Patient-reported experiences with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough, defined as a cough lasting 8 or more weeks, affects up to 10% of adults. Refractory chronic cough (RCC) is a cough that is uncontrolled despite comprehensive investigation and treatment of comorbid conditions while unexplained chronic cough (UCC) is a cough with no identifiable cause despite extensive evaluation of comorbid conditions. RCC and UCC are often poorly controlled. Understanding individuals' lived experience of the symptoms and impacts of these conditions may guide therapeutic strategies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this study were to assess respondents' perceptions of the key symptoms of RCC and UCC and the impacts of RCC and UCC and their symptoms on well-being, health-related quality of life, work productivity, and social relationships. DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: This study enrolled 30 adults with physician-diagnosed RCC or UCC. Two trained qualitative researchers conducted individual, in-depth telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and systematically analyzed to identify content themes. RESULTS: A total of 15 respondents with RCC and 15 with UCC were included in the study. Many respondents had RCC or UCC for a long duration (median 9 years, range: 0-24). Half of the respondents reported having a coughing episode at least once daily. Only 40% of respondents reported that medication had improved their symptoms. In over half of the respondents, RCC or UCC hindered communication, caused embarrassment, frustration, and worry, and lowered quality of life. Perceptions of meaningful treatment benefits in RCC or UCC varied widely across respondents. CONCLUSION: RCC and UCC remained poorly managed in many individuals and were associated with a wide range of symptoms and cough triggers that hindered daily activities and reduced emotional well-being. Understanding individuals' lived experiences may inform the development of RCC and UCC therapeutic strategies.

Patient-reported experiences with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a qualitative analysisChronic cough, particularly refractory and unexplained chronic cough, remain poorly managed in many individuals and are associated with a wide range of symptoms and cough triggers that hinder daily activities and reduce emotional well-being. Currently there are no US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Understanding the experience and treatment preferences of individuals with these conditions may help inform the development of new therapies and clarify the potential impact of such therapies on the lives of individuals with chronic cough. Using in-depth interviews, the present study comprehensively evaluated individuals' experience with refractory or unexplained chronic cough and treatment priorities, a research area that has not been well-studied. This study detailed broad-ranging physical, behavioral, and emotional impacts of chronic cough, which hindered individuals' social well-being.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Labeling for Oncology Drugs Approved by the FDA and the EMA (2012-2016).

OBJECTIVES: To compare US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) labeling for evidence based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of new oncology treatments approved by both agencies. METHODS: Oncology drugs and indications approved between 2012 and 2016 by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. PRO-related language and analysis reported in US product labels and drug approval packages and EMA summaries of product characteristics were compared for each indication. RESULTS: In total, 49 oncology drugs were approved for a total of 64 indications. Of the 64 indications, 45 (70.3%) included PRO data in either regulatory submission. No FDA PRO labeling was identified. PRO language was included in the summary of product characteristics for 21 (46.7%) of 45 indications. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy measures were used frequently in submissions. FDA's comments suggest that aspects of study design (eg, open labels) or the validity of PRO measures was the primary reason for the lack of labeling based on PRO endpoints. Both agencies identified missing PRO data as problematic for interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: During this time period, the FDA and the EMA used different evidentiary standards to assess PRO data from oncology studies, with the EMA more likely to accept data from open-label studies and broad concepts such as health-related quality of life. An understanding of the key differences between the agencies may guide sponsor PRO strategy when pursuing labeling. Patient-focused proximal concepts are more likely than distal concepts to receive positive reviews.