MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the efficacy, safety and quality of life provided by fexofenadine hydrochloride 120 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo administered once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

2000· article· en· W1973319846 on OpenAlexaff
Van Cauwenberge, Juniper

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoratadineFexofenadinePlaceboNasal congestionMedicineTerfenadineAdverse effectInternal medicineAnesthesiaQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialGastroenterologyPharmacologySurgeryNose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As there have been no previously published studies, this multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study compared the efficacy, safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients (SAR) of fexofenadine and loratadine (with placebo), when administered once daily. METHODS: Six hundred and eighty-eight SAR patients were randomized to receive fexofenadine HCl 120 mg, loratadine 10 mg or placebo, once daily for 2 weeks. The key parameters were the change from baseline in: mean 24-h reflective total symptom scores (TSS); sum of four individual symptom scores, excluding nasal congestion; instantaneous TSS; individual symptom scores including nasal congestion; and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Mean 24-h reflective and instantaneous TSS were significantly reduced by both fexofenadine HCl (both P </= 0.0001) and loratadine (P </= 0.001 and P </= 0.005, respectively) compared with placebo (n = 639). Among individual symptom scores, fexofenadine HCl was significantly better than loratadine in improving 24-h reflective itchy, watery, red eyes, as well as relieving nasal congestion (P </= 0.05 for both). Fexofenadine HCl was also significantly better than loratadine (P </= 0.03) and placebo (P </= 0.005) in improving QoL, and the differences were of a magnitude considered to be clinically relevant. Loratadine had no statistically significant effect on QoL compared with placebo. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Fexofenadine HCl and loratadine administered once daily are effective and well tolerated in SAR. In this study, fexofenadine HCl was significantly more effective than loratadine in relieving eye symptoms and nasal congestion. Furthermore, fexofenadine was significantly better than loratadine in improving QoL.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations171
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207