SynthesisJAMA2023
Efficacy and Tolerability of Gefapixant for Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuroimmune circuits in respiratory pathophysiology: decoding molecular crosstalk for precision therapeutic targeting.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Based Platforms for Cardiac-Related Pain Research: Molecular Mechanisms, Experimental Models, and Therapeutic Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Characteristics and management of asthma from the China Asthma Data Registry Project.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Cryo-EM structures of human P2X2/3 heteromer channel reveal the structural basis of ligand selectivity.Science advances · 2026Article
- Large language models for risk-of-bias assessment in randomised clinical trials-a comparative validation study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Structure of the human P2X3 receptor reveals the basis for subtype-selective inhibition by sivopixant.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the P2XJournal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Unraveling the neuro-immune axis in cough hypersensitivity: from pathogenesis to synergistic management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Female predominance in chronic cough: biological sex-related factors, mechanisms, and therapeutic targets-a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and Management Approach to Reflux-Related Cough.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- Endogenous forms of ATP-ATPProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Classic and Novel Antitussives on Cough Suppression in Guinea Pigs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Top 10 priorities for chronic cough: Canadian James Lind Alliance Priority-Setting Partnership (CAN-COUGH).ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Real-world usage and response to gefapixant in refractory chronic cough.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Camlipixant: A New Hope for Refractory Chronic Cough?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Demographics, risk factors and prevalence of chronic cough in Asian general adult population: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Touching a Nerve: Neuroimmune Interactions in Asthma.Immunological reviews · 2025Review
- Activation of Adenosine Triphosphate-Gated Purinergic 2 Receptor Channels by Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid Subtype 4 in Cough Hypersensitivity.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- The McMaster Cough Severity Questionnaire (MCSQ): a cough severity instrument for patients with refractory chronic cough.The European respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Dupilumab reduces patient-reported cough and improves quality of life in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with or without chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a real-life prospective study.Drugs in context · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.