MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383683667 · doi:10.58931/cpct.2023.1s0511

Assessment of measurement-based care to improve outcomes in patients with allergic rhinitis in an open-label, prospective study

2023· article· en· W4383683667 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne K. Ellis, Paul K. Keith, Jean-Nicolas Boursiquot, Bruno Francoeur, Amin Kanani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Primary Care Today · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleOpen labelAdverse effectProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Despite available treatments for allergic rhinitis (AR), patients are often dissatisfied with their treatment and experience uncontrolled symptoms. Measurement-based care is the systematic use of standardized measurements used during office visits to inform treatment decisions. The Improving Symptom Control of Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR) study determined if the assessment and management of AR through measurement-based care could improve patient outcomes. Methods ICAR was a real-world, open-label, prospective, multicenter study conducted in Canada between September 2021 and December 2021. Enrolled adult patients (n=503) with AR were categorized as treatment-naïve, uncontrolled despite AR treatment, or requiring a treatment switch due to adverse effects. AR symptoms and symptom control were assessed by the patient using the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT) and, by both the patient and the clinician, on a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and after 4 weeks of 10 mg daily oral rupatadine. Results The majority of patients were uncontrolled (36%) or partially controlled (51%) at baseline, while 20% were treatment-naïve, 32% were uncontrolled despite treatment, and 30% needed treatment switch.At baseline, 66% of patients were taking non-sedating antihistamines, and 78% indicated they were dissatisfied with their treatment. The overall RCAT score improved by 66%, from an average standard deviation (SD) of 16 (5.2) at baseline to 24 (3.8) at follow-up (P<0.0001). Scores for all individual RCAT items significantly improved (P<0.0001), with a 65% improvement in congestion frequency, a 61% improvement in sneezing frequency, and a 68% improvement in symptom control. Overall RCAT scores significantly improved from baseline by 67% in treatment-naïve patients; 64% in patients uncontrolled despite treatment; 51% in patients needing treatment switch; 55% in patients with asthma; 62% in patients with urticaria; 54% in patients with eczema/atopic dermatitis; 40% in patients with nasal polyps; and 52% in patients with no comorbidities (P<0.0001). The patient VAS score improved from a mean SD of 6.5 (2.4) units at baseline to 2.6 (2.2) at follow-up; the clinician VAS score improved from 6.6 (2.2) units to 2.0 (2.2). Conclusion The ICAR study demonstrated that rupatadine, an antihistamine that also has anti-platelet-activating factor effects, significantly improves AR symptom control when used daily and monitored objectively by measurement-based care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Primary Care TodaySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207