Allergic conjunctivitis cost-effectiveness of therapy: Difference between revisions
m Bot: Removing from Primary care |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
{{Allergic conjunctivitis}} | {{Allergic conjunctivitis}} | ||
==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<ref name="pmid19807479">{{cite journal| author=Lafuma A, Smith AF| title=Cost-effectiveness of olopatadine in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis treatment. | journal=Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res | year= 2002 | volume= 2 | issue= 6 | pages= 549-54 | pmid=19807479 | doi=10.1586/14737167.2.6.549 | pmc= | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=19807479 }} </ref>. | |||
===[[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<ref name="pmid11303414">{{cite journal| author=Pinto CG, Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Nuijten MJ, Berdeaux G| title=Cost effectiveness of emedastine versus levocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries. | journal=Pharmacoeconomics | year= 2001 | volume= 19 | issue= 3 | pages= 255-65 | pmid=11303414 | doi=10.2165/00019053-200119030-00004 | pmc= | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=11303414 }} </ref>. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:53, 30 August 2022
|
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.