Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of lesogaberan on the objective cough frequency and capsaicin-evoked coughs in patients with refractory chronic cough

Huda Badri, Carmen Gibbard, Dimitra Denton, Imran Satia, Bashar Al-Sheklly, Rachel J. Dockry, Kimberley Holt, Kevin McGuiness, Sam Treadway, Peter Whorwell, Lesley Houghton, Augustine Lee, K. Jane Escott, Theresa Lee, Greame Wilkinson, Alison Holt, Brendan J. Canning, Jacky A. Smith
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00546-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00546-2021
Huda Badri
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2North Manchester General Hospital, Pennine Acute NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Huda Badri
  • For correspondence: huda.badri@manchester.ac.uk
Carmen Gibbard
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dimitra Denton
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Imran Satia
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
3Dept of Medicine, Division of Respiratory Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bashar Al-Sheklly
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel J. Dockry
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rachel J. Dockry
Kimberley Holt
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kimberley Holt
Kevin McGuiness
4Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sam Treadway
4Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Whorwell
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
4Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lesley Houghton
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
5Division of Gastroenterology and Surgical Sciences, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
6Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Augustine Lee
7Pulmonary Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Augustine Lee
K. Jane Escott
8Emerging Innovations, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theresa Lee
7Pulmonary Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Greame Wilkinson
9AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Holt
9AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brendan J. Canning
10Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Centre, Baltimore, MD, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacky A. Smith
1Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
4Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacky A. Smith
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective Baclofen is a centrally acting γ-aminobutyric acid type B (GABAB) receptor agonist which reduces gastro-oesophageal reflux and suppresses the cough reflex; however, central nervous system side-effects limit its use. Lesogaberan is a novel peripherally acting GABAB agonist, but its effects on refractory chronic cough are unknown.

Design We performed a single-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised crossover study in patients with chronic cough, refractory to the treatment of underlying conditions. Patients were randomised to treatment with lesogaberan 120 mg modified release twice daily or matched placebo for 2 weeks and then crossed over to the alternative therapy after a 2-week washout. The primary end-point was 24-h cough frequency measured with an acoustic monitoring system. In addition, cough responses to capsaicin were measured, and gastro-oesophageal reflux assessed by 24-h pH/impedance at screening.

Results 22 patients were randomised to receive lesogaberan/placebo or placebo/lesogaberan (female (73%); mean±sd age 63.7±7.2 years; median (interquartile range) cough duration 10.5 (5.8–17.0) years; mean (95% CI) 45 (29–67) reflux events in 24 h; two patients had abnormal oesophageal acid exposure times). Although lesogaberan reduced cough counts by 26% over placebo, this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.12). However, lesogaberan did significantly improve cough responses to capsaicin (p=0.04) and the number of cough bouts (p=0.04) compared with placebo. Lesogaberan was well tolerated in this study.

Conclusions Lesogaberan improved cough hypersensitivity and the number of bouts of coughing, but not coughs per hour. This implies a possible role for peripheral GABAB receptors in refractory chronic cough.

Abstract

Lesogaberan, a peripherally acting GABAB agonist, does not reduce 24-h cough frequency in patients with chronic cough despite significantly reducing capsaicin-induced coughing https://bit.ly/3uGyPQL

Introduction

Cough is the commonest presenting symptom in primary care consultations and an estimated 10% of adults worldwide suffer from a cough lasting >8 weeks, i.e. chronic cough [1, 2]. Patients presenting with chronic coughing are typically female, aged 50–70 years and report coughing on exposure to usually innocuous triggers such as changes in temperature, irritant aerosols such as cleaning produces and use of their voice [3]. They also have heightened responses to inhaled irritants known to activate airway nerves [4]. Current management strategies focus on treating potential comorbidities such as asthma, nasal disease and gastro-oesophageal disease, which may improve coughing, but in some patients chronic coughing is refractory to treatment of associated comorbidities, or comorbidities cannot be identified, known as refractory chronic cough (RCC). At present there are no effective licensed therapies for patients with RCC.

Many studies report that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is commonly associated with chronic coughing. However, randomised controlled trials of antacid therapy in chronic cough patients have largely produced negative findings [5, 6], which has led to current cough consensus guidelines discouraging the routine prescribing of acid suppression therapy [7]. The role of GORD in RCC is unclear. Various mechanisms have been suggested, including microaspiration of refluxate, weakly/nonacid reflux and laryngopharyngeal reflux provoking coughing, but little evidence is available. However, there is evidence to suggest temporal associations between reflux and cough events in patients with chronic cough, suggesting that reflux events may be capable of triggering coughing irrespective of their acidity [8–10]. The oesophagus and the bronchial tree are both vagally innervated and share the same embryonic origins; thus, reflux episodes, even those confined to the oesophagus, may provoke coughing through neuronal crosstalk. Therefore, therapies that reduce all reflux events (regardless of acidity) may have the greatest potential to be effective in patients with cough driven by reflux.

