| Literature DB >> 29658795 |
Nicole M Ryan1, Anne E Vertigan2,3, Surinder S Birring4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic Cough (CC) is common and often associated with significant comorbidity and decreased quality of life. In up to 50% of cases, the cough is refractory despite extensive investigation and treatment trials. It is likely that the key abnormality in refractory CC is dysfunctional, hypersensitive sensory nerves, similar to conditions such as laryngeal hypersensitivity and neuropathic pain. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this systematic review is to assess drug therapies for refractory CC. The authors review the current management of CC and provide discussion of the similarities between neuropathic pain and refractory CC. They review repurposed and new pharmacological treatments. Several meta-analyses were performed to compare the efficacy of treatments where possible. EXPERT OPINION: Repurposed pain medications such as gabapentin and pregabalin reduce the frequency of cough and improve quality of life. Along with speech pathology, they are important and alternate treatments for refractory CC. However, more treatments are needed and the P2X3 ion channel receptor antagonists show the most promise. With a better understanding of neuronal activation and sensitisation and their signal processing in the brain, improved animal models of cough, and the use of validated cough measurement tools, more effective treatments will develop.Entities:
Keywords: Antitussives; cough hypersensitivity syndrome; ion channel receptor antagonists; neuromodulating drugs; refractory chronic cough
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29658795 PMCID: PMC5935050 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1462795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Expert Opin Pharmacother ISSN: 1465-6566 Impact factor: 3.889
Classification of cough.
| Clinical cough descriptor | Definition |
|---|---|
| Acute | Cough that lasts for <3 weeks. |
| Subacute | Cough that lasts 3 to 8 weeks. |
| Chronic | Cough that lasts >8 weeks |
| Chronic refractory | Cough that does not respond to usual medical treatment such as the ADP. |
| Chronic idiopathic | Cough with no underlying cause even after a thorough systematic review. |
| Specific | A known underlying disease causing the cough. |
| Sensory neuropathic cough | A chronic cough disorder that is thought to have a neurogenic cause.a |
ADP: anatomical diagnostic protocol.
aSometimes referred to as a cough caused by ‘laryngeal sensory neuropathy,’
Symptoms include: Allotussia, cough triggered in response to a nontussive stimulus, e.g. talking; Hypertussia, increased cough sensitivity in response to a known tussigen, e.g. smoke; Laryngeal paresthesia, abnormal throat sensation, e.g. ‘tickle’.
[Adapted from [51] with permission of Taylor & Francis].
A comprehensive list of cough assessment tools (derived from [73]).
| Subjective Assessments for Cough | Visual analog scales (VAS) Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ) Cough-specific quality of life questionnaire (CQLQ) Cough Severity Score (CSS) Cough Severity Index (CSI) Cough Severity diary (CSD) Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) |
| Objective Cough Sensitivity Assessments | Capsaicin challenge Citric acid challenge Fog (Saline) challenge Tartaric acid challenge |
| Objective Cough Frequency Assessments | Leicester Cough Monitor (LCM) VitaloJak™ cough monitor |
Publications included in the systematic review.
| Citation | Publication type | Study design | Trialed drug (active) therapy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bastian et al., 2006 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Prospective cohort, consecutive | A |
| Jeyakumar et al., 2006 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized controlled trial. | |
| Norris & Schweinfurth, 2010 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Retrospective case series | |
| Lee & Woo, 2005 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Case series | |
| Mintz & Lee, 2006 [ | Letter peer-reviewed | Case series | |
| Ryan et al., 2012 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | |
| Halum et al., 2009 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Retrospective chart review | |
| Vertigan et al., 2016 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | |
| Morice et al., 2007 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized double blind placebo-controlled crossover trial | |
| Dion et al., 2017 [ | Letter peer-reviewed | Prospective case series on consecutive patients | |
| Young et al., 2010 [ | Conference Abstract | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial. | |
| Khalid, S et al., 2014 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. | |
| Abdulqawi et al., 2015 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled two-period, crossover (phase II) study | |
| Smith et al., 2017 [ | Conference Abstract | Multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled parallel trial (Phase IIb study) | |
| Smith et al., 2017 [ | Conference Abstract | Pilot, open-label Phase IIa study. | |
| Yousaf et al., 2010 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | |
| Hodgson et al., 2016 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | |
| Birring et al., 2017 [ | Full peer-reviewed | Multicenter, double blind, randomized placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial (Phase IIa study). |
aThese randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analyses.
Figure 1.PRISMA flow diagram explaining the screening process of citations and number of articles included in the systematic review.
Figure 2.Quality assessment (Cochrane risk of bias tool) for included RCTs.
Green circle with plus sign indicates low risk of bias, yellow circle with question mark indicates unclear risk of bias, red circle with minus sign indicates high risk of bias. RevMan Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Full color available online.
Centrally acting antitussive medications for refractory chronic cough.
| Study author/s | Type of study | Drug treatment dose and duration | Primary efficacy outcome | Primary study results and conclusion/s | Adverse/side effects | Methodological weaknesses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bastian et al., 2006 [ | Prospective cohort, consecutive | 12 | 10 mg | Patient self-report on 0% to | 10 of 12 patients had ≥50% response; 6 of 8 patients ≥50% response >20 days off amitriptyline. One patient had no benefit with amitriptyline but did with subsequent gabapentin (dose not given). | No side effects. | No placebo comparator group. No objective cough measures. Small sample size. |
| Jeyakumar et al., 2006 [ | Randomized controlled trial. | 28 | Patient self-report % reduction | 13 of 15 (87%) in amitriptyline group had ≥50% cough improvement compared with 1 of 13 (8%) in codeine/guaifenesin group, NNT = 1.3; improved CQLQ scores were associated with amitriptyline (change in score from baseline 24.5 compared to guaifenesin-codeine of 2.9), | None reported. | No objective cough measure, no placebo control group comparator. No power calculation. No baseline characteristics comparison between groups. High risk of selection bias (patients where randomized by chart numbers and presence of nasal allergies). | |
| Norris & Schweinfurth, 2010 [ | Retrospective case series | 10^ | Patient self-reported subjective improvement (Yes/No). | The mean time from the initiation of therapy to improvement or resolution of symptoms was 2 months (range, 1 to 5 months). 86% of patients with evidence of motor neuropathy responded to the neuromodulator therapy, versus zero response among those without evidence of motor neuropathy. It was thought that the patient’s condition must first be medically optimized with control of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease, postnasal drip, and/or discontinuation of potentially causative medications. | 3 (30%) of patients taking either amitriptyline or gabapentin experienced a dry mouth. One (10%) patient reported fatigue on a dose of 75 mg amitriptyline. | Retrospective chart review. No objective measures of improvement. Small sample size. No comparator group. | |
| Lee & Woo, 2005 [ | Case series | 28 | Symptom response (unclear if patient or clinician reported). | Nineteen (68%) patients had a clinically positive response to gabapentin and those patients identified with superior or recurrent laryngeal neuropathy responded even more favorably (80%) In the workup for laryngeal neuropathy videostroboscopy and L-EMG are invaluable tools in diagnosis. | Five patients (17.8%) complained of dizziness or somnolence that caused them to taper or discontinue the medication. | Prior workup included however, not systematic or uniform across patients. Efficacy outcome not clear or objective. No control group for comparison. | |
| Mintz & Lee, 2006 [ | Case series | 6 | Clinician assessment | 5 of 6 patients had either complete resolution or substantial improvement in cough. One patient relapsed on therapy and gained control by an increase in dose. | Fatigue in 1 (17%), drowsiness for 1 week in 1 (17%). | Treated patients according the ADP and when patients were refractory to this gabapentin was trialed. Prior workup criteria and subsequent treatments not explained. No objective cough measure. No comparator group. Small sample size. | |
