A Peer-reviewed,
open access bimonthly journal
pISSN 2092-7355   eISSN 2092-7363
    Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2018 Nov;10(6):591-613. English.
    Published online Jul 16, 2018.
    https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2018.10.6.591
    Copyright © 2018 The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology • The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease
    Review

    KAAACI Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Cough in Adults and Children in Korea

    Dae Jin Song,1,† Woo-Jung Song,2,† Jae-Woo Kwon,3 Gun-Woo Kim,4 Mi-Ae Kim,5 Mi-Yeong Kim,6 Min-Hye Kim,7 Sang-Ha Kim,8 Sang-Heon Kim,9 Sang Hyuck Kim,10 Sun-Tae Kim,11 Sae-Hoon Kim,12 Ja Kyoung Kim,13 Joo-Hee Kim,14 Hyun Jung Kim,15 Hyo-Bin Kim,16 Kyung-Hee Park,17 Jae Kyun Yoon,18 Byung-Jae Lee,19 Seung-Eun Lee,20 Young Mok Lee,21 Yong Ju Lee,22 Kyung-Hwan Lim,23 You Hoon Jeon,24 Eun-Jung Jo,25 Young-Koo Jee,26 Hyun Jung Jin,27 Sun Hee Choi,28 Gyu Young Hur,29 Sang-Heon Cho,30 Sang-Hoon Kim,31 and Dae Hyun Lim32
      • 1Department of Pediatrics, Korea University College of Medicine and Environmental Health Center for Childhood Asthma, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
      • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 3Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.
      • 4Department of Internal Medicine, St. Carollo General Hospital, Suncheon, Korea.
      • 5Department of Pulmonology, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 6Department of Internal Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
      • 7Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 8Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
      • 9Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 10Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
      • 11Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gachon University, Gil Medical center, Incheon, Korea.
      • 12Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Bundang, Korea.
      • 13Department of Pediatrics, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.
      • 14Department of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea.
      • 15Institute for Evidence-based Medicine Cochrane Korea, Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 16Department of Pediatrics, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
      • 17Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 18Woori Pediatric Clinic, Goyang, Korea.
      • 19Department of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 20Respiratory and Allergy Clinic, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea.
      • 21GF Internal Medicine Allergy Clinic, Seoul, Korea.
      • 22Department of Pediatrics, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
      • 23Department of Internal Medicine, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 24Department of Pediatrics, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Dongtan, Korea.
      • 25Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
      • 26Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea.
      • 27Department of Internal medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
      • 28Department of Pediatrics, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 29Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 30Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 31Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 32Department of Pediatrics, Inha University School of Medicine and Environmental Health Center for Allergic Disease, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
    • Correspondence to Dae Hyun Lim, MD, PhD. Department of Pediatrics, Inha University Hospital, 27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon 22332, Korea. Tel: +82-32-890-3658; Fax: +82-32-890-2629; Email: dhyunlim@inha.ac.kr
      Correspondence to Sang-Hoon Kim, MD, PhD. Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 68 Hangeulbiseok-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01830, Korea. Tel: +82-2-970-8365; Fax: +82-2-970-8621; Email: ksh1134@eulji.ac.kr

      †Dae-Jin Song and Woo-Jung Song equally contributed to the article.
    Received April 30, 2018; Accepted May 24, 2018.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Chronic cough is common in the community and causes significant morbidity. Several factors may underlie this problem, but comorbid conditions located at sensory nerve endings that regulate the cough reflex, including rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, are considered important. However, chronic cough is frequently non-specific and accompanied by not easily identifiable causes during the initial evaluation. Therefore, there are unmet needs for developing empirical treatment and practical diagnostic approaches that can be applied in primary clinics. Meanwhile, in referral clinics, a considerable proportion of adult patients with chronic cough are unexplained or refractory to conventional treatment. The present clinical practice guidelines aim to address major clinical questions regarding empirical treatment, practical diagnostic tools for non-specific chronic cough, and available therapeutic options for chronic wet cough in children and unexplained chronic cough in adults in Korea.

    Keywords
    Cough; guideline; evidence-based medicine

    INTRODUCTION

    Cough is intrinsically a protective reflex, but becomes troublesome when hypersensitive and persistent. Chronic cough is a prevalent problem in about 10% of the general populations worldwide.1 The prevalence is lower in Asians than in Western populations,1 but the burden of chronic cough will continue to increase in Asian countries as the prevalence is positively associated with Westernized lifestyles and old age.2, 3 Meanwhile, chronic cough poses a considerable socioeconomic burden and serious impairment to quality of life (QOL).4, 5, 6, 7 Patients with chronic cough may experience physical pain, sleep disturbance, loss of work productivity, and social isolation for several months to years.5, 6, 8, 9

    Patients visiting clinics for the treatment of chronic cough commonly complain of unexpected cough attacks triggered by trivial stimuli, such as cold air, perfume, or talking, which are not relevant to the intrinsic roles of the cough reflex.10 Along with recent advances in understanding the pathology of chronic cough, a new paradigm, “Cough Hypersensitivity Syndrome,” was recently proposed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) to emphasize the clinical relevance of the intrinsic neurological processes in chronic cough.11, 12 Several factors may underlie this “chronic cough hypersensitivity,” but several pathological conditions located at sensory nerve endings that regulate the cough reflex, such as rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, and gastroesophageal reflux diseases (GERDs), are considered to be particularly important.13 Therefore, identification and treatment of these conditions, termed as “anatomic diagnostic protocols,” are the mainstay of current international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of chronic cough.14, 15 However, the epidemiology of these comorbid (or cough-triggering) conditions, healthcare accessibility, and medical issues may vary among regions and populations, which is a main reason to develop region-specific clinical practice recommendations and guidelines.16

    Chronic cough is frequently non-specific and accompanied by not easily identifiable causes during the initial evaluation. However, objective diagnostic tools for the most common conditions, such as asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, and GERD, are technically demanding and not available in most general clinics. Indeed, the focus of most previous guidelines has been secondary or tertiary care settings.16 Therefore, there are major unmet needs for empirical treatment and practical diagnostic approaches that can be applied in primary clinics for the treatment of chronic cough.

    Meanwhile, in referral clinics, there is increasing recognition that a considerable proportion of adult patients are refractory to conventional treatment and do not fit into any categories despite meticulous diagnostic and therapeutic trials.11 This subgroup has been termed as refractory, idiopathic, or unexplained cough, while the term “unexplained chronic cough” has recently been suggested by the American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) guidelines.17 However, management tools for this particular population are not established.

    Definition of chronic cough

    Chronic cough is defined as cough lasting more than 8 weeks in adults (aged ≥ 15 years old) and more than 4 weeks in children (aged < 15 years old).

    Non-specific chronic cough indicates prolonged cough in the absence of any symptoms, signs, history, or laboratory findings indicating a specific diagnosis for chronic cough (specific cough pointers): current use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), current smoker, any evident symptoms indicating a specific diagnosis, such as fever, blood-tinged sputum, wheezing, dyspnea, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, or heartburn, abnormal physical findings, such as wheezing or crackles on auscultation, or abnormal findings on chest X-rays and/or spirometry.

