BACKGROUND: Gabapentin and baclofen are recommended for the treatment of chronic refractory cough (CRC). We investigated the efficacy of flupentixol/melitracen in patients unresponsive to these neuromodulators.METHODS: A total of 101 patients with CRC who failed to respond to gabapentin and baclofen were recruited, and treated with flupentixol/melitracen. The prevalence of cough resolution and changes in the Cough Symptom Score (CSS), cough thresholds to capsaicin, Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire (HARQ), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 were evaluated after treatment.RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients (97.0%) completed the study. The overall successful cough resolution rate was 62.4% (63/101). Cough resolution was accompanied by an obvious decrease in the CSS and HARQ score and a remarkable increase in cough thresholds to capsaicin challenge and LCQ score, whereas anxiety and depression scores did not change significantly. The prevalence of adverse effects (e.g., insomnia and dizziness) was 21.8%. The prevalence of cough recurrence within 2 weeks after treatment cessation was 17.8%.CONCLUSION: Flupentixol/melitracen may be an efficacious option for CRC unresponsive to other neuromodulators.
Background: The management of refractory chronic cough (RCC) is a great challenge. Neuromodulators have long been used for RCC with imperfect efficacy. Objectives: We summarized the outcomes of the current treatments used at our specialist cough clinic, which provides a guideline-led service and real-world experience for the future management of RCC. Design: This is a single-centre retrospective observational cohort study. Methods: Consecutive RCC patients (the first clinic visit between January 2016 and May 2021) were included into this observational cohort study. Medical records in the Chronic Cough Clinical Research Database were fully reviewed using uniform criteria. The included subjects were followed-up for at least 6 months after the final clinic visit via instant messages with the link to self-scaled cough-associated questionnaires. Results: Overall, 369 RCC patients were analysed with a median age of 46.6 years and a cough duration of 24.0 months. A total of 10 different treatments were offered. However, 96.2% of patients had been prescribed at least one neuromodulator. One-third of patients had alternative treatments prescribed given the poor response to the initial therapy and 71.3% favourably responded to at least one of the treatments. Gabapentin, deanxit, and baclofen had comparable therapeutic efficacy (56.0%, 56.0%, and 62.5% respectively; p = 0.88) and overall incidences of adverse effects (28.3%, 22.0%, and 32.3% respectively; p = 0.76). However, 19.1 (7.7–41.8) months after the last clinic visit, 65.0% reported improvement (24.9%) or control of their cough (40.1%); 3.8% reported a spontaneous remission and 31.2% still had a severe cough. Both HARQ ( n = 97; p < 0.001) and LCQ ( n = 58; p < 0.001) demonstrated marked improvement. Conclusion: Trying different neuromodulators is a pragmatic strategy for RCC, which helped around two-thirds of patients. Relapse is common on withdrawal or reduction of dosage. Novel medication for RCC is an urgent clinical need. Plain language summary This is the first report that fully represented a guideline-led treatment protocol for refractory chronic cough (RCC) based on a large series of patients, which evaluated the short- and long-term effects of the currently available treatments for RCC. We found that the therapeutic trial of different neuromodulators is a pragmatic strategy, which helped around two-thirds of patients. Gabapentin, deanxit (flupentixol/melitracen), and baclofen had similar therapeutic outcomes. This study may offer real-world experience for the future management of RCC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.