| Ryan et al., 2012 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | 62 | Primary outcome was cough QOL measured by the LCQ. | Gabapentin significantly improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo-between group difference in LCQ score during treatment period 1.80, 95% CI 0.56–3.04; | Side effects occurred in both groups with the most common in the Gabapentin group being nausea, stomach pain [4/17], dizziness [3/17], and fatigue [3/17]. For the Placebo group most common side effects were dizziness [1/6], nausea, stomach pain [2/6], and fatigue [1/6]. | Non-validated short-duration cough frequency recording during the capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity test rather than 24 h cough frequency recording was used; however, any potential bias was controlled by using a placebo group. No long-term treatment or follow-up of patients. However, gabapentin treatment effect had not reached a plateau by 8 weeks suggesting that longer-term treatment may be required for some patients. A risk versus benefits analysis would need to be done for individual patients. | |
| Halum et al., 2009 [ | Retrospective chart review of consecutive patients prescribed pregabalin for symptoms of LSN including CC. | 5 | Pre- and posttreatment questionnaires asking patients to rate symptoms on a scale from 0 to 5 | 3 of 5 improved cough severity None of the patients developed drug tolerance effects over time. | Sedation in 4 (80%), of whom half tolerated, half discontinued | Retrospective chart review. No objective measures of improvement. Small sample size. No comparator group. | |
| Vertigan et al., 2016 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | 40 | Speech pathology (SPT) with 300 mg | Primary outcomes were cough QOL measured by the LCQ, cough severity (VAS), cough frequency (LCM®). Secondary outcomes were capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity, urge to cough score and laryngeal function measures. | Cough severity, cough frequency and cough QOL improved in both groups. The degree of improvement in the LCQ was greater with SPT + PREG (mean difference; 3.5 [95% CI 1.1 to 5.8] than for placebo (SPT + PLAC), | Side effects occurred in both groups with the most common in the SPT + PREG group being dizziness [9/20], fatigue [7/20] and cognitive changes [6/20]. These resolved after pregabalin was ceased. For the SPT + PLAC group gastrointestinal [7/20], and fatigue [6/20] were the most common side effects reported. | Low recruitment rate. No comparison to pregabalin alone or placebo alone. More than one primary outcome. Baseline imbalance across groups for cough duration-longer for SPT + Placebo group. |
| Morice et al., 2007 [ | Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial | 27 | 5 mg twice daily slow-release | Primary efficacy outcome was cough QOL measured by the LCQ. Secondary outcomes were citric acid cough challenge (C2 and C5) and cough severity assessed on a scale of 0 to 9 recorded in a daily diary entry. | There was a significant improvement in LCQ with morphine treatment compared to placebo. Mean score for LCQ was 13.3 (2.5) at baseline, 13.5 (2.7) on placebo (NS) and 15.5 (2.7) on morphine ( | Most common side effects noted were constipation in 10 (40%) and drowsiness in 7 (25%) patients. In the subgroup who increased morphine dose to 10 mg twice daily the incidence of drowsiness doubled. | Not strictly refractory chronic cough cohort, 16 from 27 patients had a productive cough. Studies of psychoactive drugs like morphine cannot be completely blinded as the patient is conscious of the affects a quarter of the patients in this study noted mild and transient sedation. Long-term effects of low-dose morphine in patients with CC were not assessed in this study. Strength of this study was that it was a controlled trial of opiate therapy in clinically significant cough. |
| Dion et al., 2017 [ | Prospective case series on consecutive patients | 16 | Efficacy outcomes were cough severity index (CSI) and Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) at ≥14 days of treatment. A number of investigations and review by a gastroenterologist or speech-language therapist determined subjects meeting diagnostic criteria for neurogenic cough. | All subjects reported at least some improvement in their cough symptoms. CSI scores improved from 23 to 14 and LCQ scores improved from 74 to 103 ( | Four (25%) patients reported somnolence and were recommended to reduce their dosage or frequency to combat symptoms. | Limitations of a preliminary study including small sample size and no control group for comparison. Variable treatment time from 15 to 1029 days. Used LCQ scoring was not consistent with the validated 19-item LCQ score. Here LCQ was assessed on scale of 0 to 133 with 0 most severe. Some follow-up assessments were short at 2 weeks. |
Receptor antagonists for the treatment of refractory chronic cough.