γ-Aminobutyric acid B (GABAB) receptor agonists such as baclofen have been shown to reduce cough evoked experimentally by inhaling capsaicin, and therefore been proposed as a potential antitussive therapy [11, 12]. GABA is the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the nervous system and GABAB receptors are widely distributed in the body, including the airways and the lower oesophageal sphincter. In addition, baclofen has been shown to reduce the frequency of transient lower oesophageal relaxations (TLOSR), the main mechanism mediating reflux events in GORD [13–15]. However, baclofen is associated with central nervous system (CNS) side-effects such as drowsiness and even seizures, limiting its use in clinical practice.

Lesogaberan is a novel peripherally acting GABAB receptor agonist devoid of CNS side-effects, as it is actively transported out of the CNS. Lesogaberan was developed as an add-on treatment to proton-pump inhibitors in patients with GORD. In initial trials, lesogaberan significantly reduced TLOSRs [16, 17], but was only marginally superior to placebo in achieving an improvement in typical symptoms of reflux disease [18]. However, patient selection for these studies has been questioned [19]. Unlike baclofen, lesogaberan does not appear to supress capsaicin-evoked cough in healthy controls, but this may not exclude an effect on the hypersensitised cough reflex responses exhibited by patients with RCC [20, 21].

We hypothesised that lesogaberan may be effective at reducing cough in RCC patients via two possible mechanisms: by reducing TLOSRs and by reducing the sensitivity of the cough reflex. We therefore performed a study investigating the effects lesogaberan on spontaneous cough frequency and capsaicin-evoked cough responses in patients with RCC. In addition, we explored whether patients with significant reflux-cough associations were more likely to benefit from lesogaberan.

Methods

The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, good clinical practice and applicable regulatory requirements including local ethics board approval (Liverpool East, REC reference: 14/NW/1497).

Study subjects

Adults (aged >18 years) with RCC (>8 weeks’ duration) attending a specialist cough clinic (between 23 July 2015 and 10 September 2017) were recruited. All patients had previously undergone assessment and treatment trials to exclude other causes of RCC and manage any triggers, as per current guidelines [22]. We did not select patients on the basis of typical GORD symptoms, as these should be treated with standard therapies. Current smokers (<6 months’ abstinence) and ex-smokers with >20 pack-years' history were excluded. Patients who had a respiratory tract infection or other significant illness within a 4-week period prior to starting the study were also excluded. Patients with significantly abnormal lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <70%) or chest radiology were excluded. Patients taking ACE inhibitors or currently taking drugs thought to affect cough reflex sensitivity (opiates, pregabalin or gabapentin) were also excluded.

Study design

This was a single-centre, double-blind randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover study, comparing 2 weeks’ treatment with lesogaberan (120 mg modified release (MR) twice daily) versus placebo in RCC patients. At screening, patients underwent high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) followed by simultaneous 24-h cough and pH/impedance monitoring. Patients were then randomised to lesogaberan 120 mg MR twice daily or matched placebo for 2 weeks followed by a 7–14-day washout period and then crossed over to the alternative therapy. For each treatment period, we measured capsaicin cough challenge and 24-h cough frequency at baseline (pre-treatment) and on day 14 of therapy. Capsaicin cough challenge was performed at 2 h post-dose (corresponding to the maxiumum concentration) on day 14. Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), Reflux Symptom Questionnaire 7-day recall (RESQ-7) and visual analogue scores (VAS) were completed at the same time points.

Cough measurements

Cough frequency

Participants underwent 24-h ambulatory acoustic cough monitoring using the VitaloJAK cough monitor (Vitalograph, Buckingham, UK). Cough sounds per hour were quantified by a semi-automated method using validated custom-written software [23–25]. Cough “bouts”, defined as continuous coughing without a 2-s pause were analysed to permit evaluation of reflux–cough associations [8, 26]. Awake and night-time coughs were analysed as secondary outcomes.

