Bioavailability, efficacy, and tolerance of two sustained-release theophylline dosage forms in adult patients with bronchial asthma

J. J. Trautlein, Laurence Demers, V. Esler, E. Field

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Twenty otherwise healthy adults with a diagnosis of reversible obstructive airways disease were treated for one month in a single-blind crossover study with approximately equivalent doses of Elixophyllin(®) SR capsules or Theo-Dur(®) tablets. Both products provided evidence of efficacy by improvement in pulmonary function tests, and both were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between the two products with regard to bioavailability, efficacy, or tolerance. Both dosage forms appeared to have similar kinetic properties within the context of the study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)252-262
Number of pages11
JournalClinical therapeutics
Volume4
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 1981

Fingerprint

Dosage Forms
Theophylline
Biological Availability
Asthma
Single-Blind Method
Respiratory Function Tests
Cross-Over Studies
Tablets
Capsules

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Trautlein, J. J. ; Demers, Laurence ; Esler, V. ; Field, E. / Bioavailability, efficacy, and tolerance of two sustained-release theophylline dosage forms in adult patients with bronchial asthma. In: Clinical therapeutics. 1981 ; Vol. 4, No. 4. pp. 252-262.
@article{acc5e6a464bf4d5abcc0b2981942b4e8,
title = "Bioavailability, efficacy, and tolerance of two sustained-release theophylline dosage forms in adult patients with bronchial asthma",
abstract = "Twenty otherwise healthy adults with a diagnosis of reversible obstructive airways disease were treated for one month in a single-blind crossover study with approximately equivalent doses of Elixophyllin({\circledR}) SR capsules or Theo-Dur({\circledR}) tablets. Both products provided evidence of efficacy by improvement in pulmonary function tests, and both were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between the two products with regard to bioavailability, efficacy, or tolerance. Both dosage forms appeared to have similar kinetic properties within the context of the study.",
author = "Trautlein, {J. J.} and Laurence Demers and V. Esler and E. Field",
year = "1981",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "252--262",
journal = "Clinical Therapeutics",
issn = "0149-2918",
publisher = "Excerpta Medica",
number = "4",

}

Bioavailability, efficacy, and tolerance of two sustained-release theophylline dosage forms in adult patients with bronchial asthma. / Trautlein, J. J.; Demers, Laurence; Esler, V.; Field, E.

In: Clinical therapeutics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 01.12.1981, p. 252-262.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bioavailability, efficacy, and tolerance of two sustained-release theophylline dosage forms in adult patients with bronchial asthma

AU - Trautlein, J. J.

AU - Demers, Laurence

AU - Esler, V.

AU - Field, E.

PY - 1981/12/1

Y1 - 1981/12/1

N2 - Twenty otherwise healthy adults with a diagnosis of reversible obstructive airways disease were treated for one month in a single-blind crossover study with approximately equivalent doses of Elixophyllin(®) SR capsules or Theo-Dur(®) tablets. Both products provided evidence of efficacy by improvement in pulmonary function tests, and both were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between the two products with regard to bioavailability, efficacy, or tolerance. Both dosage forms appeared to have similar kinetic properties within the context of the study.

AB - Twenty otherwise healthy adults with a diagnosis of reversible obstructive airways disease were treated for one month in a single-blind crossover study with approximately equivalent doses of Elixophyllin(®) SR capsules or Theo-Dur(®) tablets. Both products provided evidence of efficacy by improvement in pulmonary function tests, and both were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between the two products with regard to bioavailability, efficacy, or tolerance. Both dosage forms appeared to have similar kinetic properties within the context of the study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0019767763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0019767763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 252

EP - 262

JO - Clinical Therapeutics

JF - Clinical Therapeutics

SN - 0149-2918

IS - 4

ER -