Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Theophylline again? Reasons for believing

B. G. Cosio, J. B. Soriano
European Respiratory Journal 2009 34: 5-6; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00011309
B. G. Cosio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. B. Soriano
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

So, what is new for theophylline in asthma? Theophylline has been used over the last 70 years for treating patients with asthma. It is well known as a bronchodilator and the current asthma guidelines recommend it as an add-on therapy in noncontrolled asthmatics 1. More than a decade ago, Evans et al. 2 showed that adding theophylline is equally effective as doubling inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) doses for asthma control. In a recent issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Spears et al. 3 reported significant improvements in both lung function and asthma control score in smoking asthmatics who are treated with a combination of low-dose theophylline and beclomethasone compared with each drug alone. The potential relevance of this small, self-labelled pilot trial is that to our knowledge, it is the first to test an effect of this mechanism in smokers. Worldwide, one in every four asthmatics still smokes; interestingly, the prevalence of smoking in asthmatics mirrors the population prevalence of smoking in that geographic population 4. Every smoker should quit but anyone with asthma or any other respiratory condition should be offered all options and help to achieve full smoking cessation.

So, what is the point? Something has changed in our scientific knowledge of the mechanism of action of theophylline in recent years. Since Ito et al. 5 described in vitro a novel anti-inflammatory mechanism of action for theophylline through histone remodelling, efforts have been made to prove that low-dose theophylline can boost the effects of glucocorticoids in chronic airway inflammation in vivo. However, most clinicians are reluctant to believe that we are now going to achieve what our medical antecedents were not able to with the same drug. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that allows us to revisit the current use of this drug, especially in glucocorticoid-resistant inflammatory processes, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and severe asthma 6.

Theophylline has been used for its bronchodilator properties, which are mediated by phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibition, resulting in an increase in cAMP, thus relaxing airway smooth muscle. Dose–response studies showed an increasing acute bronchodilator response above plasma concentrations of 10 mg·L−1 (55 μM). The problem was that over 20 mg·L−1 the side-effects, including a high incidence of nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, mild metabolic acidosis and other biochemical imbalances, and tachycardia, made it intolerable, which led its therapeutic range to be established at between 10–20 mg·L−1. Therefore, it has been our aim to adjust individual doses to achieve this therapeutic range in our clinical practice. Interestingly, we now know that theophylline is in fact a weak bronchodilator, with an effective concentration giving a 50% response of 1.5×10−4 M in vitro, which equates to a plasma concentration of 67 mg·L−1 assuming 60% protein binding 6; this is far from the therapeutic range we have been using. Thus, it is not surprising that there is scepticism about the use of theophylline nowadays.

It has been known for some time that theophylline also exerts anti-inflammatory effects in asthma and these have been extensively described; thus, in patients with nocturnal asthma, low-dose theophylline (∼5 mg·L−1) reduces the number of eosinophils in bronchial biopsies, bronchoalveolar lavage and induced sputum, whereas in severe asthma, withdrawal of theophylline results in increased numbers of activated CD4+ cells and eosinophils in bronchial biopsies. The classical proposed mechanisms are diverse (PDE inhibition, increased interleukin-10 release, mediator inhibition, inhibition of intracellular calcium release, inhibition of nuclear factor-κB or increased apoptosis) but most of these seem to occur only with higher concentrations of theophylline that are clinically effective (often >20 mg·L−1). Ito et al. 5 recently described a novel mechanism of action of theophylline: induction of histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity to decrease inflammatory gene expression. This effect is seen at low concentrations of theophylline (10−6–10−5 M) and is lost at higher concentrations (10−4 M). The mechanism is not mediated by PDE inhibition because other non-selective and PDE4–PDE3-selective inhibitors do not mimic this action of theophylline. Because induction of HDAC activity is not effective in suppressing inflammatory genes unless it is recruited to the active inflammatory site by activated glucocorticoid receptor, this novel action of theophylline predicts that this drug alone would have weak anti-inflammatory effects at these concentrations. However, it would markedly potentiate the anti-inflammatory actions of glucocorticoids.

