MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598854208 · doi:10.1542/peds.112.s2.462a

LONG-TERM TREATMENT WITH CETIRIZINE OF INFANTS WITH ATOPIC DERMATITIS: A MULTI-COUNTRY, DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL (THE ETAC TRIAL) OVER 18 MONTHS

2003· article· en· W1598854208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamara T. Perry, Robert A. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCetirizineAtopyAtopic dermatitisSCORADPlaceboRandomized controlled trialAllergyRandomizationAdverse effectPediatricsInternal medicineAsthmaPlacebo-controlled studyDermatologyAnesthesiaImmunologyDermatology Life Quality IndexDouble blindDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diepgen TL and the Early Treatment of the Atopic Child Study Group. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002;13:278–286To analyze the effects of long-term use of cetirizine on the severity, natural history, and treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD).A total of 795 infants, 12 to 24 months old, with active AD for at least 1 month and 1 parent or sibling with a history of AD, allergic rhinitis, or asthma were enrolled from 12 European countries and Canada.This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing cetirizine with placebo in infants with AD and a family history of atopy. Systemic corticosteroids, cromoglycate, and oral antihistamines were discontinued; however, topical therapy for AD was continued. After a washout period, participants then received treatment with 0.25 mg/kg of cetirizine or placebo twice daily for 18 months. Follow-up visits were at 1 and 3 months, then every 13 weeks during the 18-month treatment period. At each visit, atopy status, severity of AD based on the SCORAD index (an objective rating scale used to determine AD severity), concomitant therapy and adverse experiences were recorded. Blood and urine samples were followed throughout the study to evaluate total and specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophil counts.During the treatment period, participants in both groups had a steady decline in the severity of AD based on both the subjective symptom score and SCORAD index. Although this decline was statistically significant (P < .001), no difference was observed between study groups. There were no specific recommendations or restrictions for additional therapy for AD during the treatment period, and significantly more participants in the placebo group were treated with additional oral H1 antihistamines when compared with the treatment group (25% vs 19%; P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference observed in topical steroid use between groups; however, the duration of moderate-to-strong topical steroids (class II-IV) was longer in the placebo group (25% of the days vs 18%; P = .067). This relative corticosteriod-sparing effect was statistically significant for infants with severe disease (SCORAD index ≥25) at baseline (35% of days vs 26%; P = .014). The number of participants who developed urticaria was significantly lower in the treatment group than placebo (5.8% vs. 16%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of other adverse events between groups.The use of cetirizine in infants with AD appears to be safe and significantly reduces the use of additional H1 antihistamines and the occurrence of urticaria. Results also suggest that cetirizine has a relative corticosteroid-sparing effect by decreasing the duration of moderate-to-potent topical steroid use.Oral antihistamine therapy has become a major component of the treatment of AD based largely on anecdotal experience. This is the first large prospective study evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety of treatment of AD with cetirizine in an atopic population. Cetirizine proved to be safe as patients in the treatment group did not experience significantly more adverse reactions, but, in fact, had a significantly decreased risk of urticaria. One limitation of this study was the lack of restriction of additional antihistamines during the treatment period. Significantly more patients on placebo used H1 antihistamines, and this suggests that antihistamine therapy is an effective, if not essential, component in the treatment of AD. It is likely that more significant differences in topical or systemic steroid use, concomitant medication use, or disease severity may have been observed between groups if this class of drugs was restricted. Patients in the treatment group had fewer days of moderate-to-potent topical steroid use, and this difference was statistically significant in severe disease further supporting the use of antihistamines as an effective component in the management of AD. Because this study was a part of the ETAC trial, the primary endpoint for efficacy was asthma with secondary endpoints for efficacy in the duration and severity of AD. Future studies designed with efficacy for treatment of AD as the primary endpoint with more specific restrictions and limitations on concomitant therapy would also be very useful.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207