Efficacy of desloratadine in intermittent allergic rhinitis: a GA<sup>2</sup>LEN study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines proposed a classification for allergic rhinitis based on the duration of symptoms (intermittent, persistent) rather than on the time of allergen exposure (seasonal, perennial). There is no placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial on intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR) to date. Desloratadine (DL) is recommended for the first-line treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of DL in subjects with IAR based on the ARIA classification. METHODS: Patients over 12 years of age with IAR were assessed over 15 days of treatment with DL 5 mg once daily (n = 276) or placebo (n = 271). The primary endpoint was the AM/PM reflective total 5 symptom score (T5SS). Secondary endpoints included AM/PM instantaneous T5SS and individual symptoms, therapeutic response, symptom severity by visual analogue scale, and quality-of-life. RESULTS: The mean reduction of AM/PM reflective T5SS was significantly greater with DL than with placebo over 15 days (-3.01 vs-2.13, P < 0.001) and on each individual day (P < 0.05). Mean AM instantaneous T5SS was reduced significantly with DL compared to placebo as early as day 2 (-1.84 vs-0.89; P < 0.001). The therapeutic response and improvement in quality-of-life were significantly greater with DL than with placebo (P < 0.001 for each). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events was low and similar between DL (7.2%) and placebo (7.0%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large trial to show that treatment can be effective in IAR. Desloratadine was effective and safe.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".