Capsaicin-evoked cough responses

Participants inhaled four breaths of doubling concentrations of capsaicin (to total lung capacity, 0.97–1000 µM; Stockport Pharmaceuticals, Stockport, UK) at 30-s intervals using a dosimeter (KoKo dosimeter; DeVilbiss Healthcare, Somerset, PA, USA) from a nebuliser pot with flow limitation. Coughs evoked in the first 15 s following each inhalation were counted. The challenge continued until the maximum tolerated dose, or the final concentration was inhaled. The maximum number of coughs evoked at any concentration of capsaicin (Emax) and the concentration evoking 50% of the maximal response (ED50) were noted.

Patient-reported cough measures

Cough-specific quality of life was assessed using the LCQ [27]. Cough severity was rated by the patients using a 100-mm VAS.

Oesophageal studies

All patients underwent HRIM (Sandhill Scientific, Highland Ranch, CO, USA) and analysed according to the Chicago classification (version 3.0) [28]. HRIM was carried out to assess oesophageal motility and accurately locate the lower oesophageal sphincter to ensure the correct placement of the pH impedance catheter. 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring, using a Sleuth pH/impedance ambulatory system (Sandhill Scientific) was then carried out. The distal pH sensor was placed 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter. Patients underwent simultaneous, synchronised 24-h cough recording using the VitaloJAK ambulatory cough recorder. The purpose of the synchronised 24-h pH impedance and cough frequency measurement was to identify reflux–cough associations and thus analyse cough responses in the context of these associations. The 24-h pH impedance data were manually analysed for reflux episodes using the BioView analysis system (Sandhill Scientific) and then reviewed by an experienced technician. Patients taking proton-pump inhibitors and/or histamine (H2) antagonists were requested to stop their treatments for 2 weeks prior to the test. Data collected during mealtimes and drinks were excluded from the analysis. Gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes were defined as sequential, orally progressing drops in impedance to <50% of the baseline values in two consecutive channels and propagating in retrograde direction to at least the next impedance segment. Acid and nonacid reflux episodes were analysed.

Symptom association probability

Symptom association probability (SAP) was used to assess the probability of an association between cough bouts and reflux episodes [8]. Each 24-h impedance trace was divided into 2-min segments and each segment was assessed for the presence of reflux and/or cough. All cough bouts were then assessed for reflux occurring in the preceding 2 min. The SAP is calculated assuming that reflux and cough events are linked if they fall within 2 min of one another. Fisher's exact test is used to assess whether the proportion of linked events exceeds that expected by chance alone. A SAP of ≥95% within an individual patient is assumed to indicate a positive association. A validated, semi-automated, custom-written SAP analysis tool based on the Weusten et al. [29] method was used. Other measurements that were calculated were 1) the symptom index, defined as the overall percentage of reflux related cough episodes (calculated by number of reflux-related cough episodes/total number of cough episodes)×100% and 2) the symptom sensitivity index, which is the defined as the percentage of cough-related reflux episodes (calculated by number of cough-associated reflux episodes/total number of reflux episodes×100) [30].

Patient-reported reflux symptoms

The RESQ-7 was used to assess frequency and intensity of GORD symptoms. This is a validated 13-item questionnaire, with a higher score indicating higher symptom burden [31].

Dose justification

We used a lesogaberan dose of 120 mg MR twice daily for a 2-week period. To date, there are no data to determine the optimal dose of lesogaberan required to reduce or inhibit cough in humans. Therefore, we based our dosing selection on safety data and the assumption that doses effective at inhibiting TLOSRs will probably also be effective at inhibiting cough. In a multiple-dosing study of lesogaberan, MR preparation doses of 60 mg, 120 mg, 180 mg and 240 mg twice daily, for 4 weeks, in 661 patients with persistent GORD were used [18] with no apparent advantage of increasing the dose beyond 120 mg. In addition, there were no serious adverse events at the 120 mg twice daily dose; the proportion of adverse events was similar to placebo (120 mg 39% versus placebo 31%), whereas there were cases of altered liver function enzymes at 240 mg [18].

Blinding and randomisation

Randomisation was carried out using a computer-generated scheme by Almac (Craigavon, UK), who were independent of the study site and procedures. Blinded study medication was supplied to the pharmacy where it was dispensed. Unblinding was by way of unblinding scratch cards per treatment.