| Study author/s | Type of study | Drug treatment dose and duration | Efficacy outcome | Study results and conclusion/s | Adverse/side effects | Methodological weaknesses/comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young et al., 2010 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial. | 24 | 30 min infusion of low dose | Capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity test (C5 and C2) and, objective 24 h cough frequency (Vitalojak) | Ketamine had no significant effect on C5 or C2 over time compared to placebo in either patient group. 24 h cough frequency did not significantly change after ketamine, 13 (16.8) coughs/h compared to placebo, 13.5 (14.9) coughs/h in either patient group. It was concluded that central upregulation of the NMDA receptor did not appear to be responsible for cough reflex hypersensitivity in patients with CC | Side effects were not investigated or reported. | Published Abstract no full-publication peer review. Subjective or central measures of cough not used. Safety and adverse effects of ketamine not investigated, |
| Khalid, S et al. [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. | 21 | Patients received a single dose of 600 mg of | Co-primary outcomes were assessed by the capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity test (C5) before dose, 2 h after dose and 24 h after dose and with 24 h cough frequency using the VitaloJAK® cough recorder before and after dose. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported cough severity by VAS, urge to cough by VAS before dose, 2 h and 24 h after dosing and cough specific QOL (CQLQ) before dose and 14 days after dose. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic testing up to 4 h and at 24 h after dosing. | Treatment with SB-705498 produced a significant improvement in cough reflex sensitivity to capsaicin at 2 h and a borderline significant improvement at 24 h compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference of +1.3 doubling doses at 2 h [95% CI, +0.3 to +2.2; | No serious adverse events occurred during the study. Ten (48%) nonserious adverse events were reported on placebo treatment and 7 (33%) were reported on SB-705498 treatment (specific AEs not given). Most common AE was headache reported in 3 patients (14%) during placebo treatment and 2 patients (10%) during SB-705498 treatment. | 1-sided statistical test to detect a 2.5% difference between SB-705498 and placebo was used. A two-sided test would have resulted in larger |
| Abdulqawi et al., 2015 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled two-period, crossover (phase II) study | 24 | Patients received | Primary outcome: Daytime cough frequency at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment using 24 h ambulatory cough recordings. Secondary outcomes included cough severity VAS, urge to cough VAS and Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) scores. | Cough frequency was reduced by 75% when patients were allocated to AF-219 compared to when allocated to placebo in the ITT population ( | No serious AEs during the trial. All nonserious AEs were either mild or moderate in severity and included nausea in 9/24 (38%) and oropharyngeal pain in 5/24 (21%) of AF-219 patients. Six patients withdrew before the end of the study because of taste disturbances, which were reported by all patients ( | All patients had taste disturbances on AF-219 treatment resulting in unblinding. Long-term safety and efficacy needs to be established-Phase II study. Small sample size, missing data for primary outcome. Industry sponsored trial. |
| Smith et al., 2017 [ | Multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled parallel trial (Phase IIb study) | 253 | 7.5 mg | Primary outcome was mean change in Awake Cough Frequency (coughs/hour) posttreatment vs. baseline using the VitaloJAK®. Secondary outcome was cough severity (VAS). Subjects had refractory CC and a cough severity VAS ≥ 40 mm. | MK-7264 at a dose of 50 mg significantly reduced the Awake Cough Frequency outcome when compared with placebo, log10 (SD) change for 50 mg MK-7264 was -0.80 (0.11) and for placebo was | The most common side effect reported was related to taste. These were reported in 4 patients on placebo, 6 patients on 7.5 mg, 31 patients on 20 mg and, 51 patients on 50 mg of MK-7264 respectively. Of these 1 patient on placebo and 6 patients on 50 mg MK-7264 dose discontinued the study due to the taste-related side effect. | Published Abstract no full-publication peer review. Taste disturbances cause unblinding. Industry sponsored trial |
Other medications for refractory chronic cough.
