Efficacy and safety of gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough (COUGH-1 and COUGH-2): results from two double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Gefapixant is an oral P2X3 receptor antagonist that has previously shown efficacy and safety in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. We therefore aim to confirm the efficacy and safety of gefapixant in participants with refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. METHODS: COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 were both double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. COUGH-1 was done in 156 sites in 17 countries and COUGH-2 in 175 sites in 20 countries. We enrolled participants who were 18 years or older with a diagnosis of refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough of 1 year duration or more. Participants were also required to have a cough severity visual analogue scale score of 40 mm or more at screening and baseline. Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1), using a computer-generated allocation schedule, to one of three treatment groups: placebo, gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, or gefapixant 45 mg twice per day. All study treatments were given orally. Participants were treated over a 12-week main study period in COUGH-1 and a 24-week main study period in COUGH-2; followed by extension periods for a total of up to 52 weeks of treatment in both trials. The primary outcome was placebo-adjusted mean change in 24-h cough frequency at 12 weeks in COUGH-1 and 24 weeks in COUGH-2. Both studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03449134 (COUGH-1) and NCT03449147 (COUGH-2). FINDINGS: From March 14, 2018, (first participant screened) to July 26, 2019, (last participant screened) 732 patients were recruited in COUGH-1 and 1317 in COUGH-2. COUGH-1 randomly assigned and treated 730 participants (243 [33×3%] with placebo, 244 [33×4%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 243 [33×3%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day); COUGH-2 randomly assigned and treated 1314 participants (435 [33×1%] with placebo, 440 [33×5%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 439 [33×4%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day). Participants were mostly female (542 [74×2%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 984 [74×9%] of 1314 in COUGH-2). The mean age was 59×0 years (SD 12×6) in COUGH-1 and 58×1 years (12×1) in COUGH-2, and the mean cough duration was 11·6 years (SD 9·5) in COUGH-1 and 11·2 years (9·8) in COUGH-2. Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day showed significant reductions in 24-h cough frequency compared with placebo at week 12 in COUGH-1 (18·5% [95% CI 32·9-0·9]; p=0·041) and at week 24 in COUGH-2 (14·6% [26·1-1·4]; p=0·031). Gefapixant 15 mg twice per day did not show a significant reduction in cough frequency versus placebo in both studies. The most common adverse events were related to taste disturbance: ageusia (36 [4·9%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 86 [6·5%] of 1314 in COUGH-2), dysgeusia (118 [16·2%] in COUGH-1 and 277 [21·1%] in COUGH-2), hypergeusia (3 [0·4%] in COUGH-1 and 6 [0×5%] in COUGH-2), hypogeusia (19 [2·6%] in COUGH-1 and 80 [6·1%] in COUGH-2), and taste disorder (28 [3·8%] in COUGH-1 and 46 [3·5%] in COUGH-2). INTERPRETATION: Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day is the first treatment to show efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in phase 3 clinical trials for refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Improvements in Objective and Subjective Measures of Chronic Cough with Gefapixant: A Pooled Phase 3 Efficacy Analysis of Predefined Subgroups.

INTRODUCTION: In phase 3 trials (COUGH-1/COUGH-2), gefapixant 45 mg twice daily significantly reduced 24-h cough frequency vs placebo in refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC or UCC). METHODS: Here, the efficacy of gefapixant 45 mg vs placebo was evaluated across COUGH-1/COUGH-2 in predefined subgroups based on sex, region, age, cough duration, cough severity, cough frequency, and diagnosis (RCC, UCC). Awake cough frequency reductions at Week 12 and LCQ response rates (i.e., ≥ 1.3-point improvement) at Week 24 were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1360 participants analyzed, gefapixant 45 mg resulted in consistent awake cough frequency reductions overall and across predefined subgroups at Week 12. Gefapixant also resulted in improved LCQ scores across subgroups at Week 24; ≥ 70% of participants in each subgroup treated with gefapixant 45 mg had an LCQ response. CONCLUSION: These data suggest gefapixant 45 mg provides consistent objective and subjective efficacy across subgroups of individuals with RCC or UCC.

Development of a Report Card for Identifying Local Sublingual Immunotherapy Events in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) Report Card was developed to capture patient-reported local reactions from the administration of SLIT, based on the World Allergy Organization side-effect grading system. The objective was to evaluate understandability, usability, and translatability of the paper and electronic versions of the SLIT Report Card. METHODS: Adults (aged 18+ years), adolescents (aged 12-17 years), and parents/caregivers and their children (aged 5-11 years) participated in two rounds of interviews, testing the paper version in Round 1, and both the paper and electronic versions in Round 2. Interviews assessed comprehension and usability by subjects. Translatability identified potential issues related to translation or cultural relevance. RESULTS: Ten adults, ten adolescents, and ten parent/child dyads were interviewed. In general, subjects demonstrated a clear understanding of the instrument's content. However, some subjects were uncertain of or suggested clarifying the meaning of certain terms, including tablet, ulcer, taste alteration, uvula, nausea, and itching in the ear. The translatability assessment also identified uvula and nausea as potentially problematic for translation. Subjects could use the electronic device and found navigation 'easy', with only a few minor suggestions made to improve usability. Some wording and formatting changes were made based on subjects' feedback and the translatability assessment. CONCLUSION: The SLIT Report Card was refined following best practices for instrument development, including cognitive interviewing, usability, and translatability assessment. The refined SLIT Report Card is appropriate for comprehensively and systematically collecting SLIT-related local reactions directly from subjects in a clinical trial setting, taking into account the World Allergy Organization grading system.