    Chronic wet cough is defined as cough accompanied by airway secretion, which is unrelated to any specific cough pointers in children.

    Unexplained chronic cough refers to cough with an unknown etiology after thorough investigation and therapeutic trials conducted according to current practice guidelines.17 The investigation and therapeutic trials should include those for common cough-triggering conditions (rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, and GERD) and might include computed tomography or bronchoscopy to exclude rare causes which are not identified on chest X-rays (Table 1 and Fig. 1).

    Table 1
    Definition of chronic cough utilized in the present clinical practice guidelines

    Fig. 1
    Overview of clinical approaches for the treatment of chronic cough in Korean patients.
    The initial investigation includes a comprehensive medical history, physical examination, chest X-rays, and/or spirometry (when available). If the cough is non-specific, objective tests for steroid-responsive cough and empirical trials are recommended. When clues suggest specific cough conditions, specific management should be followed. If cough remains unexplained after thorough investigation and therapeutic trials in adults, further pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are recommended to control cough.

    ACEi, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    Unmet patient needs

    A recent survey of Korean patients with chronic cough (n = 402) (manuscript in preparation) found that the most common dissatisfaction with medical cares for cough was the lack of treatment efficacy (50.0%), followed by the lack of a specific diagnosis (29.3%). About 85% of the patients surveyed found it difficult to identify cough specialists and clinics, and about two-thirds had tried over-the-counter medicines for cough, but only 2.8% reported effective symptom relief.

    Scope of guidelines

    The present clinical practice guidelines aim to address major clinical questions regarding empirical treatment, practical diagnostic tools for non-specific chronic cough, and available therapeutic options for chronic wet cough in children and unexplained chronic cough in adults. Meanwhile, management of specific cough conditions (such as asthma or reflux-associated cough) is beyond the scope of the present guidelines.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Methodology specialist coordinated and guided committee members throughout the entire process of conducting systematic reviews, generating recommendations, and ensuring methodological robustness, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.18 The members of the guideline development committee participated in literature searches, data extraction, evidence synthesis, and formulating recommendations. All members were required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

    Formulating questions

    The committee members consisted of clinicians with different specialties (allergy, pulmonology, internal medicine, pediatrics, rhinology, and family medicine) and clinical settings (referral hospitals and primary clinics) who participated in discussions and arrived at a consensus to formulate key clinical questions that would be addressed in the guidelines. The findings from the questionnaire survey about unmet patient needs when seeking medical care for chronic cough were also considered (manuscript in preparation). Through this process, the committee members formulated a list of key questions that are important for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in Korea. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format were used to construct the questions.

    Literature searches

    The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and KoreaMed databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until June 28, 2016. Manual searches were performed for cross-referenced articles. Also, unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov database. There was no language restriction.

    Study selection

    The relevancy of the retrieved studies was confirmed by at least 2 independent reviewers per each PICO question, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Briefly, the titles and abstracts of initially retrieved studies were screened and the full texts were reviewed for potentially relevant papers. Reasons for exclusion were specified. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus within the committee.

    Risk of bias assessment

    Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (for RCTs), the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (for cohort or case-control studies), and the QUADAS-2 tool (for diagnostic accuracy studies). Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus within the committee.

    Evidence synthesis

    Data regarding baseline characteristics and core outcomes of each PICO question were extracted for analysis. The Mantel-Haenszel method or the inverse variance method with a random effects model was used to summarize treatment efficacy and/or safety. A random effects hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was used to calculate diagnostic test properties. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews (version 5.3; the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) and STATA statistical software (version 13.1; Stata LLC, College Station, TX, USA). The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada) was used to summarize evidence profiles for each outcome.

    Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

    The quality of evidence was rated for outcomes of interest (efficacy and safety of treatment agents, and diagnostic accuracy and safety of diagnostic tests) for each PICO question according to the GRADE approach.18 Briefly, the evidence supported by RCTs was considered high quality, while that of observational studies as low quality. Five factors were considered for possible down-rating of a study (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias) and 3 factors for possible up-rating (large effects, dose response, and all plausible residual confounders). Then, the committee members determined the direction and strength of recommendations based on the following considerations: balance of benefits and undesirable consequences of intervention (or diagnostic test), quality of evidence, patient values and preferences, and feasibility.

    Briefly, one of 2 grades (strong or conditional) were assigned to describe the strength of recommendations. The criterion for a strong recommendation was evidence that the desirable effects clearly outweighed the undesirable effects (or vice versa). The criterion for a conditional recommendation was evidence that the desirable effects likely or slightly outweighed the undesirable effects (or vice versa). Two classifications were used to indicate the direction of recommendations (for or against) of a specific treatment or test (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Classification for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation in the present guidelines

    The recommendations generated by the committee were then sent for a public hearing, where an agreement on the criteria was more than 70% of votes in favor. If no agreement was reached, the PICO question was further discussed by the committee for possible adjustment of the recommendation.

    KEY QUESTIONS

    Responses to the following 10 questions were used to assess systematic reviews retrieved from the literature to generate recommendations with the GRADE approach (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Summary of key questions and recommendations

    I. Empirical treatment for non-specific chronic cough

    • Q1. Should histamine H1-receptor antagonists (H1RAs) be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    • Q2. Should inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    • Q3. Should leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    • Q4. Should proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in adults)

    II. Diagnostic test for corticosteroid-responsive cough in chronic cough

    • Q5. Should fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement be used to predict asthma in chronic cough? (both in adults and children)

    • Q6. Should FeNO measurement be used to predict eosinophilic bronchitis in non-asthmatic chronic cough? (in adults)

    III. Empirical antibiotics for chronic wet cough in children

    • Q7. Should empirical antibiotics be used to treat children with chronic wet or productive cough?

    IV. Treatment for unexplained chronic cough in adults

    • Q8. Should opioids be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    • Q9. Should neuromodulators be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    • Q10. Should multi-dimensional behavioral therapy (or speech pathology therapy) be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    I. EMPIRICAL TREATMENT FOR NON-SPECIFIC CHRONIC COUGH

    Background

    Upper airway diseases (rhinitis and rhinosinusitis), lower airway allergic inflammation (asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis), and GERD are well known as causes or triggers of chronic cough.15 These diseases are located close to the sensory endings of the vagus nerves, which regulate the cough reflex,13 thus diagnosis and treatment may improve cough in a considerable proportion of patients. Therefore, several medications with proven efficacy to control these diseases (i.e., histamine-1 receptor antagonists [H1RAs], inhaled corticosteroids [ICSs], leukotriene receptor antagonists [LTRAs], and proton-pump inhibitors [PPIs]) are commonly prescribed in current practice for the treatment of chronic cough, although none are direct anti-tussives.