Patients were randomised to two sequences: lesogaberan/placebo or placebo/lesogaberan. The treatment assigned to a patient was determined by an Almac-generated randomisation scheme (block size=10). Treatment numbers were allocated sequentially as the subjects were enrolled.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the effect of lesogaberan on objective 24-h cough frequency. Secondary outcomes were efficacy in SAP-positive versus SAP-negative patients after 2 weeks’ treatment as measured by cough frequency (24-h cough recording), changes in capsaicin-evoked cough responses (Emax/ED50) and patient-reported outcomes capturing cough severity and reflux symptoms (VAS, LCQ, RESQ-7). In addition, we explored the effect of lesogaberan on cough bouts.

Sample size

Based upon previous cough frequency data in an unselected group of patients with RCC, with 22 patients this study had 80% power to detect a 43% reduction in cough with lesogaberan over placebo, assuming a standard deviation of log cough frequency of ±0.42. Significance was set at the standard level of p<0.05 [32].

Statistical methods

Generalised estimating equation (GEE) models were used to analyse the data (SPSS Statistics version 22; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The analysis used all the data from the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who took at least one dose of the study drug). For cough frequency end-points (24 h, daytime and night-time cough rates), we calculated percentage change from baseline after natural log transformation of the data (0.1 was added to the entire night-time cough frequency data as they contained zero numbers). The GEE models assessed the influence of treatment, period and sequence adjusting for the period specific baseline. Potential carryover effects were examined by the sequence in the model. The influence of a positive/negative SAP on the treatment response was assessed as a factor in the model. Similar models were used to assess the effect of treatment and SAP status on cough severity VAS, LCQ, capsaicin cough responses and RESQ-7 scores. We estimated the difference between treatments and calculated the percentage difference. Significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

Participants

22 patients were recruited (between 23 July 2015 and 10 September 2017); two withdrew after randomisation; and 20 completed the study (figure 1). Patients were predominantly female, middle-aged, with normal lung function, and a median cough duration of 10.5 years. There were no current smokers, most (almost 75%) had never smoked and the rest had minimal smoking history. 10 patients were taking acid-suppression therapy (proton-pump inhibitors and H2 antagonists) for typical reflux symptoms; of these, eight were able to withhold this therapy for the duration of the trial. SAP data were only available on 19 patients, as three were missing (one failed cough monitor, one failed pH/impedance monitor and one had oesophageal studies elsewhere). The mean number of reflux events were within normal limits (<70 events per 24 h), similar to previous studies [8–10] (table 1).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram. BMI: body mass index; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; MR: modified release.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Patient demographics

Spontaneous cough frequency

Lesogaberan reduced 24-h cough frequency by 26% compared with placebo. (p=0.12; figure 2 and table 2). SAP category (figure 3) and RESQ-7 (supplementary material) did not significantly predict the response of cough to lesogaberan. Both daytime and night-time cough rates were reduced by lesogaberan compared with placebo, but neither reached statistical significance (p=0.18 and p=0.14, respectively). We explored the effect of lesogaberan on cough bouts, as this method of cough quantification is required for evaluating reflux–cough associations. Lesogaberan reduced 24-h cough bouts by 31% over placebo, p=0.04; figure 2). There were no significant period or sequence effects.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

a) Cough frequency and b) cough bout data before and after 2 weeks’ placebo and lesogaberan treatment. Lesogaberan reduced 24-h cough frequency by 26% (p=0.12) and cough bouts by 31% over placebo (p=0.04).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Outcomes

FIGURE 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3

Reflux as a predictor of lesogaberan effect on 24-h cough counts. SAP: symptom association probability.

Capsaicin-evoked cough

Only 16 out of 22 patients completed capsaicin cough challenge, due to loss of the supply of capsaicin during the study. Lesogaberan reduced capsaicin-evoked cough compared with placebo (p<0.001). The Emax was lower (p=0.02) and the ED50 higher (p=0.02) after lesogaberan treatment compared with placebo (figure 4).

FIGURE 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4

Capsaicin-evoked coughs in chronic cough patients after 2 weeks’ treatment with placebo versus lesogaberan.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux measures

Complete impedance data was available in 19 patients. The mean number of reflux events was 45 (95% CI 29–67) with a median of 83 cough bouts (95% CI 46–191) during the 24-h pH impedance study period, i.e. almost double the number of cough bouts compared to reflux events. The symptom index showed that 11.6% (95% CI 8.9–20.2%) of these cough bouts were preceded by reflux within a 2-min window. Even in the 58% of patients with a positive SAP analysis, the proportion of reflux episodes associated with cough bouts (the symptom sensitivity index) was only 17.3% (95% CI 11.5–26.0%), therefore the potential efficacy of blocking reflux events with lesogaberan in this study was highly limited by the low number of cough episodes temporally linked to reflux. Only two out of the 19 patients with complete impedance data had a pathological acid exposure time (i.e. a pH of <4 for >4% of the 24-h period); therefore, the influence of this on the effect of lesogaberan was not explored.

