Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40630384›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2025

Real-world usage and response to gefapixant in refractory chronic cough.

Hisako Matsumoto, Yoshihiro Kanemitsu, Motoki Ohe, Hiroshi Tanaka, Kunihiko Terada, Koichi Nishi, Ryo Atsuta, Johsuke Hara, Junpei Saito, Mitsuhide Ohmichi and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Effectiveness of the P2XJournal of asthma and allergy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Hisako MatsumotoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8754-6318
Yoshihiro KanemitsuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1529-9477
Motoki OheDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Motoki Clinic, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hiroshi TanakaSapporo Cough Asthma and Allergy Center, Sapporo, Japan.
Kunihiko TeradaTerada Clinic, Respiratory Medicine and General Practice, Himeji, Japan.
Koichi NishiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Ryo AtsutaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Akihabara Atsuta Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Johsuke HaraDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Junpei SaitoDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Mitsuhide OhmichiOhmichi Clinic of Internal and Respiratory Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.
Tamotsu IshizukaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8347-3553
Teruaki NishiumaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kakogawa Central City Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Hideki InoueDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Asthma and Lung Clinic Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Naoto WatanabeDepartment of Allergy Internal Medicine, Seirei Yokohama Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Tatsuya NaganoDivision of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-5139
Tetsuya UedaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Osaka Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Haruhiko OgawaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kanazawa Kasuga Clinic, Kanazawa, Japan.
Shigeru EndoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Endo Clinic of Internal Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan.
Takeshi SuzukiDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Toshiyuki KitaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, NHO Kanazawa Medical Centre, Kanazawa, Japan.
Katsuya FujimoriDepartment of Internal Medicine, Agano City Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Yoshihisa IshiuraFirst Department of Internal Medicine, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan.
Masaki FujimuraDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, National Hospital Organization Nanao Hospital, Ishikawa, Japan.
Akio NiimiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The real-world efficacy of the P2X3 antagonist gefapixant, a new class of antitussive for refractory chronic cough, is not yet fully understood. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world usage and response to gefapixant in patients with refractory chronic cough. Methods: This multicentre retrospective study involved patients with refractory chronic cough who visited cough clinics and were prescribed gefapixant. Data collected included baseline demographics, cough characteristics, response to gefapixant, degree of taste disturbance (both assessed by cough specialists), and the course of cough after discontinuation, if applicable. Results: 272 cases were analysed. The population was predominantly middle-aged females, with most patients having asthmatic cough as a comorbidity, dry cough, and predominantly daytime cough. Half of the patients reported a response rate of ≥5 on a 0-10 scale, with 25% reporting a response rate of ≥8. Among responders (response rate ≥5), improvement was largely seen within 2 weeks. The median treatment duration with gefapixant was 32 days (interquartile range 14-175 days), with longer treatment periods observed in responders. Responders typically had more severe pre-treatment cough, dry cough, asthmatic cough as a comorbidity and specific laryngeal sensations. In patients who discontinued gefapixant, sustained improvement was observed in responders. Taste disturbance was not associated with response to gefapixant and was less frequent in patients with cough triggers such as smoke, dry air, or scents, than in those without these triggers. Conclusions: Gefapixant demonstrated a rapid and effective antitussive effect in this multicentre, real-world study.

Identifiers

PMID40630384
PMCPMC12230748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.