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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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