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.

Muhasaparur Ganesan Rajanandh, Arcot D Nageswari, Kaliappan Ilango

Journal: Clinical therapeutics 2015;37(2):418-26

PMID: 25577543

Abstract

PURPOSE

Data comparing various second-line treatments for asthma with subjective and objective assessment are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with a low-dose budesonide in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients, all of whom were concurrently using inhaled budesonide (400 µg), were treated for 6 months with formoterol (12 µg), montelukast (10 mg), doxofylline (400 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg). Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, asthma symptom scores (daytime and nighttime), and assessment of tolerability and rescue medication use.

FINDINGS

A total of 297 patients completed the study. In all 4 groups, significant improvements were observed in all the outcome measures, with formoterol treatment having greater and earlier improvements than the other 3 second-line controller medications with budesonide. Among the second-line treatments, monteradlukast improved the FEV1 from day 45 (P < 0.01), SGRQ scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), daytime scores from day 30 (P < 0.05), nighttime scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), and rescue medication use from day 15 (P < .0001) at a faster rate than doxofylline or tiotropium with budesonide. No patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse reactions.

IMPLICATIONS

Among the tested second-line treatment regimens, the budesonide/montelukast combination was found to be superior to either the budesonide/doxofylline or budesonide/tiotropium combination in all the outcome measures without adversely affecting the tolerability of the patients. Further clinical studies with blinding techniques are likely to be useful.

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.

Address: Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Sri Ramachandra University, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.; Department of Pulmonary Medicine, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM University, Tamil Nadu, India.; Interdisciplinary School of Indian System of Medicine, SRM University, Tamil Nadu, India. Electronic address: [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.