PEE2: COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF OLOPATADINE 0.1% VERSUS LEVOCABASTINE 0.05% IN THE TREATMENT OF SEASONAL ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS

@article{Lafuma2001PEE2CA,
  title={PEE2: COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF OLOPATADINE 0.1\% VERSUS LEVOCABASTINE 0.05\% IN THE TREATMENT OF SEASONAL ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS},
  author={Antoine Lafuma and Francis L Fagnani and Mark Nuijten and Gilles H Berdeaux},
  journal={Value in Health},
  year={2001},
  volume={4},
  pages={513}
}
3 Citations
Health economic impact of olopatadine compared to branded and generic sodium cromoglycate in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in the UK
TLDR
Use of olopatadine instead of branded or generic cromoglycate affords an economic benefit to the NHS, since it is expected to lead to fewer GP visits, thereby releasing healthcare resources for alternative use.
Cost-effectiveness of olopatadine in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis treatment
TLDR
The rare cost-effectiveness studies performed on olopatadine in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis showed that given its higher efficacy, it could save around €10 of relapse direct costs in a range of European settings.
Once-daily olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis
  • W. Berger
  • Medicine
    Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research
  • 2007
TLDR
This review article will summarize literature reports on the 0.2% formulation of olopatadine from the standpoint of efficacy, safety, total treatment costs, therapeutic outcomes, patient compliance and effect on quality of life.