| Study author/s | Type of study | Drug treatment dose and duration | Efficacy outcome | Study results and conclusion/s | Adverse/side effects | Methodological weaknesses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yousaf et al., 2010 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | 30 | Primary outcome was a change in log 24 h cough frequency from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in induced sputum neutrophils differential cell count, sputum bacterial colonies, log C2, C5, cough VAS, and LCQ. | Twenty-eight patients completed the study (erythromycin | Two patients in the placebo group reported abdominal discomfort at the 6 week visit, which had resolved by the 12 week visit. One patient in the erythromycin group reported dizziness at the 6 week visit, which resolved within a week. | ||
| Hodgson et al., 2016 [ | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial | 44 | Primary outcome measure was change in LCQ score from baseline to end of treatment at week 8. Secondary outcome measures were cough severity score by VAS and FENO by (NIOX). | There was a clinically important improvement in LCQ score with azithromycin (mean change, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.5 to 4.2) but not placebo (mean change, 0.7; 95% CI, -0.6 to | Side effects occurred in both groups including GI effects such as diarrhea with azithromycin [4] and placebo [2]; heartburn [1], [1]; abdominal pain [2], [1]; and nausea [1], [1] respectively. Less common effects such as musculoskeletal occurred in the placebo group only. | Patients with other comorbidities such as asthma, rhinitis, or reflux were not excluded as for other refractory CC studies. The study was not designed to detect subgroup effects, so significant improvement in LCQ for the CC with asthma subgroup maybe a chance finding rather than a true treatment effect. No objective cough measurement used. | |
| Birring et al., 2017 [ | Multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled, 2-period cross-over trial (Phase IIa study) in patients with IPF and chronic cough and a parallel study of similar design in patients with refractory CC. | 27 | Primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline in objective daytime cough frequency (from 24 h acoustic recording, Leicester Cough Monitor) to posttreatment. Secondary cough outcomes included the LCQ, and cough severity (VAS). | In patients with IPF, PA101 significantly reduced daytime cough frequency by 31.1% at day 14 compared with placebo (ratio of least-squares [LS] means 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.94, | Adverse effects were comparable to placebo. Four patients (two placebo and two PA101) discontinued the study due to relatively mild side effects such as headache and cough. There were no serious AE’s reported. | Small number of patients investigated and the study was underpowered to assess subjective measures. Duration of treatment was brief. |
Figure 3.(a) Forest plot of a meta-analysis on CNS/neuromodulating medication vs. placebo medication on cough QOL. As the Jeyakumar et al study used a different cough QOL measurement (the CQLQ) compared to the LCQ the standardised mean difference (SMDs) were calculated. (b) Forest plot of a meta-analysis on CNS/neuromodulating medication vs. placebo medication on cough QOL. The study under high risk of selection bias (Jeyakumar et al.) was removed in a sensitivity analysis. The remaining three studies all used the same cough QOL measurement (LCQ) so the mean differences (MDs) were calculated.
The green squares and black horizontal lines represent the SMD or MD and 95% CI for each study. The larger the green square the more weight that study contributes to the overall pooled estimate (black diamond). Risk of bias summary has also been included for each study (top right). RevMan Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Full color available online.
Figure 4.(a) Forest plot comparing responders to non-responders for the CNS/neuromodulating medications of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin placebo-controlled randomised trials. (b) Forest plot comparing responders to non-responders for gabapentin and amitriptyline placebo-controlled randomised trials only.
The blue squares and black horizontal lines represent the Risk Ratio and 95% CI for each study. The larger the blue square the more weight that study contributes to the overall pooled estimate (black diamond). Summary risk of bias has also been included for each study. RevMan Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Full color available online.
Figure 5.Forest plot of the P2X3 receptor antagonist AF-219/MK-7264 compared to placebo medication.
The green squares and black horizontal lines represent the SMDs and 95% CI for each study. The larger the green square the more weight that study contributes to the overall pooled estimate (black diamond). Risk of bias assessment not included as the Smith et al [92] study is a published Abstract only. Full color available online.
Figure 6.Forest plot of macrolide antibiotics erythromycin and azithromycin compared to placebo medication.
The green squares and black horizontal lines represent the Risk Ratio and 95% CI for each study. The larger the green square the more weight that study contributes to the overall pooled estimate (black diamond). Summary risk of bias has also been included for each study. Full color available online.