    Diagnosis of upper airway disease-related cough (termed as upper airway cough syndrome in the 2006 ACCP guidelines) is usually made clinically.14 To our knowledge, there is no predictor for the response of upper airway disease-related cough to H1RA treatment. Meanwhile, the diagnosis of corticosteroid-responsive cough conditions (asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis) can be made objectively by bronchial challenge or induced sputum testing. However, these tests are technically demanding and mostly unavailable in primary care settings. In addition, it is difficult to objectively discern causal and temporal relationships between acid reflux and cough in the majority of current clinical settings.19 Therefore, empirical treatment is frequently considered for non-specific chronic cough (Figs. 2 and 3). However, it is important to check whether patients have clues to specific cough conditions before starting empirical treatment. In particular, initial evaluation should include a comprehensive history, recent history of smoking and ACEi use, chest X-rays, and/or spirometry (if available) (Fig. 1).14, 15

    Fig. 2
    Approach for non-specific chronic cough in Korean adults (age ≥ 15 years).
    Decision for empirical treatment and diagnostic tests may depend on clinical and instrument settings. Patients with chronic cough unresponsive to empirical trials or specific treatment should be referred to specialist centers for further diagnostic tests and therapeutic trials. If cough is still unexplained, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options are considered to control cough.

    H1RA, histamine-1 receptor antagonist; ICS, inhaled corticosteroid; PPI, proton-pump inhibitor; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.

    Asterisk (*) indicates the drug (or test) of interest in the present guidelines.

    Fig. 3
    Approach for non-specific chronic cough and chronic wet cough in Korean children (age < 15 years). Decision for empirical treatment and diagnostic tests may depend on clinical and instrument settings. Children with chronic cough unresponsive to empirical trials or specific treatment should be referred to specialist centers for further diagnostic tests and therapeutic trials.
    ICS, inhaled corticosteroid; H1RA, histamine-1 receptor antagonist.

    Asterisk (*) indicates the drug (or test) of interest in the present guidelines.

    Q1. Should H1RAs be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    Summary of evidence for adults

    Three RCTs were identified.20, 21, 22 Due to substantial differences in study designs and outcome definitions, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. However, all 3 RCTs found significant benefits from H1RA treatment as compared to placebos and negative controls. The outcomes were subjective cough frequency,20 distilled water-induced cough frequency,21 and cough severity score as measured from records recorded in a symptom diary.22 All were short-term clinical trials (treatment duration of <2 weeks) with older generation H1RAs (loratadine, diphenhydramine, or oxatomide).

    Adverse effects from oral H1RAs are relatively well known and may include somnolence, dry mouth, dizziness, visual disturbance, motor disturbance, and/or voiding difficulty. Such adverse reactions are usually dose-dependent and self-limiting, and more prevalent with older generation H1RAs. Oral H1RAs are inexpensive and widely accessible in Korea.

    Recommendation for adults

    For adults with non-specific chronic cough, we recommend the empirical use of H1RAs (very low quality of evidence, strong recommendation). This recommendation is supported by the low costs, ease of accessibility, and tolerable safety profiles of H1RAs. However, possible side effects must be discussed with patients.

    What others are saying for adults

    For cases of suspected rhinitis-related cough or lacking a clear indication, the 2004 ERS guidelines recommended the empirical use of first-generation sedating H1RAs and/or oral decongestant for 2 weeks.15 However, these guidelines indicate that the site of action for sedating H1RAs is non-specific.15 The 2006 ACCP guidelines recommended the empirical use of first-generation H1RAs + oral decongestant combination for patients with non-specific chronic cough before proceeding to an extensive diagnostic workup.14

    Summary of evidence for children

    Two RCTs were identified.23, 24 The larger study randomly assigned 113 outpatients aged 6 to 26 months to receive either oral ketotifen (0.5 mg) or a placebo for 16 weeks. Cough was the major inclusion criterion, but children with wheeze were also included. Although there were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or adverse events between groups, the effect of the intervention could not be estimated as only 13 (11%) children had chronic cough alone.23 The smaller study randomly allocated 20 children, aged 6 to 15 years, with chronic cough associated with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to daily cetirizine (0.15 mg/kg) or a placebo for 4 weeks. In this study, cough scores were significantly lower in the cetirizine group when compared to the placebo group, and the difference between the 2 arms was evident by week 2.24

    Given the limitation of data specific to children with non-specific chronic cough, data could not be combined in a meta-analysis.

    Recommendation for children

    For children with non-specific chronic cough, we suggest against the empirical use of H1RAs (low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). The use of H1RAs in children with non-specific cough must be balanced against the well-known adverse events, especially in very young children. Current data suggest that the use of H1RAs would be more efficacious in children with suspected allergic rhinitis.

    What others are saying for children

    The 2008 British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines recommended the empirical use of H1RAs in children with a throat clearing type of chronic cough and signs of allergic rhinitis.25 However, the 2017 ACCP guidelines recommended against the empirical use of H1RAs in children with chronic cough, unless other features consistent with upper airways cough syndrome due to rhinosinusitis are present.26

    Q2. Should ICSs be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    Summary of evidence for adults

    Two randomized placebo-controlled trials were identified.27, 28 Both studies reported significant benefits in cough outcomes from a 2-week course of high-dose ICS treatment over placebo. Our meta-analysis found significant improvement in cough severity. Of note, the benefits were demonstrated with 2 weeks of starting treatment. In addition, the ICS treatment effects were correlated with type 2 airway inflammation biomarkers, such as FeNO levels.27 In a study of patients with non-asthmatic, non-eosinophilic chronic cough, which was not included in our systematic review, ICS treatment had no significant benefit over placebo.29 These discrepant findings indicate the mechanisms of action of ICSs.

    Recommendation for adults

    For adults with non-specific chronic cough, we suggest the empirical use of ICSs (moderate quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). Short-term (2-4 weeks), high-dose ICS treatment is recommended as an empirical regimen. Our guidelines suggest performing objective tests to diagnose asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis (such as methacholine challenge, induced sputum analyses, or FeNO measurement) prior to initiating empirical treatment where diagnostic tests are available because the documentation of corticosteroid-responsive conditions justifies long-term treatment. Otherwise, only short-term (2–4 weeks) treatment is warranted.

    What others are saying for adults

    The 2004 ERS guidelines recommended therapeutic trials starting with ICSs or oral prednisolone in patients without clues to specific cough-related conditions.15 Diagnostic tests may depend on clinical settings, but would include methacholine challenge tests and induced sputum tests to identify steroid-responsive cough. The 2006 ACCP guidelines recommended an empirical trial of corticosteroids in the absence of the availability of bronchial provocation tests and/or induced sputum analyses.14 Ideally, these tests are recommended before initiating corticosteroid therapy in patients with suspected cough due to asthma.

    Summary of evidence for children

    Our own systematic review identified one RCT of a total of 50 patients aged 1 to 10 years with non-specific chronic cough.30 The trial randomly assigned 50 outpatients with persistent nocturnal cough (more than 3 weeks) to receive either a placebo or fluticasone propionate at 1 mg twice daily for 3 nights and then 500 μg twice daily for 11 nights.

    The main outcome measure was a decrease in cough frequency by 75% from baseline. Overall, symptoms improved by 75% after 2 weeks (P = 0.03) in 17 of 24 (71%) subjects who received inhaled corticosteroids and completed the study and 8 of 23 (35%) who received the placebo.