Spears et al. 3 took a rational approach to addressing this potential effect of low-dose theophylline, and investigated the effect of the combination of the glucocorticoid beclomethasone and low-dose theophylline in comparison with each drug alone in smoking asthmatics. It has been previously shown that cigarette smoke inactivates HDAC activity in vitro 7; this could be responsible for a lower steroid responsiveness in asthmatics who smoke 8, so the idea makes sense. But, as usual in all biology systems, the explanation is not so straightforward and the authors did not find a clear effect of the combination of glucocorticoid and low-dose theophylline on HDAC activity. As discussed by Spears et al. 3, there is an obvious methodological issue, owing to the problems of working with sputum samples and the small sample size, making the results inconclusive. Although there are merits to this novel research, the limitations should also be highlighted, some of which have already been discussed by the authors. The study patients seemed to have stepped down their usual ICS dose to a lower dose of beclometasone (i.e. from 800 to 200 μg); presumably this was to ensure a sufficient response in order to be able to show synergy with theophylline. It remains to be answered whether theophylline in smokers would still have conferred additivity on top of an optimised dose of ICS, such as 400 μg beclometasone, even though smokers do not show the same dose–response to steroids. The attrition rate during recruitment (see fig. 1 of Spears et al. 3) was significant, which raises issues on extrapolation of results. Given the many comparisons tested, correction for multiple comparisons was deemed necessary, which were all included in the ad hoc online supplementary material. Finally, the results obtained in this 4-week trial need to be confirmed in a longer term trial. There was, however, a clear synergistic effect of these two drugs on lung function and symptoms, which gives us reason for believing.

If someone had said that acetylsalicylic acid would be used to prevent thrombosis and to maintain the cardiovascular system when it was used in the mid-eighteenth century for its specific effects on fever, pain and inflammation, there would have been a great deal of scepticism. In our era of modern marketing strategies, to promote the use of an old and cheap drug may not be fashionable, but it should be kept in mind given the increasing scientific and clinical evidence available.

Statement of interest

None declared.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Bateman ED, Hurd SS, Barnes PJ, et al. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary. Eur Respir J 2008;31:143–178.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Evans DJ, Taylor DA, Zetterstrom O, et al. A comparison of low-dose inhaled budesonide plus theophylline and high-dose inhaled budesonide for moderate asthma. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1412–1418.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Spears M, Donnelly I, Jolly L, et al. Effect of low-dose theophylline plus beclometasone on lung function in smokers with asthma: a pilot study. Eur Respir J 2009;33:1010–1017.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      Rabe KF, Adachi M, Lai CK, et al. Worldwide severity and control of asthma in children and adults: the global asthma insights and reality surveys. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:40–47.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Ito K, Lim S, Caramori G, et al. A molecular mechanism of action of theophylline: induction of histone deacetylase activity to decrease inflammatory gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:8921–8926.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      Barnes PJ. Theophylline: new perspectives for an old drug. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:813–818.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      Ito K, Lim S, Caramori G, et al. Cigarette smoking reduces histone deacetylase 2 expression, enhances cytokine expression, and inhibits glucocorticoid actions in alveolar macrophages. FASEB J 2001;15:1110–1112.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      Chaudhuri R, Livingston E, McMahon AD, et al. Cigarette smoking impairs the therapeutic response to oral corticosteroids in chronic asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:1308–1311.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 34 Issue 1 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 34 (1)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Theophylline again? Reasons for believing
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Theophylline again? Reasons for believing
    B. G. Cosio, J. B. Soriano
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2009, 34 (1) 5-6; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00011309

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Theophylline again? Reasons for believing
    B. G. Cosio, J. B. Soriano
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2009, 34 (1) 5-6; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00011309
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Statement of interest
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • GM-CSF targeting in COVID-19, an approach based on fragile foundations
    • Short and Long Term Non-Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Assessment in previously Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
    • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
    Show more Editorial

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society