Higher efficacy of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg versus placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of rupatadine in terms of responders has not been previously explored in perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: This pooled analysis included data from 6 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in PAR patients treated with rupatadine 10 mg or 20 mg, or placebo. Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with diagnosis of PAR and a Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS) ≥ 5. We evaluated the T4NSS and Total 5 Symptom Score (T5SS) for 28 days of treatment, the responder proportion (50% and 75% response), and the time to response. RESULTS: Efficacy data from 1486 patients were analysed: 585 received placebo, 682 rupatadine 10 mg, and 219 rupatadine 20 mg. Compared with placebo, rupatadine promoted greater symptom improvements and higher responder proportions (50% and 75% response) for T4NSS and T5SS over 28 days. Symptom improvements and responder proportions were higher in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group. The time to response was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group for T4NSS (16 and 9 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively) and for T5SS (13 and 8 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rupatadine was efficacious in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms, showing high responder proportions. The faster and stronger effect of rupatadine 20 mg may suggest its use in patients with severe PAR or not responding to the standard dose.
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 | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".