ArticleScientific reports2025
Real-world survey on utilization of central antitussives and its health impact in patients with subacute and chronic cough in Japan.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite guideline recommendations against the long-term use of central antitussives, actual clinical practice remains unclear. We aimed to investigate prescription patterns of central antitussives in patients with cough using Japanese claims data. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients aged ≥ 20 years with subacute and chronic cough from IQVIA Claims database. The primary outcome was the number of days central antitussives were prescribed. Additionally, we examined co-occurrence patterns of comorbidities and adverse events, specifically nausea and constipation, in relation to the duration of central antitussive prescription. Among 10,385 patients with subacute/chronic cough, 4431 (42.7%) were prescribed central antitussives. A longer duration of central antitussives prescription was significantly associated with a higher frequency of comorbidities. Specifically, the proportion of bronchial asthma/cough variant asthma, allergic rhinitis/chronic rhinosinusitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease increased with the number of prescribed days of central antitussive. Adjusted odds ratio (95%CI) for constipation and nausea were 1.80 (1.18-2.76) and 2.06 (1.15-3.70), respectively, in patients prescribed central antitussives for > 57 days compared to those prescribed for 0-28 days. Appropriate treatment of comorbidities and prescription of central antitussives are warranted.
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.