Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Bali V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10953008 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Bali Vishal V Schelfhout Jonathan J Sher Mandel R MR Tripathi Peters Anju A Patel Gayatri B GB Mayorga Margaret M Goss Diana D Romano Carla DeMuro CD

Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease 20240101

<h4>Background</h4>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 condit ...[more]

PMID: 38501735

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic cough lasting for > 8 weeks is a common medical condition that burdens patients. This study aimed to qualitatively describe knowledge, awareness, experiences, and subtypes of burdens (physical, social, psychological) among Japanese patients with refractory chronic cough (refractory to treatment of underlying relevant medical conditions) and unexplained chronic cough (symptoms of unexplained origin).MethodsThis non-interventional, cross-sectional study was conducted between February and March 2021 among patients (aged ≥ 20 years) with self-reported refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Subjects with a history of comorbid respiratory conditions were excluded. Eligible subjects participated in a 60-min online semi-structured interview. Verbatim terms from interviews were qualitatively transcribed and generated into word clouds, followed by a clustering analysis in which meaningful clusters were chosen, manually coded, and utterances and burdens categorized.ResultsA total of 21 participants (95.2% with refractory chronic cough, mean age 53.5 years, and 76.2% being males) with Leicester Cough Questionnaire mean ± standard deviation scores of physical 4.8 ± 1.1, psychological 4.4 ± 1.3, social 4.9 ± 1.4, and total 14.1 ± 3.5 were included. The word cloud identified the most frequently used word ('cough'); etiology ('asthma'); and words associated with change in states ('influence,' 'changing,' 'change') and expressions ('tough,' 'pain,' 'hard,' 'terrible,' 'unpleasant'). The patients experienced 'mental/social burden,' 'physical burden,' 'impact on sleep and meals,' 'impact on work and housework,' 'impact on communication,' 'impact on hobbies and leisure,' and 'economic burden.' By closed coding analysis, the situations or types of burden patients experienced from the cough were ordered sequentially as emotion, working style, acquaintanceship, hobbies and leisure, and sleeping pattern.ConclusionsThe present study indicated that there were two types of participant clusters, in which one showed mainly the burdens in the social communications such as work-related communication and another one showed the burdens of relationships with others. Also, some participants highlighted 'mental burden,' on social life due to the current pandemic. To relieve these burdens, disease awareness and knowledge should be improved for patients with refractory and unexplained chronic cough. Trial registration The trial was registered under UMIN-CTR as UMIN000042772, on 17/12/2020. The study was approved by the Medical Corporation Toukeikai Kitamachi Clinic (IRB registration number: 11001110).

Project description:BackgroundChronic cough, a cough lasting >8 weeks, includes refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are needed to better understand chronic cough impacts that matter most to patients. The 19-item Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), an existing PRO measure of chronic cough, assesses impacts of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains. However, the content validity of the LCQ evaluating these concepts in patients with RCC/UCC had not been established.ObjectivesTo evaluate the content validity of the LCQ in patients with RCC/UCC.DesignA cross-sectional, qualitative interview study.MethodsFirst, previously completed qualitative interview results in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 30) were evaluated and mapped to LCQ concepts. Next, a clinical cough expert reviewed each LCQ item and assessed the salience of its concepts for patients with RCC/UCC. Finally, semistructured interviews-including both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing-were conducted in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 20) to elicit a comprehensive set of participant experiences and to assess the appropriateness of using the LCQ in this population.ResultsConcepts reported in the past and present qualitative interviews were included across all LCQ items, and most impacts reported to be the "most bothersome" were assessed in the LCQ. In the current study, all participants indicated that reduced cough frequency would be an important treatment target. During cognitive debriefing, each LCQ item was endorsed by ⩾70% of participants. Additionally, participants were generally able to understand, recall, and select a response for each LCQ item. All participants and the clinical expert indicated that the LCQ was appropriate and assessed the impacts most relevant to patients with RCC/UCC.ConclusionOur findings support the content validity of the LCQ and demonstrate that this measure is fit-for-purpose and includes important cough impacts in adults with RCC/UCC.

Project description:PurposeOnly limited studies have depicted the unique features and management of refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). These led to the initiation of this study, which reported the demographic characteristics, manifestations, and long-term outcomes on a large series of consecutive RCC/UCC patients, providing a guideline-led real-world clinical experience.MethodsRetrospective baseline information was obtained from Clinical Research Database (January 2016 to May 2021). At least 6 months after the last clinic visit, included subjects were prospectively followed up.ResultsThree hundred and sixty-nine RCC and UCC patients (199 females, 53.9%) were analyzed. The median cough duration was 24.0 (12.0-72.0) months. Laryngeal symptoms were reported in 95.9% of the patients. The common triggers for coughing were talking (74.9%), pungent odors (47.3%), eating (45.5%), and cold air (42.8%). RCC was considered in 38.2%, and the remainder of 228 patients had UCC, with an equal sex distribution (P = 0.66). Among the 141 RCCs, 90.8% (128) had refractory reflux cough, which was more responsive to current treatments (P < 0.01). Although most features and test results between RCC and UCC were similar, UCC was more commonly inappropriately treated (P < 0.01). Nineteen (7.7-41.1) months after the final clinic visit, 31.2% still coughed persistently, while 68.8% reported cough improvement or remission. RCC reported more favorable treatment outcomes (including cough improvement, control, and spontaneous remission) than UCC (P < 0.01). Coughs with long duration before the initial cough clinic visit (P < 0.01), frequent urinary incontinence (P < 0.01), and being sensitive to "talking" (P < 0.01) or "cold air" (P < 0.01) were less likely to be solved.ConclusionsThe current treatments only improve cough symptoms in two-thirds of patients. Clinical indicators for treatment failure were those coughing for long duration and being sensitive to "talking" or "cold air."

