Efficacy and Safety of Gefapixant for Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough over 52 Weeks

Efficacy and Safety of Fexuprazan Versus Esomeprazole for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Related Chronic Cough: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Exploratory Trial

PURPOSE

Potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are a newer class of acid suppressants with convenient dosing and a rapid onset of action, while showing efficacy comparable to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in treating peptic symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to assess the effect of P-CABs on GERD-related chronic cough.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, exploratory trial evaluated adults with chronic cough (≥ 8 weeks) and a recent physician diagnosis of GERD or peptic symptoms (< 1 month). Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive either fexuprazan 40 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg (PPI) once daily for eight weeks, along with matched placebos. The primary endpoint was the change in Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score from baseline. Secondary endpoints included changes in the cough severity Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) scores. Safety was evaluated through monitoring adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 190 subjects recruited, 161 met the selection criteria and were randomized, and 146 completed the trial. The participants were predominantly female (74.3%, mean age 39 ± 12 years). After 8 weeks of treatment, cough-related quality of life improved significantly, with comparable LCQ scores change between the groups (fexuprazan: 4.9 ± 4.0 vs. esomeprazole: 5.3 ± 3.8, p = 0.558). Changes in cough severity NRS and RDQ scores were also similar between the groups. Adverse events were comparable and consisted mostly of mild symptoms.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the potential of P-CABs as a promising alternative to PPIs for patients with chronic cough requiring acid-suppressive therapy.

Gefapixant as a P2X3 receptor antagonist treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent disorder with serious health consequences but limited therapeutic options. For a subset of those with OSA, a key underlying mechanism is hypersensitive chemoreflex control of breathing. There is no approved therapy that targets this endotypic trait. Here we determine whether the P2X3 receptor antagonist gefapixant, which is predicted to attenuate hypersensitive carotid chemoreflexes, reduces OSA severity in patients with chemoreflex-dependent OSA.

METHODS

In a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study, 24 patients with moderate-to-severe OSA (aged 39-68 years, non-continuous positive airway pressure users) whose disorder was partially responsive to supplemental oxygen (chemoreflex-dependent OSA) were treated with gefapixant 180 mg (or placebo) administered as tablets taken orally before bedtime for 7 days and assessed via overnight polysomnography. The primary analysis examined whether gefapixant treatment resulted in a greater reduction in the apnea-hypopnea index from baseline than placebo.

RESULTS

Gefapixant did not lower the apnea-hypopnea index significantly more than placebo; the estimated ratio of the apnea-hypopnea index on gefapixant vs placebo was 0.92 (90% confidence interval: 0.73, 1.17). Notably, nocturnal hypoxemia was increased (ratio of total sleep time with saturated peripheral oxygen < 90% on gefapixant vs placebo = 2.08 [90% confidence interval: 1.53, 2.82]), consistent with reduced chemoreflex output. Commonly reported adverse events with gefapixant included ageusia, dysgeusia, oral hypoaesthesia, nausea, somnolence, and taste disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Gefapixant, while generally well tolerated, did not reduce OSA severity in patients with chemoreflex-dependent OSA. P2X3 receptor antagonism is unlikely to provide an avenue for therapeutic intervention in OSA.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Safety and Tolerability of Gefapixant (MK-7264) in Participants with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (MK-7264-039); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03882801; Identifier: NCT03882801.

CITATION

Robbins JA, Sands S, Maganti L, et al. Gefapixant as a P2X3 receptor antagonist treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(12):1905-1913.

Benefit-Risk Profile of P2X3 Receptor Antagonists for Treatment of Chronic Cough: Dose-Response Model-Based Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Refractory or unexplained chronic cough disrupts quality of life and burdens health care systems around the world. The P2X3 receptor antagonist gefapixant is approved in many countries for its antitussive effects, but taste disturbances are a common adverse effect. Four newer, more selective P2X3 receptor antagonists have been developed to address this problem.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How does the benefit-risk profile vary across the five available P2X3 receptor antagonists?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of P2X3 receptor antagonists, including gefapixant, sivopixant, eliapixant, camlipixant, and filapixant. Primary outcomes were a reduction rate in 24-hour cough frequency and incidence of taste disturbance. Dose-response curves and median effective dose (ED50) were calculated. Effect size at ED50 was ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The confidence was evaluated by Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 4,904 participants were analyzed. The gefapixant regimen demonstrated an ED50 of 90.7 mg/d for cough frequency reduction. Gefapixant showed the highest antitussive effectiveness at ED50 (reduction rate in 24-hour cough frequency: median, 28.1%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 21.0%-35.6%; ranked 1 of 5; moderate certainty) but the highest prevalence of taste disturbance (absolute risk difference per 100 patients: median, 38; 95% CrI, 27-51; ranked 5 of 5; high certainty) and the highest prevalence of discontinuation. Camlipixant had a well-balanced profile (reduction rate in 24-hour cough frequency: median, 14.7%; 95% CrI, 5.4%-26.0%; ranked 3 of 5; low certainty; and taste disturbance; absolute risk difference per 100 patients; median, 2; 95% CrI, 1-6; ranked 2 of 5; low certainty). Placebo had a mean of 33.1% reduction in 24-hour cough frequency.

INTERPRETATION

When used at safe doses, gefapixant had a favorable risk-benefit profile compared with the other four agents. Camlipixant showed initial promise, which may be further investigated by phase III trials currently underway.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Center (UMIN-CTR); No. UMIN000050622; URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp.

Patient-reported assessments of chronic cough in clinical trials: accessory or primary endpoints?

Chronic cough is a complex disorder that affects up to 5-10% of the general population. It can be challenging to manage as there are few effective treatments, although several novel antitussives are in clinical development. The endpoints used to assess their efficacy in clinical trials should be optimal; most large clinical trials currently use objective measures as the primary outcome, especially cough frequency. There are strengths in this approach, although taking the view that other measures of chronic cough are less important, including patient-rated cough severity, psychosocial impact and other associated symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) explore patients' personal experiences of health and disease, and the effects of particular conditions on their lives. Numerous validated PROMs exist for chronic cough, from simple visual analogue scales, to those that focus on cough hypersensitivity and cough-specific quality of life. Medicine regulators in the European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA) encourage the use of PROMs in clinical trials but have voiced concerns over their content validity, clinically meaningful thresholds for change, and discordance with objective measures. There are recent and ongoing studies to address these limitations. This review discusses currently available PROMs used to assess chronic cough and discusses their potential role as primary outcome measures in clinical trials.

Decoding the impact of the placebo response in clinical trials for chronic cough

Chronic cough is a prevalent and challenging condition, with limited treatment options available. The interpretation of clinical trial results for antitussive drugs is complicated by the presence of the placebo response, which can confound outcomes and impede regulatory approval. This review aims to explore the impact of the placebo response on clinical trials for cough medications and elucidate the underlying mechanisms involved. The multifaceted nature of antitussive effects, including pharmacological, psychological/neurobiological and nonspecific effects, is discussed. Additionally, potential solutions to address the placebo response in future cough medication development, such as strategic study design, appropriate choice of end-points and meticulous patient selection, are proposed. More progress to harness this issue is urgently needed.

Development of an Italian version of the Leicester cough questionnaire and its relationship with other symptom-specific measures for patients with chronic cough

OBJECTIVE

To implement subjective methods for measuring the impact of chronic cough on patients' daily life, including an Italian version of the symptom-specific, health status measure for patients with chronic cough, i.e. the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ).

METHODS

Sixty-five chronic cough patients attended a tertiary cough clinic on two separate occasions 8 weeks apart. The visual analogue scale for cough severity (VAS), the LCQ and the cough disturbance score (CDS) were administered on both occasions. The LCQ was adapted for Italian conditions following a forward-backward translation procedure. Concurrent validation, internal consistency, repeatability and responsiveness were determined.

RESULTS

The CDS, VAS and LCQ were correlated (r coefficients ranging from 0.69 to 0.94, p < 0.01). The internal consistency for each LCQ domain was high (alpha coefficient range 0.87-0.93), as was the 8-week repeatability of the LCQ in the patients (n = 36, 60 %) who displayed no change in CDS and VAS (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86, p < 001) over the same period. Patients who reported an improvement in CDS and VAS after 8 weeks (n = 29) also demonstrated significant improvements in each LCQ domain. The mean difference in LCQ total score before and after improvements was 2.26 (95 % CI: 1.58-4.47).

CONCLUSIONS

The Italian version of the LCQ appears to be just as valid as the other language versions of the questionnaire. In addition, the CDS appears to be a clinically useful, symptom-specific measure of the overall disturbance provoked by cough.

Cough medicines for children- time for a reality check

Cough medicines have been in use for over a century to treat the common and troublesome, but often helpful, symptoms of cough in children. They contain various combinations of "anti-tussive" drugs including opioids, antihistamines, herbal preparations, mucolytics, decongestants and expectorants. Whilst theoretically attractive for symptom relief when children are suffering, as time has passed these popular over the counter medicines have been shown to lack efficacy, delay more serious underlying diagnoses, and can cause complications and sometimes death. This has resulted in clinician concerns, a citizen petition to the American Food and Drug Association in 2007, some self-regulation from manufacturers and escalating restrictions on their use from regulatory agencies across the world over the last twenty years. This article will review the protective role of cough, juxtapose the conflicting treatment goals of suppressing a dry cough and promoting expectoration for a wet cough, consider the evidence basis for prescribing cough medicines in comparison to other more specific treatments such as for asthma [beta agonists] or infection [antibiotics], regulatory interventions, and conclude with the view that over counter cough medicines should not be used in children, especially young children.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Gefapixant for Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis

Importance

Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.

Study Selection

Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.

Results

Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.