Patient-reported outcomes

Lesogaberan treatment had no effect on the LCQ (+0.4, 95% CI −0.5–1.3; p=0.36), daytime cough severity VAS or the RESQ-7 (table 2 and supplementary material).

Treatment-emergent adverse events

Lesogaberan 120 mg MR twice daily was well tolerated by the vast majority of patients (table 3). There were no serious adverse events; in particular there were no significant changes in liver function tests (table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Treatment-emergent adverse events

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effects of a peripherally acting GABAB receptor agonist in a group of patients with RCC. Lesogaberan reduced spontaneous cough frequency by 26% over placebo, but this reduction did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, the patient-reported outcomes did not suggest a significant benefit from lesogaberan in cough or reflux symptoms. Interestingly, lesogaberan did reduce capsaicin-evoked cough responses, and exploratory analysis suggested that bouts of coughing were significantly reduced by 31% after lesogaberan over the effects of placebo.

The association between RCC and GORD has long been described. Pooled data from trials of acid suppressing therapy suggest that patients with symptoms of heartburn and/or abnormal oesophageal acid exposure accompanying their RCC are most likely to gain benefit from acid-suppressing therapies [6]. The role of nonacid reflux (whether liquid or gaseous) remains controversial and is challenging to investigate in the absence of effective therapies. We used an unlicensed therapy, lesogaberan, to inhibit TLOSRs and thus reflux events (irrespective of acidity or nature) in this patient group and evaluated the effects on cough. Compared with our previous study of temporal reflux cough associations in unselected RCC patients [8], this refractory group had fewer reflux events, and a much smaller number of cough events preceded by reflux (11% versus 33%); despite this, a similar proportion were SAP-positive [8]. This may have contributed to the negative findings in this study; however, our previous work found that significant reflux–cough associations were independent of the number of reflux events.

In the normal physiological state TLOSRs are under inhibitory control of GABAB. In clinical and pre-clinical studies, lesogaberan reduced the number of TLOSRs by preventing the loss of inhibition of these events [33–35]. In patients with typical reflux and partial improvement in their symptoms with proton-pump inhibitors/H2 antagonists, there was a clear dose response between lesogaberan therapy and the reduction in reflux episodes, from 30 mg to 240 mg twice daily [17]. At the 120 mg MR dose of lesogaberan there was a reduction in reflux events by 45% (95% CI −35.1– −53.1%) [18]. Even if lesogaberan was highly effective and blocked all reflux events in our participants, a maximum 11% reduction in cough bouts would be expected, as only this small proportion of coughs appeared to be triggered by reflux in this patient group. In fact, the reduction in cough bouts we observed was much greater (31% over placebo), suggesting that an alternative mechanism independent of reflux may be involved.

The effects of lesogaberan on capsaicin-evoked coughs differed from our previous observations in healthy volunteers [36]. In RCC patients, lesogaberan significantly reduced capsaicin-evoked cough, suggesting an inhibition of the cough reflex, whereas there was no effect in healthy controls. RCC patients are known to have heightened cough responses to capsaicin inhalation relative to healthy volunteers [37]. Lesogaberan attenuated this response, suggesting a possible role for peripheral GABAB receptors in the pathophysiology of RCC. It is possible that the nonsignificant improvements in cough frequency and significant improvements in cough bouts could be a consequence of the inhibition of peripheral nerves. Although the dose of lesogaberan used in this study had comparable effects to higher doses on reflux events, whether this dose was optimal for suppressing cough reflex hypersensitivity is unknown.

This study demonstrated a reduction in cough bouts. Although this is not standard methodology for quantifying coughs, patients with RCC describe attacks of coughing as particularly troublesome [38, 39] and grouping cough events is necessary to allow the relationships between cough and reflux to be analysed. We speculate that the reason for this could be that GABAB receptors may play a particular role in the triggering of cough bouts but has little influence on the subsequent bout duration.

