目的 比较多索茶碱和茶碱缓释片对稳定期哮喘患者的疗效和安全性，为临床用药提供依据。方法 前瞻性入组汉中市中心医院收治的稳定期哮喘患者100例，随机分为观察组（n=50）和对照组（n=50）。观察组给予多索茶碱400 mg，2次/d；对照组给予300 mg茶碱缓释片，2次/d。两组疗程均为6周。观察记录两组患者治疗前后的肺功能指标-1秒用力呼气量（FEV1），用力肺活量（FVC），FEV1/FVC（%），最大呼气流量（PEFR）及不良反应。结果 治疗前，两组患者肺功能指标（FEV1、FVC、FEV1/FVC、PEFR）均无统计学差异；治疗6周后，与治疗前比较，两组患者肺功能FEV1、FEV1/FVC、PEFR均显著提高，但观察组和对照组患者肺功能比较没有统计学差异。对照组患者总不良反应事件发生率显著高于观察组（P<0.05）。结论 茶碱缓释片和多索茶碱均能改善轻度支气管哮喘患者肺功能，但多索茶碱安全性好于茶碱缓释片。

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of theophylline and doxofylline in treatment of stable asthma, and provide the basis for clinical medication.Methods A total of 100 patients with stable asthma in our hospital were enrolled, and they were randomly divided into observation group (n=50) and control group (n=50). The observation group was administered doxofylline 400 mg, twice a day; the control group was administered 300mg Theophylline, 2/d. The course of treatment in the two groups was six weeks. We recorded the pulmonary function indexes-forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEVI), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1/FVC and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), as well as side effects before and after treatment between two groups.Results Before treatment, there were no statistically significant in pulmonary function index (FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, PEFR) between two groups. After six weeks treatment, both pulmonary function (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEFR) of patients in the two groups were significantly increased, but there was no statistically significant difference between two groups. The incidence of adverse events in the control group was significantly higher than in the observation group (P<0.05).Conclusions Both theophylline and doxofylline can improve lung function in patients with mild bronchial asthma, but doxofylline has a better profile in terms of safety