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
In cost analysis from Turkish data, including direct costs of drugs and physician meetings, lowest treatment cost was established by fluorometholon (US$ 38.94) and followed by ketotifen (US$ 43.41),epinastine (US$ 43.60), olopatadine (US$ 44.05) and emedastine (US$ 44.92), respectively.Compared for incremental cost-effectiveness, emedastine was dominated by ketotifen and itself dominated olopatadine while ketotifen could be compared with fluorometholon and olopatadine.
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.