effect of theophylline on induced sputum inflammatory indices and neutrophil chemotaxis in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2002;165(10):1371–6. pmid:12016098
  45. 45. Hirano T, Yamagata T, Gohda M, Yamagata Y, Ichikawa T, Yanagisawa S, et al. Inhibition of reactive nitrogen species production in COPD airways: comparison of inhaled corticosteroid and oral theophylline. Thorax. 2006;61(9):761–6. pmid:16936236
  46. 46. Ito K, Lim S, Caramori G, Cosio B, Chung KF, Adcock IM, et al. A molecular mechanism of action of theophylline: Induction of histone deacetylase activity to decrease inflammatory gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2002;99(13):8921–6. pmid:12070353