Project description:BackgroundChronic cough (persisting for ≥8 weeks) is a common disorder affecting approximately 5 to 10% of adults worldwide that is sometimes refractory to treatment (refractory chronic cough [RCC]) or has no identifiable cause (unexplained chronic cough [UCC]). There is minimal information on the patient's experience of RCC/UCC in Canada. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient journey and perceptions related to RCC/UCC management in Canada.MethodsOur exploratory study included Canadians in the Leger Opinion Panel and focused on individuals with RCC or UCC. Key entry criteria were: age ≥18 years, cough on most days for ≥8 weeks, no smoking within 1 year, no serious respiratory disease or lung cancer, and not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Individuals who met entry criteria were invited to complete an approximately 30-minute online survey with questions on demographic characteristics, healthcare professional (HCP) interactions, diagnosis of underlying conditions, current treatments, and satisfaction with HCPs and chronic cough therapies.ResultsA total of 49,076 individuals completed the chronic cough screening questionnaire (July 30, 2021 to September 1, 2021): 1,620 (3.3%) met entry criteria for RCC or UCC, and 1,046 (2.1%) completed the online survey (mean age of 45 years, 61% female). Most respondents (58%) reported their chronic cough was managed by a general practitioner (GP). Forty-four percent of respondents did not have a diagnosis of an underlying condition for their cough. Breathing tests (39%) and chest imaging (34%) were the most common diagnostic tests. Cough suppressants (18%) were the most frequent current treatment. Respondents were moderately satisfied with their HCPs, but more than half considered their treatment ineffective and 34% had considered no longer seeking medical attention because of a lack of treatment success.ConclusionsIndividuals with RCC/UCC in Canada are largely unsatisfied with the effectiveness of treatment. Additional HCP education and new treatment options are needed to improve patient satisfaction.

Project description:BackgroundRefractory chronic cough (RCC) has a significant impact on patient's health-related quality of life and represents a challenge in clinical management. However, the optimal treatment for RCC remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of the current pharmacological therapeutic options for RCC.MethodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases from January 1, 2008 to March 1, 2023. All randomised control trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of efficacy or/and safety were included in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. Here, we compared the effects on Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and objective cough frequency of patients with RCC. Besides, we also compared the incidence of adverse events (AEs) for analysis of safety. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022345940.Findings19 eligible RCTs included 3326 patients and 7 medication categories: P2X3 antagonist, GABA modulator, Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) modulator, NK-1 agonist, opioid analgesic, macrolide, and sodium cromoglicate. Compared with placebo, mean difference (MD) of LCQ and 24 h cough frequency for P2X3 antagonist relief were 1.637 (95% CI: 0.887-2.387) and -11.042 (P = 0.035). Compared with placebo, effect sizes (MD for LCQ and cough severity VAS) for GABA modulator were 1.347 (P = 0.003) and -7.843 (P = 0.003). In the network meta-analysis, gefapixant is the most effective treatment for patients with RCC (The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRA) is 0.711 in LCQ, 0.983 in 24 h cough frequency, and 0.786 in cough severity VAS). Lesogaberan had better efficacy than placebo (SUCRA: 0.632 vs. 0.472) in 24 h cough frequency. Eliapixant and lesogaberan had better efficacy than placebo in cough severity VAS. However, TRP modulator had worse efficacy than placebo. In the meta-analysis of AEs, the present study found P2X3 antagonist had a significant correlation to AEs (RR: 1.129, 95% CI: 1.012-1.259), especially taste-related AEs (RR: 6.216, P < 0.05).InterpretationIn this network meta-analysis, P2X3 antagonist showing advantages in terms of efficacy is currently the most promising medication for treatment of RCC. GABA modulator also showed potential efficacy for RCC but with AEs of the central system. Nevertheless, the role of TRP modulator needed to be revisited. Further research is needed to determine the potential beneficiary population for optimizing the pharmacological management of chronic cough.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China (81870079), Guangdong Science and Technology Project (2021A050520012), Incubation Program of National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (GMU2020-207).

Project description:ImportanceGefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.Study selectionTwo 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 synthesisTwo 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 measuresCough 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.ResultsNine 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 relevanceCompared 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.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Objectives

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets