Efficacy of Desloratadine in Persistent Allergic Rhinitis – A GA<sup>2</sup>LEN Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines proposed a classification for allergic rhinitis based on the duration of symptoms (intermittent or persistent) rather than on the time of allergen exposure (seasonal or perennial). There had been no placebo-controlled, randomized, clinical trial of desloratadine (DL) in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis to date. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of DL in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis based on the ARIA classification. METHODS: Patients 12 years of age and older with persistent allergic rhinitis were assessed over 85 days of treatment with DL 5 mg once daily (n = 360) or placebo (n = 356). The primary endpoint was the AM/PM reflective total 5-symptom score (T5SS) averaged over days 1-29. Secondary endpoints included AM/PM instantaneous T5SS and individual symptoms, therapeutic response, symptom severity assessed by a visual analogue scale and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean reduction in AM/PM reflective T5SS was significantly greater with DL than placebo over days 1-29 (-3.76 vs. -2.87, p < 0.001) and on each individual day (p < 0.05). The mean AM instantaneous T5SS was significantly reduced with DL compared with placebo as early as day 2 (-1.90 vs. -1.46; p < 0.001). The therapeutic response and improvement in quality of life were significantly greater with DL than placebo (p < 0.001 for each). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events was low and similar between DL (10.0%) and placebo (8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed DL to be effective and safe in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".