    Recommendation for children

    For children with non-specific chronic cough, we suggest the administration of ICSs for a well-defined period (very low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). The use of high-dose ICSs in children with non-specific chronic cough must be balanced against well-known potential adverse events. A therapeutic trial of ICSs for young children with non-specific chronic cough is not ideal, but results from an imprecise definition of asthma and lack of available tests to confirm a diagnosis of asthma in young children. Before starting ICS therapy, therefore, a definite period of treatment (e.g., 2-4 weeks for high-dose ICS, and 8-12 weeks for conventional dose ICS) and objective end points should be set. If there is response and ICS treatment has subsequently been stopped, asthma is suggested by an early relapse that again responds to ICSs.

    What others are saying for children

    The 2008 BTS guidelines recommended a trial of ICSs or oral steroid with a definite period of time to diagnose problem coughing as being caused by asthma.25 The 2017 ACCP guidelines recommended empirical trial of ICS with a predefined time frame when the cough is dry and objective testing cannot be undertaken in a young child.26

    Q3. Should LTRAs be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    Summary of evidence for adults

    Direct evidence of the efficacy of LTRAs for the treatment of non-specific chronic cough is lacking. No randomized placebo-controlled study was identified. One prospective observational study reported that montelukast therapy for 2 weeks significantly improved symptoms of chronic cough.31 However, the possibility of natural remission cannot be ruled out in an observational study lacking a control group. LTRAs were not effective in a RCT of 276 patients with subacute post-infectious cough, suggesting the lack of direct anti-tussive effects of LTRAs.32 Indirect evidence from small controlled trials of specific cough patient groups, such as cough variant asthma or eosinophilic bronchitis, suggested the potential benefits of LTRAs for the treatment of cough associated with asthma.33, 34, 35

    LTRAs are generally well-tolerated. However, our guideline panel had a concern about possible overuse of LTRAs for non-specific chronic cough, particularly in relation to the absence of direct evidence and lack of information on an optimal treatment duration.

    Recommendation for adults

    For adults with non-specific chronic cough, we suggest against the empirical use of LTRAs (very low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). Short-term ICS therapy is a preferred option over LTRAs as empirical treatment targeting asthmatic cough in non-specific chronic cough. However, LTRAs might be more suitable for patients with difficulty in using inhalers. As with the use of ICSs, objective documentation of asthmatic or eosinophilic cough justifies long-term treatment. Otherwise, only short-term (2-4 weeks) treatment is recommended.

    What others are saying for adults

    The 2004 ERS guidelines suggested LTRAs as potential add-on therapy for patients that achieve only a partial response to initial empirical corticosteroid therapy.15 The 2006 ACCP guidelines recommended LTRAs as an add-on therapy for patients with asthmatic cough that is refractory to ICSs and bronchodilators. The use of LTRAs as a monotherapy for asthmatic cough was uncertain.14

    Summary of evidence for children

    Our own systematic review identified one RCT of 63 patients aged 2 to 6 years with asthma-like symptoms (wheeze, cough, and/or shortness of breath),36 who were randomly allocated to receive fluticasone (100 μg twice daily; 25), montelukast (4 mg once daily; 18), or a placebo (20) for 3 months. The primary outcome was the daily symptom score (wheeze, cough, and shortness of breath) as recorded by caregivers in a symptom diary. Of the 11 children in the “cough only” subgroup, only 6 (5 in montelukast group and 1 in placebo group) had fulfilled the study criteria of non-specific chronic cough. There was no difference in clinical efficacy or adverse events between groups, but the effect of the intervention could not be estimated because the sample size was too small.

    A single cohort study was found of 22 children (13 boys and 9 girls) aged 4 to 8 (median 5) years with non-specific cough for more than 3 weeks.37 In 14 children (68%), the cough ceased during the third week of treatment with montelukast (5 mg once daily). However, this result has to be interpreted with caution in the context of methodological problems such as biased subjective reporting, the placebo effect, and the period effect.

    Recommendation for children

    Currently, there is no reliable evidence to draw definite recommendations. When using LTRAs in children with non-specific chronic cough, careful considerations of cost and risk/benefits are needed until there is sufficient data to determine the efficacy of LTRAs in these children. Given the morbidity rate associated with non-specific chronic cough, evaluations are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of LTRAs for non-specific chronic cough in children.

    What others are saying for children

    The 2008 BTS and 2017 ACCP guidelines did not specify recommendations on the empirical use of LTRA in children with non-specific chronic cough due to insufficient evidence.25, 26

    Q4. Should PPIs be used to treat non-specific chronic cough? (in adults)

    Summary of evidence

    Two RCTs were identified.38 Our meta-analysis found no significant benefits from PPI treatment against subjective cough frequency or severity scores. Of note, although statistically insignificant, the study by Faruqi and colleagues38 found greater benefits of PPIs for a subgroup with dyspeptic symptoms as compared to of subgroup without.

    In the literature, the effects of PPIs on cough were only demonstrated in patients with acid reflux, which is plausible considering the mechanisms of action. A meta-analysis by Kahrilas et al.39 indicated that PPIs may be effective only in patients with acid reflux. Meanwhile, there exists a global concern of PPI overuse. Use of PPIs without proper indications is prevalent in the community40 and may lead to potential risks of complications and high medical costs. Observational and large database studies suggest potential risks from PPI treatment, which include pneumonia, fracture, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, hypomagnesia, dementia, and chronic renal diseases; however, the causal relationships were mostly unconfirmed.41

    Recommendation

    For adults with non-specific chronic cough, we suggest against the empirical use of PPIs (moderate quality of evidence, conditional recommendation).

    What others are saying for Adults

    The recommendation for the empiric use of PPIs has recently been revised in international guidelines. The 2016 ACCP guidelines recommended against the use of PPI therapy alone because of the unlikelihood to resolve suspected chronic cough in adult patients due to reflux-cough syndrome.42 It recommended the treatment include: 1) diet modification to promote weight loss in overweight or obese patients; 2) head of bed elevation and avoiding meals within 3 hours of bedtime; and 3) for patients who report heartburn and regurgitation, PPIs, H2-receptor antagonists, alginate, or antacid therapy sufficient to control these symptoms.42

    II. DIAGNOSTIC TEST FOR CORTICOSTEROID-RESPONSIVE COUGH IN CHRONIC COUGH

    Background

    Asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis are 2 specific conditions that respond well to ICS treatment.43 These are common and important considerations in Korean patients with chronic cough, accounting for about half of adult cases according to a recent literature review.44 Unlike rhinitis- or reflux-associated cough, asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis can be objectively defined by methacholine challenge and induced sputum analysis.45, 46 However, these conventional tests are technically demanding and sometimes difficult for patients. Therefore, there is a high unmet need for easy and convenient alternative tests to predict steroid-responsive cough conditions.

    Nitric oxide is a biological mediator generated from the airway epithelium and is up-regulated by interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13.47 Likewise, FeNO levels have been shown to well reflect the degree of type 2 airway inflammation and to predict corticosteroid responsiveness in patients with respiratory symptoms.48 The greatest advantage of measuring FeNO levels is its simple, rapid, and non-invasive nature, potentially enabling the test to be widely applied in clinical practice.

