Merck announces positive results phase 3 trials of gefapixant 45 mg twice daily in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...
- Advertisement -

Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, has announced the results from two pivotal phase 3 trials (COUGH-1 and COUGH-2) evaluating the efficacy and safety of gefapixant (MK-7264), an investigational, orally administered, selective P2X3 receptor antagonist, for the potential treatment of refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 are the first companion phase 3 trials ever conducted in patients with refractory chronic cough, a cough that persists despite appropriate treatment of underlying conditions, or unexplained chronic cough, a cough where the underlying cause cannot be identified despite a thorough evaluation. In these studies, adult patients treated with gefapixant 45 mg twice daily demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in 24-hour cough frequency (measured objectively, as coughs per hour, using 24-hour sound recordings) versus placebo at 12 weeks (COUGH-1) (18.45% reduction relative to placebo, 95% CI [-32.92, -0.86; p=0.041]) and 24 weeks (COUGH-2) (14.64% reduction relative to placebo, 95% CI [-26.07, -1.43; p=0.031]). The gefapixant 15 mg twice daily treatment arms did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint in either phase 3 study.

“It is estimated that between 5 and 10% of adults globally suffer from chronic cough. A subset of these patients have refractory or unexplained chronic cough and appear more sensitive to various triggers that do not typically cause cough in healthy subjects. These include everyday things such as talking, laughing, a change in air temperature or exposure to aerosols or food odors, and to date treatment options are extremely limited for these patients,” said Dr. Lorcan McGarvey, Clinical Professor, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast. “Given the significant unmet need for these patients, we are strongly encouraged by the findings of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 and the potential for a new therapeutic option for patients who are struggling with the burden of this disease, often for many years without relief.”

“COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 are the first companion phase 3 trials in refractory or unexplained chronic cough, underscoring Merck’s commitment to fully researching the potential for gefapixant in this patient population,” said Dr Roy Baynes, senior vice president and head of global clinical development, chief medical officer, Merck Research Laboratories. “Both trials met the primary endpoint at the 45 mg twice daily dosage, significantly reducing cough frequency in these patients, and we are grateful for the opportunity to share these data with the scientific community.”

These results were presented at the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress 2020 (abstract #3800). Merck plans to share data from COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 with regulatory authorities worldwide.

COUGH-1 (NCT03449134) and COUGH-2 (NCT03449147) are international phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gefapixant in reducing cough frequency in adult participants with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. A total of 2,044 participants(75% female, mean age 58 years, mean cough duration 11 years) were treated in COUGH-1 (n=730) and COUGH-2 (n=1,314). In both studies, patients were randomized to one of three groups: gefapixant 45 mg twice daily, gefapixant 15 mg twice daily, or placebo. Participants remained on their assigned treatment at randomization throughout both studies. The primary efficacy outcomes measure for COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 were 24-hour cough frequency at Week 12, and 24-hour cough frequency at week 24, respectively, measured using an ambulatory digital audio recording device. Secondary endpoints in both trials included awake coughs per hour and percentage of participants with a greater than 1.3-point increase from baseline in the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) total score. COUGH-1 had a 12-week treatment period and a 40-week extension period, while COUGH-2 had a 24-week treatment period and a 28-week extension period. Primary safety outcomes include the percentage of patients experiencing greater than one adverse event (AE) during treatment and follow up, and the percentage of patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events.

In COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, treatment with gefapixant 45 mg twice daily resulted in a significant reduction in objectively measured 24-hour cough frequency in participants with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. In these studies, on average, participants receiving gefapixant 45 mg twice daily in the COUGH-1 trial experienced a 62% reduction in cough frequency, and in the COUGH-2 trial experienced a 63% reduction in cough frequency, compared with baseline.

The secondary endpoints in COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 support the primary observation of the studies. Awake cough frequency results were generally similar to the 24-hour cough frequency outcome, reaching statistical significance in the 45 mg twice daily group in COUGH-2 (15.79% estimated relative reduction, 95% CI [-27.27, -2.50; p=0.022]) and trending towards significance in COUGH-1 (17.68% estimated relative reduction, 95% CI [-32.57, 0.50; p=0.056]). Significantly more participants in the gefapixant 45 mg twice daily group at week 24 demonstrated a clinically important improvement in cough-related quality of life, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (p=0.042) compared with placebo. Of the participants in the 45 mg group, 77.1% experienced a clinically important level of improvement in their quality of life related to cough, as measured using the LCQ.

The safety and tolerability profile of gefapixant was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The incidence of serious AEs was similar between treatments (<4%). Discontinuations due to AEs were more frequent in the 45 mg group (15% in COUGH-1 and 20% in COUGH-2) compared to the 15 mg (3% in COUGH-1 and 8% in COUGH-2) and placebo groups (3% and 5%, respectively). Taste-related AEs occurred at higher incidence in the 45 mg group (58.0% in COUGH-1 and 68.6% in COUGH-2) compared to the 15 mg (10.7% in COUGH-1 and 19.5% in COUGH-2) and placebo (3.3% in COUGH-1 and 8.3% in COUGH-2) groups. The majority of taste-related AEs were mild to moderate.

Gefapixant is an investigational, orally administered, selective P2X3 receptor antagonist, for the potential treatment of refractory or unexplained chronic cough. P2X3 receptors are one of the receptor types found on sensory nerve fibers, predominantly C fibers, in the airway lining. Chemical stimuli, including adenosine triphosphate (ATP), can be released from airway lining cells due to processes including airway inflammation, irritation, and mechanical stress/injury. Binding of extracellular ATP to P2X3 receptors on C fibers in the airway can be sensed as a signal of potential damage, creating an action potential, which may initiate coughing. Blockade of extracellular ATP binding to P2X3 receptors is thought to reduce sensory C fiber activation and subsequently, coughing.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »