Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Allergic conjunctivitis Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Allergic Conjunctivitis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy On the Web

recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

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

Directions to Hospitals Treating Allergic conjunctivitis

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Template:WH Template:WS