    Q5. Should FeNO measurement be used to predict asthma in chronic cough? (in both adults and children)

    Summary of evidence for adults

    A total of 10 studies were identified.49 Meta-analyses found a moderate accuracy of FeNO measurement to predict cough variant asthma with an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.89). Of note, specificity (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.88) was higher and more consistent than sensitivity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81). The optimal cutoff levels of the 10 included studies mostly ranged between 30 and 40 ppb. Because FeNO measurement is convenient and non-invasive,50 the guideline committee agreed that the test poses no safety concern.

    Recommendation for adults

    For adults with chronic cough, we suggest the use of FeNO measurement to predict asthma (moderate quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). FeNO measurement may be particularly useful when conventional diagnostic tests for asthma (such as methacholine challenge) are not available or patients have difficulty in performing the tests. However, it should be noted that the utility of FeNO is just to characterize the nature of airway inflammation (and thus can predict the anti-inflammatory treatment responses), but is not to confirm the diagnosis of asthma.51 Asthma is increasingly recognized as a heterogenous condition52 and is not definable by the presence of type 2 inflammation alone. Elevated FeNO levels in chronic cough patients with normal chest X-rays may suggest not only cough variant asthma but also eosinophilic bronchitis.53 In addition, unlike in patients diagnosed as asthma, there is no sufficient evidence to suggest optimal duration for anti-inflammatory treatment in chronic cough patients with high FeNO levels.

    What others are saying for adults

    The 2004 ERS and 2006 ACCP guidelines did not specify recommendations on the use of FeNO measurement in adults with chronic cough.14, 15

    Summary of evidence for children

    A total of four studies were identified.54, 55, 56, 57 All were conducted in Chinese children. Our meta-analyses found a similar pattern in diagnostic accuracy between children and adults, with a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.46-0.90) and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98). Again, high and consistent specificity was the strength of this test.

    Recommendation for children

    For children with chronic cough, we suggest the use of FeNO measurement to predict asthma (low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). FeNO measurement may be particularly useful for younger patients who find it difficult to perform the bronchial challenge test. However, it should be noted that FeNO levels well reflect airway inflammation, but do not directly indicate a diagnosis of a specific disease.50

    What others are saying for children

    The 2004 ERS and 2006 ACCP guidelines did not specify the recommendation of FeNO measurement in children.14, 15

    Q6. Should FeNO measurement test be used to predict eosinophilic bronchitis in non-asthmatic chronic cough? (in adults)

    Summary of evidence

    Only 4 studies of adult patients with non-asthmatic chronic cough (usually defined as negative methacholine challenge response) were identified.49 The estimated diagnostic accuracy for predicting sputum eosinophilia was moderate and specificity was higher than sensitivity, but neither were consistent (sensitivity: 0.72, 95% CI, 0.62-0.80; specificity: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.73-0.90). Similar findings were demonstrated in a meta-analysis of asthma patients.58 Possible observer variability in conducting and interpreting the data collected from induced sputum analyses might underlie such inconsistencies.

    Induced sputum analysis is the gold standard test to diagnose eosinophilic bronchitis46 and is clinically useful to predict steroid-responsive cough.43 However, the utilization of this test has been mostly restricted to tertiary hospitals because of its technically demanding nature and requirement for specialized instruments and personnel.46, 50 Therefore, the guideline committee recognized that an alternative induced sputum test is practically necessary and decided to adapt the data from Korean populations to formulate a recommendation. A Korean study by Oh and colleagues53 found that 32 ppb as the optimal cutoff level to differentiate eosinophilic bronchitis.

    Recommendation

    For adults with non-asthmatic chronic cough, we suggest the use of FeNO measurement to predict eosinophilic bronchitis (low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation).

    What others are saying

    The 2004 ERS and 2006 ACCP guidelines did not specify recommendations on the use of FeNO measurement to predict eosinophilic bronchitis.14, 15

    III. EMPIRICAL ANTIBIOTICS FOR CHRONIC WET COUGH IN CHILDREN

    Background

    Protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB), first described in 2006,59 is now recognized as an important cause of chronic wet cough in children. The original criteria of PBB were: 1) the presence of chronic wet cough; 2) response to antibiotics (amoxicillin-clavulanate) within 2 weeks of use; and 3) lower airway infection, as defined as the presence of respiratory pathogens at a density ≥ 104 CFUs/mL of bronchoalveolar lavage, in the absence of evidence of infection with Bordetella pertussis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, or Chlamydia. Because it is not feasible for all children with chronic wet cough to undergo bronchoscopic examinations in routine clinical settings, criterion (3) has been replaced by absence of indicators suggestive of an alternative specific cause of cough. Although PBB also occurs in older children, patients with PBB are typically young (mean or median age 1.8-4.8 years).60 PBB has been incorporated into international pediatric cough guidelines.25, 61, 62

    Q7. Should empirical antibiotics be used to treat children with chronic wet or productive cough?

    Summary of evidence

    Our own systematic review identified one RCT of 50 children (mean age, 1.9 years; range, 6 months to <18 years) with chronic wet cough63 who were randomly assigned to receive either oral amoxicillin-clavulanate (45 mg/kg/day) or a placebo for 2 weeks. Cough resolution rates were significantly higher in children who received amoxicillin-clavulanate, as compared with those who received the placebo (48% vs. 16%, respectively, P = 0.015). Post-treatment, the median (interquartile range) verbal category descriptive score was significantly lower in the amoxicillin-clavulanate group as compared with the placebo group (0.5 [0.0-2.0] vs. 2.25 [1.15-2.9], respectively, P = 0.02). The bronchoalveolar lavage data from pre-treatment were consistent with PBB in a subgroup of children, with no significant difference between groups.

    Recommendation

    For children with chronic wet cough, we suggest the empirical administration of appropriate antibiotics for a period of 2 weeks, especially in children aged <6 years (low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). Antibiotic selection should be based upon local sensitivity patterns. However, the proposed criteria for PBB are non-specific and may lead to substantial overdiagnosis. If chronic wet cough fails to respond to antibiotics, then further investigations are required to rule out other chronic suppurative lung diseases.

    What others are saying

    The 2008 BTS guidelines recommended a trial of physiotherapy and a prolonged course (e.g., 4-6 weeks) of appropriate antibiotics in children with PBB after exclusion of other underlying conditions.25 The 2017 ACCP guidelines recommended 2 weeks of antibiotics in children with chronic wet or productive cough without specific cough pointers and an additional 2 weeks of the appropriate antibiotics when the wet cough persists.64

    IV. TREATMENT FOR UNEXPLAINED CHRONIC COUGH IN ADULTS

    Background

    A considerable proportion of adult patients with chronic cough (5%-40%) may not fit into any diagnostic categories or remain refractory to currently available treatment modalities, termed unexplained chronic cough (Table 1 and Fig. 2).65 There is increasing recognition that dysregulation of neural pathways leading to cough reflex hypersensitivity underlies this subgroup population.10, 66 Success from clinical trials with pain medications, such as opioids and gabapentin, also supports the notion that the neuropathic process is the key pathophysiological mechanism of unexplained cough.67, 68 Meanwhile, these populations may have some unique alterations in central nervous system processing of tussive stimuli and cough motor control. A recent series of functional brain magnetic resonance imaging studies demonstrated that these patients had increased signals in the descending modulatory system and reduced signals in brain areas related to cough suppression.69 In this regard, multi-dimensional behavioral therapy (or speech pathology therapy) may also have benefits in improving peripheral and central dysfunction in cough reflex pathways.

