Double blind randomized crossover trial of PF-03654764+fexofenadine in the environmental exposure unit (EEU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral histamine receptor–1 antagonists, such as fexofenadine, offer suboptimal relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal congestion. Combinations with oral sympathomimetics, such as pseudoephedrine, relieve congestion but produce side effects. Histamine receptor-3 antagonists, such as PF-03654764, reduce congestion in animals and have been proposed as novel therapeutics. Previous nasal allergen challenge studies of similar H1+H3 receptor antagonist combinations demonstrated reduced congestion. Herein we employ the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) to conduct the first randomized controlled trial of PF-03654764 in allergic rhinitis. The primary objective was to compare the effect of PF-03654764+fexofenadine to pseudoephedrine+fexofenadine on the subjective measures of congestion and Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). The objective of post-hoc analyses were to compare all treatments to placebo and determine the onset of action (OA). 64 participants were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 4-period crossover study. Participants were exposed to ragweed pollen for 6 hours post-dose in the EEU. PF-03654764+fexofenadine was not superior to pseudoephedrine+fexofenadine. In post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764+fexofenadine significantly reduced TNSS, relative to placebo, and OA was 60 minutes. Pseudoephedrine+fexofenadine significantly reduced congestion and TNSS, relative to placebo, with OA of 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. All PF-03654764-treated groups experienced an elevated incidence of adverse events. PF-03654764+fexofenadine failed to provide superior relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal symptoms upon exposure to ragweed pollen compared to fexofenadine+pseudoephedrine. However, PF-03654764+fexofenadine improved TNSS compared to placebo. Side effects were not insignificant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".