Abstract
Introduction
Chronic cough in adults is defined as a cough that lasts for ≥8 weeks.1,2 It is a feature of many common respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, rhinitis/sinusitis, upper airway cough syndrome and bronchitis, as well as many common non-respiratory conditions, such as gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 3 It has a prevalence of ∼10% in the general adult population. 4 The condition can lead to exhaustion, sleep disruption, social embarrassment, urinary incontinence, interference with speech and depression, significantly lowering quality of life.5–10 It also results in a considerable economic burden due to a large number of associated healthcare visits from multiple investigations and often referral to secondary care specialists.11,12 Refractory chronic cough is a cough that persists despite appropriate treatment of the underlying comorbid condition(s), and idiopathic or unexplained chronic cough is a cough where the underlying cause is unidentified.13,14 These definitions have been used to identify participants in clinical trials, 1 and together they constitute refractory/unexplained chronic cough, hereafter referred to as RCC.
Refractory chronic cough is seen in around 20–46% of patients presenting to specialist cough clinics.15–17 There is considerable unmet need among this patient population due to the lack of specific treatments, and the ineffectiveness of over-the-counter cough medications.14,18 Patients with RCC in real-world clinical practice may differ from the selected patients enrolled in clinical trials or those referred to specialised clinics 19 ; however, identifying them is challenging because chronic cough is considered a symptom, not a distinct medical condition/disease, and, until recently (October 2021), there was no identifying International Classification of Disease (ICD) code. There are limited population-based studies describing the characteristics of patients with chronic cough in clinical practice,20–22 and those among the RCC population are particularly sparse. 15 Furthermore, no algorithm exists to identify patients with RCC from administrative healthcare databases. Therefore, we aimed to identify patients with potential RCC using a purposefully developed operational algorithm, based on clinical guidelines,2,23 for application to administrative claims databases, and to describe their characteristics when applied to a specific US claims database. This was a descriptive study; validation of the algorithm was not performed during the course of the study for reasons detailed in the discussion of this article.
Materials and methods
Study design and data sources
The overall study design is depicted in Figure 1. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart,24,25 a large administrative claims database that contains de-identified patient-level information from privately insured and Medicare advantage beneficiaries across all 50 US states. During our study period (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2019), the database covered approximately 58 million patients. In addition to member details such as age, sex and date of eligibility, it captures medical claims (ICD-9/ICD-10 coded), 25 pharmacy claims, laboratory test results and information on inpatient stays. All Optum CDM data were de-identified and are thus in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 to preserve patient anonymity and confidentiality. Further, in terms of ethical approval, the present study was determined by Bayer's institutional review board to not constitute research involving human subjects according to 45 CFR 46.102(f) and was deemed exempt from board oversight. As patient data were anonymised, informed consent was not applicable.

Overall study design. RCC: refractory chronic cough.
Algorithm to identify potential RCC
Our operational algorithm was developed based on treatment guidelines from the European Respiratory Society Guidelines 23 and CHEST Expert Cough Panel. 2 It was based on firstly identifying patients with ‘chronic cough’, and then narrowing down to patients with potential RCC by applying inclusion/exclusion criteria (Figure 2). The algorithm was developed to focus on specificity over sensitivity. Patients with chronic cough were defined as individuals with a ‘cough event’ and with at least two earlier cough events recorded in the 56–180 preceding days during the study period. Any cough event within the 55 days preceding a qualifying cough event was disregarded (Supplemental Figure 1). The first event during the study period that met these criteria was designated as the primary cough event (index date). The 56-day window was stipulated, firstly, to ensure an 8-week chronicity of the cough condition, and secondly to minimise potential misclassification of the primary cough event (i.e. to ensure it was a separate cough event) and not a repeated database entry made at a follow-up visit for an earlier event. A ‘cough event’ was defined as either an ICD code for cough (ICD-9-CM: 786.2 or ICD-10-CM: R05) or a prescription for the following (based on the fact that these medications are primarily indicated for cough): either benzonatate, dextromethorphan (excluding combinations with quinidine) or codeine, excluding combinations with acetaminophen (for pain), butalbital, a barbiturate, aspirin, caffeine, and a methylxanthine (for tension headaches), carisoprodol, and aspirin (for acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions). We intentionally did not include prescriptions for other drugs, such as specific codeine-combinations, gabapentin, amitriptyline and pregabalin, in the definition of a cough event because these drugs have other main indications and so were likely not prescribed for cough for patients who did not have recorded cough event.

