Antihistamines-refractory chronic pruritus in psoriatic patients undergoing biologics: aprepitant vs antihistamine double dosage, a real-world data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis-related pruritus (PRP) in patients under systemic treatment is challenging. The risk to switch anti-psoriatic drugs and to lose response to previous therapy is high, thus dermatologists prefer to add an anti-pruritic agent. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of anti-histamines and aprepitant in treating PPR of psoriatic patients undergoing systemic anti-psoriatic therapies. METHODS: A pilot observational open-label study was performed on responsive psoriatic patients with PPR under treatment. Initial therapy included oral rupatadine (10 mg/day for 30 days). In case of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was above 14, patients were switched to aprepitant (80 mg/day for 7 days), otherwise, rupatadine dosage was increased (20 mg/day for 7 days). Clinical evaluation was performed at the baseline (T0) and after 7 days (T7). RESULTS: < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant may be a valid alternative in PPR patients with ESS >14 under antihistamines.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".