    Q8. Should opioids be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    Summary of evidence

    Three studies were identified.67, 70, 71 The best available evidence is found in the 4-week randomized placebo-controlled crossover study conducted by Morice and colleagues,67 which demonstrated that low-dose morphine (5 to 10 mg twice daily) significantly improved cough-related QOL and cough scores as compared to a placebo. Constipation, drowsiness, and nausea were the most common adverse events occurring in about half of patients treated with codeine or morphine. However, the long-term safety of opioid use for unexplained chronic cough remains unclear, thus further investigations are warranted. Due to genetic polymorphism in cytochrome P450 2D6 metabolism induced by long-term codeine use,72 the outcome of morphine, which is the end-product of codeine metabolism, is more predictable. However, only codeine is currently approved as an anti-tussive in Korea.

    Recommendation

    For adults with unexplained chronic cough, we suggest the use of low-dose opioids to control cough (low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). Currently, codeine is the only approved opioid for anti-tussive use in Korea. Due to frequent side effects, careful consideration of the benefit-harm balance is recommended. The long-term benefits and harms warrant further investigations.

    What others are saying

    Relevant evidence became available after the publication of the 2004 ERS and 2006 ACCP guidelines.14, 15 The 2016 revised ACCP guidelines offer no specific recommendation for opioid use, because the committee panel failed to reach a consensus on the recommendation of morphine.17

    Q9. Should neuromodulators be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    Summary of evidence

    Two placebo-controlled trials and one head-to-head comparison (amitriptyline vs. codeine/guaifenesin) trial were identified.68, 73, 74 In a randomized placebo-controlled parallel group trial of chronic refractory cough patients,68 Ryan and colleagues68 demonstrated that gabapentin had effectively improved cough-related QOL, cough severity visual analog score, and objective cough frequency. However, 31% of patients in the active group reported adverse effects, especially nausea and fatigue. In another randomized placebo-controlled parallel group study of chronic refractory cough, Vertigan and colleagues73 examined the efficacy of pregabalin as an add-on to speech pathology therapy and found that pregabalin significantly improved cough-related QOL and cough severity. However, there was no significant difference in cough frequency between the active and placebo groups. Adverse reactions, including blurred vision, cognitive change, dizziness, weight gain, and sleep disturbance, were also more frequent in the pregabalin-treat group.73 A study by Jeyakumar et al. 74 reported greater efficacy of amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, as compared to codeine/guaifenesin. However, the study was not placebo-controlled and also had limitations in allocation concealment and sample size.74

    Recommendation

    For adults with unexplained chronic cough, we suggest the use of gabapentin, pregabalin or amitriptyline (moderate quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). However, the use of these agents as antitussives has not been approved in Korea. As adverse reactions were very frequent, shared decision making with patients based on the benefits and harms is important. Long-term safety warrants further investigation.

    What others are saying

    The 2016 ACCP guidelines suggested a therapeutic trial of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained chronic cough, as long as the potential side effects and risk-benefit profiles are discussed with patients before use of the medication and there is a reassessment of the risk-benefit profile at 6 months before continuation.17

    Q10. Should multi-dimensional behavioral therapy (or speech pathology therapy) be used to treat unexplained chronic cough?

    Summary of evidence

    Two RCTs were identified.75, 76 Vertigan and colleagues75 demonstrated that a 2-month regimen of speech pathology therapy significantly improved subjective cough scores as compared to a conventional health management regimen (relaxation, stress control, exercise, and diet). A study by Chamberlain Mitchell and colleagues76 also found that speech pathology therapy had effectively improved cough-specific QOL, cough frequency, and cough severity visual analog score. Of note, the benefits were sustained for more than 2 more months after the completion of therapy.76 No adverse effects were reported. Given the non-pharmacological nature of this therapy, the guideline committee agreed that there is likely no major safety concern.

    Recommendation

    For adults with unexplained chronic cough, we suggest the use of multi-dimensional behavioral therapy (or speech pathology therapy) (very low quality of evidence, conditional recommendation). At present, there is no standardized protocol for Korean patients.

    What others are saying

    The 2016 ACCP guidelines suggested a therapeutic trial of multimodality speech pathology therapy in patients with unexplained chronic cough.17

    SUMMARY AND FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDS

    The present guideline committee utilized systematic reviews and GRADE methodology to identify the best available evidence on the management for chronic cough in Korean patients. Through a comprehensive evidence synthesis process, we made recommendations for various diagnostic and therapeutic tools, including empirical treatments for non-specific and unexplained chronic cough, empirical antibiotics for chronic wet cough in children, and FeNO measurement to predict corticosteroid-responsive cough conditions (Table 3, Figs. 2 and 3).

    However, the evidence was very sparse in most of our PICO questions, which is in marked contrast to the high burden of chronic cough in the community and clinics.1, 4 In the absence of high-quality evidence, our guideline panel, nonetheless, formulated clinical guidelines, particularly for use in primary care. The United States Preventive Services Task Force stated77: “Decision makers do not have the luxury of waiting for certain evidence. Even though evidence is insufficient, the clinician must still provide advice, patients must make choices, and policy makers must establish policies.” In regard to the overall weak quality of evidence, most of our recommendations are inevitably conditional. Overall, the lack of evidence indicates a major unmet need for primary studies of patients with chronic cough. Considering the difference in epidemiology and clinical settings between regions, further definitive evidence should be generated from Korean populations. Our recommendations will be revised when new evidence becomes available.

    Notes

    Disclosure:There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflict of interest.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    This guideline for chronic cough was developed with the support of the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