Identification of potential RCC cases from Optums Clinformatics Claims database, 2009–2019 (N = 782,121). a Excluding combinations with quinidine. b Excluding codeine combinations with acetaminophen (for pain), butalbital, a barbiturate, aspirin, caffeine, and a methylxanthine (for tension headaches), carisoprodol, and aspirin (for acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions). cA total of 100 adults were excluded due to missing data on sex. d In the year before the index date. e A prescription for roflumilast was used as a proxy for the disease in the absence of a diagnostic code. f A prescription for nintedanib or pirfenidone was used as a proxy for the disease in the absence of a diagnostic code. g A prescription for isoniazid, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, bedaquiline or delamanid was used as a proxy for the disease in the absence of a diagnostic code. ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RCC: refractory chronic cough.
To identify the subset of adults with potential RCC, we applied the following exclusion criteria: aged <18 years, missing data on sex, <365 continuous enrolment before the index date, a prescription for an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in the 6 months before the index date, a respiratory tract infection in the 12 weeks before the index date, or any of the following in the 365 days before the index date: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (or nintedanib/pirfenidone prescription), bronchiectasis, chronic bronchitis, cavity lesions (i.e. solitary pulmonary nodule), unstable rib fracture, tuberculosis (or prescription for isoniazid, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, bedaquiline or delamanid), pleural disease (i.e. pneumothorax, pleural effusion/plaque, pleurisy or pleural mesothelioma) or a reported abnormal spirometry test. Information on chest X-rays or chest computed tomography were not available in the database, patients were followed-up for 1-year from the index date; those with <1 year of follow up after the index date were excluded to enable sufficient data for determining patient characteristics after potential RCC diagnosis.
Probable, possible and unlikely RCC cohorts
Based on the number of subsequent cough events during the 365 days after the primary cough event, patients with potential RCC were stratified into three cohorts – ‘probable RCC’ (3 or more cough events, indicating cough remains unresolved), ‘possible RCC’ (1–2 cough events; inconclusive of RCC but could be) or ‘unlikely RCC’ (zero cough events). For purposes of our descriptive analysis, we identified those who had cough variant asthma, GERD or sinusitis, asthma, or upper airway cough syndrome, based on ICD codes entered in the year before the index date.
Patient characteristics
Patient demographics, comorbidities/possible cough-associated complications and medication use were determined in the year before the index date using searches for relevant ICD codes. Demographics included age, sex and ethnicity. Comorbidities included respiratory and non-respiratory disorders (see Supplemental Methods for a complete list), and potential cough complications (insomnia, stress incontinence, costochondritis, subconjunctival haemorrhage, vomiting and rib fracture). Medications included (potential) cough treatments, such as antitussives, amitriptyline, pregabalin, gabapentin, codeine and inhaled/oral respiratory medications (nasal/inhaled corticosteroids, short-acting beta-antagonists, long-acting beta-antagonists, short-acting muscarinic antagonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, leukotriene modifiers and H1 antihistamines), and gastrointestinal drugs (e.g. proton pump inhibitors and H2 blockers), psychotherapeutics (e.g. antidepressants, anxiolytics and neuromodulators) and other medications (including potential respiratory antibiotics, oral corticosteroids and opioids other than codeine; see Supplemental Methods).
Statistical analysis
Characteristics of the patients with potential RCC were described using frequency counts and percentages and stratified by cohort; average age was summarised as median with inter-quartile range (IQR). The analysis of possible cough-associated complications and medication use during the 1-year follow up was not stratified by cohort due to low event numbers in each stratum. All analyses were undertaken using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Of 782,121 patients identified with ‘chronic cough’, 16.8% remained (N = 131,772) after applying the algorithm criteria. Distribution was as follows: 25.8% probable RCC (N = 33,936), 35.9% possible RCC (N = 47,310), 38.3% unlikely RCC (N = 50,526; see Supplemental Figure 2 for the distribution of recorded cough events during the 1-year follow up). Among probable, possible and unlikely RCC cases, respectively, 29.0%, 27.1% and 24.8 had either cough variant asthma/GERD/sinusitis, 13.1%, 13.1% and 12.5% had either asthma/upper airway cough syndrome, 17.8%, 13.7% and 10.2% had both groups of conditions, and 40.1%, 46.1% and 52.5% had neither.
Baseline characteristics
Demographics of patients with potential RCC stratified by cohort are shown in Table 1. Most patients were female; 70.5% (probable RCC), 67.9% (possible RCC) and 66.4% (unlikely RCC), and more than two-thirds were of white ethnicity. The most common age group at the index date was 60–69 (probable RCC) and 50–59 years (possible and unlikely RCC) (see also Supplemental Figure 3); median age was 60 (probable RCC), 56 (possible RCC) and 53 years (unlikely RCC).
Demographics of patients with potential RCC by cohort (probable, possible and unlikely RCC).
Data are n (%) unless otherwise specified.
At baseline (index date).
IQR: inter-quartile range; RCC: refractory/unexplained chronic cough.
