Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy
Allergic conjunctivitis Microchapters |
Diagnosis |
---|
Treatment |
Case Studies |
Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy On the Web |
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
FDA on Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
CDC on Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy in the news |
Blogs on Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
Risk calculators and risk factors for Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
Overview
Allergic conjunctivitis is a common, chronic condition associated with significant ongoing out-of-pocket expenses and health care costs. Medications that reduce this economic demand by patients could be of potential importance in reducing the overall burden of the illness.
Cost-effectiveness of therapy
Olopatadine
Given its higher efficacy, it could save a significant proportion of relapse direct costs in a range of European settings[1].
Emedastine
It was found to be economically dominant i.e. more effective and less expensive in terms of first-line treatment failure, including visits, drugs and laboratory examinations[2].
References
- ↑ Lafuma A, Smith AF (2002). "Cost-effectiveness of olopatadine in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis treatment". Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2 (6): 549–54. doi:10.1586/14737167.2.6.549. PMID 19807479.
- ↑ Pinto CG, Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Nuijten MJ, Berdeaux G (2001). "Cost effectiveness of emedastine versus levocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries". Pharmacoeconomics. 19 (3): 255–65. doi:10.2165/00019053-200119030-00004. PMID 11303414.