    References

      1. Song WJ, Chang YS, Faruqi S, Kim JY, Kang MG, Kim S, et al. The global epidemiology of chronic cough in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J 2015;45:1479–1481.
      1. Kang MG, Song WJ, Kim HJ, Won HK, Sohn KH, Kang SY, et al. Point prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of chronic cough in the general adult population: The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010–2012. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6486
      1. Song WJ, Faruqi S, Klaewsongkram J, Lee SE, Chang YS. Chronic cough: an Asian perspective. Part 1: epidemiology. Asia Pac Allergy 2015;5:136–144.
      1. Morice AH. Epidemiology of cough. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2002;15:253–259.
      1. French CL, Irwin RS, Curley FJ, Krikorian CJ. Impact of chronic cough on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1657–1661.
      1. Birring SS, Prudon B, Carr AJ, Singh SJ, Morgan MD, Pavord ID. Development of a symptom specific health status measure for patients with chronic cough: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Thorax 2003;58:339–343.
      1. Kwon JW, Moon JY, Kim SH, Song WJ, Kim MH, Kang MG, et al. Reliability and validity of a Korean version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2015;7:230–233.
      1. Song WJ, Morice AH, Kim MH, Lee SE, Jo EJ, Lee SM, et al. Cough in the elderly population: relationships with multiple comorbidity. PLoS One 2013;8:e78081
      1. Hulme K, Dogan S, Parker SM, Deary V. ‘Chronic cough, cause unknown’: a qualitative study of patient perspectives of chronic refractory cough. J Health Psychol 2017:1359105316684204
      1. Song WJ, Morice AH. Cough hypersensitivity syndrome: a few more steps forward. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2017;9:394–402.
      1. Morice AH, Millqvist E, Belvisi MG, Bieksiene K, Birring SS, Chung KF, et al. In: Eur Respir J. 44. 2014. Expert opinion on the cough hypersensitivity syndrome in respiratory medicine; pp. 1132-1148.
      1. Morice AH, Jakes AD, Faruqi S, Birring SS, McGarvey L, Canning B, et al. A worldwide survey of chronic cough: a manifestation of enhanced somatosensory response. Eur Respir J 2014;44:1149–1155.
      1. Chung KF, Pavord ID. Prevalence, pathogenesis, and causes of chronic cough. Lancet 2008;371:1364–1374.
      1. Irwin RS, Baumann MH, Bolser DC, Boulet LP, Braman SS, Brightling CE, et al. Diagnosis and management of cough executive summary: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2006;129:1S–23S.
      1. Morice AH, Fontana GA, Sovijarvi AR, Pistolesi M, Chung KF, Widdicombe J, et al. The diagnosis and management of chronic cough. Eur Respir J 2004;24:481–492.
      1. Birring SS, Kavanagh J, Lai K, Chang AB. Adult and paediatric cough guidelines: ready for an overhaul? Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2015;35:137–144.
      1. Gibson P, Wang G, McGarvey L, Vertigan AE, Altman KW, Birring SS, et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2016;149:27–44.
      1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–394.
      1. Houghton LA, Lee AS, Badri H, DeVault KR, Smith JA. Respiratory disease and the oesophagus: reflux, reflexes and microaspiration. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;13:445–460.
      1. Lilienfield LS, Rose JC, Princiotto JV. Antitussive activity of diphenhydramine in chronic cough. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1976;19:421–425.
      1. Tanaka S, Hirata K, Kurihara N, Yoshikawa J, Takeda T. Effect of loratadine, an H1 antihistamine, on induced cough in non-asthmatic patients with chronic cough. Thorax 1996;51:810–814.
      1. Fujimori K, Suzuki E, Arakawa M. Effects of oxatomide, H1-antagonist, on postinfectious chronic cough; a comparison of oxatomide combined with dextromethorphan versus dextromethorphan alone. Arerugi 1998;47:48–53.
      1. van Asperen PP, McKay KO, Mellis CM, Loh RK, Harth SC, Thong YH, et al. A multicentre randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study on the efficacy of Ketotifen in infants with chronic cough or wheeze. J Paediatr Child Health 1992;28:442–446.
      1. Ciprandi G, Tosca M, Ricca V, Passalacqua G, Riccio AM, Bagnasco M, et al. Cetirizine treatment of rhinitis in children with pollen allergy: evidence of its antiallergic activity. Clin Exp Allergy 1997;27:1160–1166.
      1. Shields MD, Bush A, Everard ML, McKenzie S, Primhak R. British Thoracic Society Cough Guideline Group. BTS guidelines: recommendations for the assessment and management of cough in children. Thorax 2008;63 Suppl 3:iii1–iii15.
      1. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Weinberger MM, Rubin BK, Weir K, Grant CC, et al. Use of management pathways or algorithms in children with chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2017;151:875–883.
      1. Chaudhuri R, McMahon AD, Thomson LJ, MacLeod KJ, McSharry CP, Livingston E, et al. Effect of inhaled corticosteroids on symptom severity and sputum mediator levels in chronic persistent cough. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113:1063–1070.
      1. Ribeiro M, Pereira CA, Nery LE, Beppu OS, Silva CO. High-dose inhaled beclomethasone treatment in patients with chronic cough: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007;99:61–68.
      1. Pizzichini MM, Pizzichini E, Parameswaran K, Clelland L, Efthimiadis A, Dolovich J, et al. Nonasthmatic chronic cough: no effect of treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid in patients without sputum eosinophilia. Can Respir J 1999;6:323–330.
      1. Davies MJ, Fuller P, Picciotto A, McKenzie SA. Persistent nocturnal cough: randomised controlled trial of high dose inhaled corticosteroid. Arch Dis Child 1999;81:38–44.
      1. Mincheva RK, Kralimarkova TZ, Rasheva M, Dimitrov Z, Nedeva D, Staevska M, et al. A real-life observational pilot study to evaluate the effects of two-week treatment with montelukast in patients with chronic cough. Cough 2014;10:2.
      1. Wang K, Birring SS, Taylor K, Fry NK, Hay AD, Moore M, et al. Montelukast for postinfectious cough in adults: a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014;2:35–43.
      1. Spector SL, Tan RA. Effectiveness of montelukast in the treatment of cough variant asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;93:232–236.
      1. Dicpinigaitis PV, Dobkin JB, Reichel J. Antitussive effect of the leukotriene receptor antagonist zafirlukast in subjects with cough-variant asthma. J Asthma 2002;39:291–297.
      1. Bao W, Liu P, Qiu Z, Yu L, Hang J, Gao X, et al. Efficacy of add-on montelukast in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis: the additive effect on airway inflammation, cough and life quality. Chin Med J (Engl) 2015;128:39–45.
      1. Kooi EM, Schokker S, Marike Boezen H, de Vries TW, Vaessen-Verberne AA, van der Molen T, et al. Fluticasone or montelukast for preschool children with asthma-like symptoms: randomized controlled trial. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2008;21:798–804.
      1. Kopřiva F, Sobolová L, Szotkowská J, Zápalka M. Treatment of chronic cough in children with montelukast,a leukotriene receptor antagonist. J Asthma 2004;41:715–720.
      1. Faruqi S, Molyneux ID, Fathi H, Wright C, Thompson R, Morice AH. Chronic cough and esomeprazole: a double-blind placebo-controlled parallel study. Respirology 2011;16:1150–1156.
      1. Kahrilas PJ, Howden CW, Hughes N, Molloy-Bland M. Response of chronic cough to acid-suppressive therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Chest 2013;143:605–612.