Insomnia was the most recorded possible cough-associated complication at baseline, occurring in 8.3% (probable RCC), 7.2% (possible RCC) and 6.3% (unlikely RCC) of patients, followed by stress incontinence (2.5–3.9%), vomiting (1.8–2.4%), costochondritis (0.8–0.9) and subconjunctival haemorrhage (0.2–0.4%); there were no cases of rib fracture at baseline (see Table 2; Supplemental Figure 4). The most recorded respiratory comorbidities at baseline were allergic rhinitis (30.7–39.1%), followed by asthma, chronic sinusitis and pneumonia/influenza or other acute lower respiratory tract infection. The most recorded non-respiratory comorbidity at baseline was hypertension (37.3–47.7%), followed by GERD, depression, anxiety and obesity (Table 2; Supplemental Figures 5 and 6). The majority of potential RCC cases had used an inhaled/oral respiratory drug and approximately 50% had used a ‘cough medication’. Use of psychotherapeutics was also high (44.2–56.1%) (Table 2, Supplemental Figure 7).
Baseline possible cough-associated complications, comorbidities (respiratory and non-respiratory) and medications (within 365 days before the index date among patients with potential RCC).
Antitussives, amitriptyline, pregabalin, gabapentin and codeine.
Corticosteroids (nasal/inhaled), short-acting beta-agonists, long-acting beta-agonists, short-acting muscarinic antagonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, leukotriene modifiers and H1 antihistamines.
Proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers.
Antidepressants, anxiolytics and neuromodulators.
Antibiotics used for potential respiratory infection, oral corticosteroids and opioids other than codeine.
GERD: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; RCC: refractory/unexplained chronic cough.
Characteristics during 1-year follow up
Insomnia remained the most common possible cough-associated complication during the 1-year follow up (6.8%), followed by stress incontinence (3.0%), vomiting (2.0%), costochondritis (0.6%), rib fracture (0.4%) and subconjunctival haemorrhage (0.3%) (Table 3, Supplemental Figure 8) Among probable RCC cases, medication use was generally higher during the 1-year follow up compared with baseline; 52.7% versus 49.0% (cough treatments), 73.3% versus 69.0% (respiratory drugs), 40.5% versus 34.2% (gastrointestinal drugs) and 58.8% versus 56.1% (psychotherapeutics). Among possible and unlikely RCC cases, use of cough treatments and respiratory drugs was notably lower during follow up versus baseline, while use of gastrointestinal drugs and psychotherapeutics was slightly lower/similar (Table 4, Supplemental Figures 9).
Possible cough-associated complications among patients with potential RCC during the 1-year follow up after the index date. a
aNot stratified by RCC cohort due to low numbers of events by strata.
RCC: refractory/unexplained chronic cough.
Medication use among patients with potential RCC during the 1-year follow up after the index date.
aAntitussives, amitriptyline, pregabalin, gabapentin and codeine.
Corticosteroids (nasal/inhaled), short-acting beta-agonists, long-acting beta-agonists, short-acting muscarinic antagonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, leukotriene modifiers and H1 antihistamines.
Proton pump inhibitors and H2 blockers.
Antidepressants, anxiolytics and neuromodulators.
Antibiotics used for potential respiratory infection, oral corticosteroids and opioids other than codeine.
RCC: refractory/unexplained chronic cough.
Discussion
In this study, we identified and characterised patients with potential RCC, including treatments received, through the implementation of an algorithm specifically designed to identify patients with RCC from claims databases. Describing this largely uncharacterised subset of patients with chronic cough is important to help evaluate current management strategies, and guide future investigations.
We found that 16% of patients identified with chronic cough had potential RCC, 26 and a quarter of these were deemed to be probable cases. The demographics of RCC cases in our study – a high preponderance of females and white ethnicity, and the age (∼60 years) at RCC ascertainment – are in line with findings from smaller studies of patients with RCC from the United States15,27 and Spain. 28 They also align with demographics of the broad spectrum of patients with chronic cough identified from referrals to specialist clinics,17,29–31 electronic health records (EHRs), 20 administrative claims data21,32 and internet surveys, 33 although the populations described by Zeiger et al. were more ethnically diverse (less than half were white and up to a third were hispanic).21,32
Insomnia and stress incontinence were the most common possible cough-associated complications among potential RCC cases, as also seen by Zeiger et al. 21 among their chronic chough population using claims data from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California claims database.21,22 As expected, respiratory comorbidities were common, particularly allergic rhinitis (39% of probable cases) and asthma (27% of probable cases), as similarly reported by Zeiger et al.21,32 and smaller chronic cough populations.30,34,35 Prevalence of other common respiratory disorders were also in line with findings by Zeiger et al., 32 except for chronic sinusitis and rhinitis, which were notably lower (18% and 9% of probable cases, respectively).21,32 Reasons for this are unclear but could be due to differences in the ethnic composition or other aspects of the study population, coding, or ascertainment periods. Hypertension, GERD and depression were the most commonly recorded non-respiratory conditions (48%, 34% and 16% of probable cases), and we observed high use of the groups of medication investigated, as also shown previously in chronic cough populations.20,21,30,32,34 There is no approved medication for the treatment of chronic cough, and use of a wide range of medications could reflect a trial and error approach to patient management, as found in a recent qualitative study of American primary care physicians. 36 Additionally, the generally increased use of medications in the 1-year follow-up period among probable RCC (which was not seen for possible/unlikely cases) could suggest that trial and error treatment strategies are common in patients with RCC. The mostly similar characteristics of our potential RCC cases with other RCC and broader chronic cough populations, goes some way to support our algorithm as a method of identifying RCC from claims databases. However, our algorithm requires validation in other datasets including manual review of patient records to test the performance and refine it further before implementing more widely.