The main limitation of this study was the sample size, which was insufficient for a 26% reduction in 24-h cough frequency to be statistically significant. Post hoc analysis from this study showed that we needed to recruit ⩾70 patients (requiring a multicentre study) to achieve statistical significance. Recent data have estimated that the minimal clinically important difference in objective cough counts in RCC patients is 20–30% [40], suggesting that the improvement in cough frequency in this study could be of clinical relevance. Additionally, objective reflux measurements were only carried out at baseline and not after treatment with drug/placebo. Thus, we had no objective measurement of the effect of lesogaberan on reflux events, or cough–reflux associations. We did not include repeated oesophageal studies in the protocol, as this would have been a very significant burden of invasive monitoring for patients. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that lesogaberan might have had a more substantial effect in a subgroup of RCC patients selected for significant reflux–cough associations, i.e. a positive SAP.

Conclusion

Lesogaberan demonstrated no effect on objective hourly cough frequency, but reduced the number of cough bouts and capsaicin-evoked cough responses, providing some suggestion of a potential role for peripheral GABAB receptors in the mechanism of RCC. It is unclear whether the efficacy could be enhanced by selecting patients with greater cough–reflux associations.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material 00546-2021.SUPPLEMENT

Acknowledgement

The delivery of this study was supported by the NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • This study is registered at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ with identifier number 2014-005074-11 and at https://www.isrctn.com/ with identifier number 77000698. Data are available upon request from the authors.

  • Author contributions: J.A. Smith, G. Wilkinson, A. Holt, L. Houghton and B.J. Canning: study concept; H. Badri, J.A. Smith, K. Holt and R.J. Dockry: study design, protocol and set up of study; H. Badri, C. Gibbard, D. Denton, I. Satia, B. Al-Sheklly, R.J. Dockry, K. Holt and S. Treadway: recruitment and data collection; H. Badri, J.A. Smith, A. Lee and T. Lee: data analysis. Manuscript written by H. Badri and J.A. Smith, but all authors contributed and reviewed the article.

  • Conflict of interest: J.A. Smith and K. McGuiness are inventors on a patent describing methods for detecting cough from sound recordings, licensed to Vitalograph Ltd. J.A. Smith has received funding for consultancy and research funds from Afferent Pharmaceuticals, Merck Inc., Bayer, Bellus, GSK, Xention Ltd, Ario Pharma Ltd, Glenmark, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Axalbion, Patara, Verona Pharma, NeRRe Pharmaceuticals, Menlo Pharmaceuticals and Attenua Inc. I. Satia reports grants from the ERS Respire 3 Marie Curie Fellowship, British Medical Association and North West Lung Centre Charity, grants and personal fees from Merck Canada, and personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. B.J. Canning is on the board of a pharmaceutical company. K.J. Escott is a current employee of AstraZeneca. G. Wilkinson and A. Holt are previous employees of AstraZeneca. H. Badri, C. Gibbard, D. Denton, B. Al-Sheklly, R.J. Dockry, K. Holt, S. Treadway, P. Whorwell, L. Houghton, A. Lee and T. Lee have no conflicts of interests.