      1. Rane PP, Guha S, Chatterjee S, Aparasu RR. Prevalence and predictors of non-evidence based proton pump inhibitor use among elderly nursing home residents in the US. Res Social Adm Pharm 2017;13:358–363.
      1. Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ. The “dangers” of chronic proton pump inhibitor use. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018;141:79–81.
      1. Kahrilas PJ, Altman KW, Chang AB, Field SK, Harding SM, Lane AP, et al. Chronic cough due to gastroesophageal reflux in adults: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2016;150:1341–1360.
      1. Gibson PG, Dolovich J, Denburg J, Ramsdale EH, Hargreave FE. Chronic cough: eosinophilic bronchitis without asthma. Lancet 1989;333:1346–1348.
      1. Kang SY, Kim GW, Song WJ, Chang YS, Cho SH. Chronic cough in Korean adults: a literature review on common comorbidity. Asia Pac Allergy 2016;6:198–206.
      1. Lim KH, Kim MH, Yang MS, Song WJ, Jung JW, Lee J, et al. The KAAACI Standardization Committee Report on the procedure and application of the bronchial provocation tests. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis 2018;6:14–25.
      1. Kim MH, Kim MY, Lim KH, Yang MS, Song WJ, Lee J, et al. KAAACI Standardization Committee report on the procedure and application of induced sputum examination. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis 2017;5:307–311.
      1. Alving K, Malinovschi A. Basic aspects of exhaled nitric oxide. Eur Respir Monogr 2010;49:1–31.
      1. Song WJ, Kwon JW, Kim EJ, Lee SM, Kim SH, Lee SY, et al. Clinical application of exhaled nitric oxide measurements in a Korean population. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2015;7:3–13.
      1. Song WJ, Kim HJ, Shim JS, Won HK, Kang SY, Sohn KH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurement in predicting cough-variant asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis in adults with chronic cough: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017;140:701–709.
      1. Kwon JW, Song WJ, Kim MH, Lim KH, Yang MS, Jung JW, et al. The KAAACI Standardization Committee Report on the procedure and application of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurement. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis 2017;5:185–192.
      1. Song WJ, Won HK, Moon SD, Chung SJ, Kang SY, Sohn KH, et al. Could fractional exhaled nitric oxide test be useful in predicting inhaled corticosteroid responsiveness in chronic cough? A systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2017;5:135–143.e1.
      1. Agache I, Rogozea L. Asthma biomarkers: do they bring precision medicine closer to the clinic? Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2017;9:466–476.
      1. Oh MJ, Lee JY, Lee BJ, Choi DC. Exhaled nitric oxide measurement is useful for the exclusion of nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis in patients with chronic cough. Chest 2008;134:990–995.
      1. Cao X, Wu Y. Measurement of fractional nitric oxide concentration in exhaled breath to assess cough variant asthma in child patients. Acta Acad Med Xuzhou 2015;35:328–330.
      1. Ji X, Wang K, Chen J, Zhou X, Wang D, Zheng C. Clinical significance of fractional exhaled nitric oxide test in children with chronic cough. China Mod Dr 2013;20:42–45.
      1. Wang T, Shang Y, Zhang H, Liu F, Feng Y. Clinical value of expired nitric oxide level in predicting bronchial hyperreactivity in children with chronic cough. Chin J Pract Pediatr 2015;30:203–206.
      1. Zhu H, Yu X, Hao C, Wang Y, Yang X, Lu Y, et al. The diagnostic value of the fractional exhaled nitric oxide for cough variant asthma in children. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 2015;38:352–355.
      1. Korevaar DA, Westerhof GA, Wang J, Cohen JF, Spijker R, Sterk PJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2015;3:290–300.
      1. Marchant JM, Masters IB, Taylor SM, Cox NC, Seymour GJ, Chang AB. Evaluation and outcome of young children with chronic cough. Chest 2006;129:1132–1141.
      1. Chang AB, Upham JW, Masters IB, Redding GR, Gibson PG, Marchant JM, et al. Protracted bacterial bronchitis: The last decade and the road ahead. Pediatr Pulmonol 2016;51:225–242.
      1. Chang AB, Glomb WB. Guidelines for evaluating chronic cough in pediatrics: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2006;129:260S–283S.
      1. Chang AB, Landau LI, Van Asperen PP, Glasgow NJ, Robertson CF, Marchant JM, et al. Cough in children: definitions and clinical evaluation. Med J Aust 2006;184:398–403.
      1. Marchant J, Masters IB, Champion A, Petsky H, Chang AB. Randomised controlled trial of amoxycillin clavulanate in children with chronic wet cough. Thorax 2012;67:689–693.
      1. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Weinberger MM, Rubin BK, Grant CC, Weir K, et al. Management of children with chronic wet cough and protracted bacterial bronchitis: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest 2017;151:884–890.
      1. Song WJ, Chang YS, Morice AH. Changing the paradigm for cough: does ‘cough hypersensitivity’ aid our understanding? Asia Pac Allergy 2014;4:3–13.
      1. Chung KF, McGarvey L, Mazzone SB. Chronic cough as a neuropathic disorder. Lancet Respir Med 2013;1:414–422.
      1. Morice AH, Menon MS, Mulrennan SA, Everett CF, Wright C, Jackson J, et al. Opiate therapy in chronic cough. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:312–315.
      1. Ryan NM, Birring SS, Gibson PG. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:1583–1589.
      1. Ando A, Smallwood D, McMahon M, Irving L, Mazzone SB, Farrell MJ. Neural correlates of cough hypersensitivity in humans: evidence for central sensitisation and dysfunctional inhibitory control. Thorax 2016;71:323–329.
      1. Cass LJ, Frederik WS. Evaluation of a new antitussive agent. N Engl J Med 1953;249:132–136.
      1. Cass LJ, Frederik WS. Quantitative comparison of cough-suppressing effects of romilar and other antitussives. J Lab Clin Med 1956;48:879–885.
      1. Kirchheiner J, Schmidt H, Tzvetkov M, Keulen JT, Lötsch J, Roots I, et al. Pharmacokinetics of codeine and its metabolite morphine in ultra-rapid metabolizers due to CYP2D6 duplication. Pharmacogenomics J 2007;7:257–265.
      1. Vertigan AE, Kapela SL, Ryan NM, Birring SS, McElduff P, Gibson PG. Pregabalin and speech pathology combination therapy for refractory chronic cough: a randomized controlled trial. Chest 2016;149:639–648.
      1. Jeyakumar A, Brickman TM, Haben M. Effectiveness of amitriptyline versus cough suppressants in the treatment of chronic cough resulting from postviral vagal neuropathy. Laryngoscope 2006;116:2108–2112.
      1. Vertigan AE, Theodoros DG, Gibson PG, Winkworth AL. Efficacy of speech pathology management for chronic cough: a randomised placebo controlled trial of treatment efficacy. Thorax 2006;61:1065–1069.
      1. Chamberlain Mitchell SA, Garrod R, Clark L, Douiri A, Parker SM, Ellis J, et al. Physiotherapy, and speech and language therapy intervention for patients with refractory chronic cough: a multicentre randomised control trial. Thorax 2017;72:129–136.
      1. Petitti DB, Teutsch SM, Barton MB, Sawaya GF, Ockene JK, DeWitt T, et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:199–205.
    Cited by
    Crossref 61
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed 58
    Scopus 73
    Web of Science 63
    Publication Types
    Review
    MeSH Terms
    Adult*
    Asthma
    Bronchitis
    Child*
    Cough*
    Eosinophils
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Gastroesophageal Reflux
    Humans
    Korea*
    Referral and Consultation
    Reflex
    Rhinitis
    Sensory Receptor Cells
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    ORCID IDs
    Funding Information
    PERMALINK