A key strength of our study is its novelty. Previous studies have developed algorithms to identify the chronic cough population as a whole from claims 37 or EHR 20 databases, but we are unaware of other algorithms specifically designed to identify patients with RCC. Another strength is the use of a large population-based database covering claims data from individuals across 50 US states, which enabled the identification of a large and geographically diverse sample of potential RCC cases. Our algorithm applied the principle that identifying RCC is based on determining patients with chronic cough and exclusion of possible causal factors and/or treatments such as ACE inhibitor use and smoking. The application of several exclusion criteria to maximise specificity of our RCC definition is a study strength; however, we acknowledge that this may have reduced sensitivity. The algorithm by Bali et al. 37 designed to identify patients with chronic cough from claims data was found to have 99% specificity and 15.5% sensitivity. Validation of our algorithm is key to evaluating these parameters, as well as to help refine the algorithm if necessary; however, this would be challenging. It would be difficult to identify a gold standard against which to measure the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm – we have previously conducted a feasibility analysis whereby a review of a random sample of physician's notes was undertaken, and this showed that RCC (or similar terminology) is seldom used, and that substantial heterogeneity exists in how RCC is recorded. Furthermore, RCC can be undiagnosed/undetected for many years thus an individual with potential RCC identified from our algorithm may not necessarily have been picked up in clinical care and recorded in a physician's notes. It is also noteworthy that previous publication around this topic have focused on algorithms for chronic cough rather than RCC,11,20,22,32 which is unsurprising due to the difficulties in its identification. As no single ICD code (or groups of ICD codes) exists to conclusively identify RCC, we built an algorithm based on multiple types of cough that could be mild, chronic, seasonal, chronic or caused by underlying conditions, and this proved to be a challenging endeavour. We believe that it is important that we share our algorithm with others in the scientific community, in the hope that others can use it as a starting point for developing a more refined algorithm with the opportunity for validation. Another study limitation is that there may have been some selection bias towards capturing the more severe cases of chronic cough because the database only captured individuals who sought medical care for their symptoms and not those who used over-the-counter medications because this is not captured in the database. Personal perspective of the seriousness/triviality of the cough and levels of interference with social roles have been found to be influencing factors in this regard. 38 Another study limitation is possible misclassification of cough events and patient characteristics due to coding errors. Some cough-associated complications may also have been under-recorded; for example, stress incontinence and insomnia if patients did not seek medical attention for these. Indeed, in surveys of patients attending cough clinics, 63–65% have been reported to suffer from stress incontinence5,8; for insomnia, previous estimates have ranged from 26% to 34% based on self-reports among chronic cough patients.7,9 Also RCC is not an acute event so ascertaining an exact date of onset is challenging, especially in secondary data sources. Lastly, although the database covers individuals in both private or Medicaid Advantage plans, most are the former and therefore our results should be considered more generalisable to privately insured rather than low-income individuals. The results are also not generalisable to populations outside the United States where prescribing practices may differ.
Conclusions
In conclusion, our algorithm provides a starting point to identify patients with RCC in claims databases, although it requires validation to determine whether further refinement is necessary. Findings from our study could potentially support a better understanding of the characteristics of patients with RCC, in turn helping guide decisions around their management. Further research could also explore cough patterns in patients with comorbidities such as GERD, respiratory conditions, insomnia, and obstructive sleep apnoea.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-sci-10.1177_00368504241238080 - Supplemental material for Characteristics of adults with potential refractory chronic cough identified using an algorithm designed for administrative claims databases: A descriptive study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sci-10.1177_00368504241238080 for Characteristics of adults with potential refractory chronic cough identified using an algorithm designed for administrative claims databases: A descriptive study by Sascha van Boemmel-Wegmann, Kenneth W. Altman, Ron Herrera, Philippe Vieira Pires, Priscilla F.A Pichardo and Pareen Vora in Science Progress
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Author contributions
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
Supplemental material
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