  • Support statement: This study was funded by an MRC “Mechanism of human disease” grant in collaboration with AstraZeneca MR/K015141/1. J.A. Smith is funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, a Wellcome Investigator in Science Award and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. H. Badri is funded by a North West Lung Centre Pickering Fellowship. I. Satia is currently supported by the E.J Moran Campbell Early Career Award, Dept of Medicine, McMaster University. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received September 8, 2021.
  • Accepted January 29, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Burt CW,
    2. Schappert SM
    . Ambulatory care visits to physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and emergency departments: United States, 1999–2000. Vital Health Stat 2004; 13: 1–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Song WJ,
    2. Chang YS,
    3. Faruqi S, et al.
    The global epidemiology of chronic cough in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1479–1481. doi:10.1183/09031936.00218714
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Hilton E,
    2. Marsden P,
    3. Thurston A, et al.
    Clinical features of the urge-to-cough in patients with chronic cough. Respir Med 2015; 109: 701–707. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2015.03.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Belvisi MG,
    2. Birrell MA,
    3. Khalid S, et al.
    Neurophenotypes in airway diseases. Insights from translational cough studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: 1364–1372. doi:10.1164/rccm.201508-1602OC
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Chang AB,
    2. Lasserson TJ,
    3. Gaffney J, et al.
    Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for prolonged non-specific cough in children and adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 1: CD004823. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004823.pub4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Kahrilas PJ,
    2. Howden CW,
    3. Hughes N, et al.
    Response of chronic cough to acid-suppressive therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Chest 2013; 143: 605–612. doi:10.1378/chest.12-1788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Song WJ,
    2. Millqvist E,
    3. Morice AH
    . New ERS cough guidelines: a clinical framework for refining the patient management strategy. Asia Pac Allergy 2019; 9: e36. doi:10.5415/apallergy.2019.9.e36
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Smith JA,
    2. Decalmer S,
    3. Kelsall A, et al.
    Acoustic cough-reflux associations in chronic cough: potential triggers and mechanisms. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 754–762. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.06.050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sifrim D,
    2. Dupont L,
    3. Blondeau K, et al.
    Weakly acidic reflux in patients with chronic unexplained cough during 24 hour pressure, pH, and impedance monitoring. Gut 2005; 54: 449–454. doi:10.1136/gut.2004.055418
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Blondeau K,
    2. Mertens V,
    3. Dupont L, et al.
    The relationship between gastroesophageal reflux and cough in children with chronic unexplained cough using combined impedance-pH-manometry recordings. Pediatr Pulmonol 2011; 46: 286–294. doi:10.1002/ppul.21365
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Dicpinigaitis PV,
    2. Dobkin JB,
    3. Rauf K, et al.
    Inhibition of capsaicin-induced cough by the γ-aminobutyric acid agonist baclofen. J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 38: 364–367. doi:10.1002/j.1552-4604.1998.tb04436.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Dicpinigaitis PV,
    2. Dobkin JB
    . Antitussive effect of the GABA-agonist baclofen. Chest 1997; 111: 996–999. doi:10.1378/chest.111.4.996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Mittal RK,
    2. Holloway RH,
    3. Penagini R, et al.
    Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 601–610. doi:10.1016/0016-5085(95)90351-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lidums I,
    2. Lehmann A,
    3. Checklin H, et al.
    Control of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and reflux by the GABAB agonist baclofen in normal subjects. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 7–13. doi:10.1016/S0016-5085(00)70408-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Grossi L,
    2. Spezzaferro M,
    3. Sacco LF, et al.
    Effect of baclofen on oesophageal motility and transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations in GORD patients: a 48-h manometric study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2008; 20: 760–766. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2008.01115.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Boeckxstaens GE,
    2. Beaumont H,
    3. Mertens V, et al.
    Effects of lesogaberan on reflux and lower esophageal sphincter function in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 409–417. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.04.051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Miner PB Jr.,
    2. Silberg DG,
    3. Ruth M, et al.
    Dose-dependent effects of lesogaberan on reflux measures in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. BMC Gastroenterol 2014; 14: 188. doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-188
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Shaheen NJ,
    2. Denison H,
    3. Björck K, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of lesogaberan in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2013; 62: 1248–1255. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302737
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Kahrilas PJ,
    2. Boeckxstaens G
    . Failure of reflux inhibitors in clinical trials: bad drugs or wrong patients? Gut 2012; 61: 1501–1509. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301898
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Badri H,
    2. Gibbard CL,
    3. Denton D, et al.
    Effect of centrally and peripherally acting GABAB agonism on the healthy human cough reflex. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2021; 71: 102079. doi:10.1016/j.pupt.2021.102079
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Hilton EC,
    2. Baverel PG,
    3. Woodcock A, et al.
    Pharmacodynamic modeling of cough responses to capsaicin inhalation calls into question the utility of the C5 end point. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132: 847–855. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.04.042
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Morice AH,
    2. Millqvist E,
    3. Bieksiene K, et al.
    ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901136. doi:10.1183/13993003.01136-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Khalid S,
    2. Murdoch R,
    3. Newlands A, et al.
    Transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) antagonism in patients with refractory chronic cough: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 134: 56–62. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.01.038
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Abdulqawi R,
    2. Dockry R,
    3. Holt K, et al.
    P2X3 receptor antagonist (AF-219) in refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet 2015; 385: 1198–1205. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61255-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Smith JA,
    2. Holt K,
    3. Dockry R, et al.
    Performance of a digital signal processing algorithm for the accurate quantification of cough frequency. Eur Respir J 2021; 58: 2004271. doi:10.1183/13993003.04271-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Morice AH,
    2. Fontana GA,
    3. Belvisi MG, et al.
    ERS guidelines on the assessment of cough. Eur Respir J 2007; 29: 1256–1276. doi:10.1183/09031936.00101006
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Birring SS,
    2. Prudon B,
    3. Carr AJ, et al.
    Development of a symptom specific health status measure for patients with chronic cough: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Thorax 2003; 58: 339–343. doi:10.1136/thorax.58.4.339
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Kahrilas PJ,
    2. Bredenoord AJ,
    3. Fox M, et al.
    The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015; 27: 160–174. doi:10.1111/nmo.12477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Weusten BL,
    2. Roelofs JM,
    3. Akkermans LM, et al.
    The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1741–1745. doi:10.1016/0016-5085(94)90815-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Bredenoord AJ,
    2. Weusten BL,
    3. Smout AJ
    . Symptom association analysis in ambulatory gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring. Gut 2005; 54: 1810–1817. doi:10.1136/gut.2005.072629
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Rydén A,
    2. Denison H,
    3. Karlsson M, et al.
    Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome instrument in partial responders to proton pump inhibitors. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 1018–1026. doi:10.3109/00365521.2013.822544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Belvisi MG,
    2. Birrell MA,
    3. Wortley MA, et al.
    XEN-D0501, a novel transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 antagonist, does not reduce cough in patients with refractory cough. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 196: 1255–1263. doi:10.1164/rccm.201704-0769OC
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Brändén L,
    2. Fredriksson A,
    3. Harring E, et al.
    The novel, peripherally restricted GABAB receptor agonist lesogaberan (AZD3355) inhibits acid reflux and reduces esophageal acid exposure as measured with 24-h pHmetry in dogs. Eur J Pharmacol 2010; 634: 138–141. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.02.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lehmann A,
    2. Jensen JM,
    3. Boeckxstaens GE
    . GABAB receptor agonism as a novel therapeutic modality in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Adv Pharmacol 2010; 58: 287–313. doi:10.1016/S1054-3589(10)58012-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Boeckxstaens GE,
    2. Rydholm H,
    3. Lei A, et al.
    Effect of lesogaberan, a novel GABAB-receptor agonist, on transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations in male subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 31: 1208–1217. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04283.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Badri H,
    2. LGibbard C,
    3. Denton D, et al
    . Effect of centrally and peripherally acting GABAB agonism on the healthy human cough reflex. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2021; 71: 102079.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Birring SS,
    2. Matos S,
    3. Patel RB, et al.
    Cough frequency, cough sensitivity and health status in patients with chronic cough. Respir Med 2006; 100: 1105–1109. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2005.09.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Kelsall A,
    2. Decalmer S,
    3. Webster D, et al.
    How to quantify coughing: correlations with quality of life in chronic cough. Eur Respir J 2008; 32: 175–179. doi:10.1183/09031936.00101307
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Vernon M,
    2. Leidy NK,
    3. Nacson A, et al.
    Measuring cough severity: perspectives from the literature and from patients with chronic cough. Cough 2009; 5: 5. doi:10.1186/1745-9974-5-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Nguyen AM,
    2. Muccino D,
    3. Birring SS, et al.
    Defining minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in chronic cough: analyses of objective cough counts from a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019; 143: AB169. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2018.12.519
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of lesogaberan on the objective cough frequency and capsaicin-evoked coughs in patients with refractory chronic cough
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of lesogaberan on the objective cough frequency and capsaicin-evoked coughs in patients with refractory chronic cough
Huda Badri, Carmen Gibbard, Dimitra Denton, Imran Satia, Bashar Al-Sheklly, Rachel J. Dockry, Kimberley Holt, Kevin McGuiness, Sam Treadway, Peter Whorwell, Lesley Houghton, Augustine Lee, K. Jane Escott, Theresa Lee, Greame Wilkinson, Alison Holt, Brendan J. Canning, Jacky A. Smith
ERJ Open Research Jan 2022, 8 (1) 00546-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00546-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of lesogaberan on the objective cough frequency and capsaicin-evoked coughs in patients with refractory chronic cough
Huda Badri, Carmen Gibbard, Dimitra Denton, Imran Satia, Bashar Al-Sheklly, Rachel J. Dockry, Kimberley Holt, Kevin McGuiness, Sam Treadway, Peter Whorwell, Lesley Houghton, Augustine Lee, K. Jane Escott, Theresa Lee, Greame Wilkinson, Alison Holt, Brendan J. Canning, Jacky A. Smith
ERJ Open Research Jan 2022, 8 (1) 00546-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00546-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Supplementary material
    • Acknowledgement
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original research articles

  • A model to predict severe COVID-19 and mortality using AI
  • CLE and PSE on CT in smokers with PRISm
  • A genome-wide association study of bronchodilator response
Show more Original research articles

Cough

  • Mental health and personality, and chronic cough incidence
  • Acoustic surveillance of cough
  • Longitudinal passive cough monitoring
Show more Cough

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society