Health Dictionary
Reliable, easy-to-read patient information on common medical conditions — written in plain language, free of jargon, and grounded in current evidence. Browse the most frequent diagnoses, understand what they mean for everyday life, and learn which steps and questions help you have a focused conversation with your doctor.
Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy
Introduction
Overview
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
Cost-effectiveness of therapy
Given its higher efficacy, it could save a significant proportion of relapse direct costs in a range of European settings[1].
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
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.