English, Article edition: Cost Effectiveness of Emedastine versus Levocabastine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis in 7 European Countries Carlos Gouveia Pinto; Antoine Lafuma; Francis Fagnani; ...

User activity

Share to:
 
Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/118642
Physical Description
  • article
Language
  • English

Edition details

Title
  • Cost Effectiveness of Emedastine versus Levocabastine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis in 7 European Countries
Author
  • Carlos Gouveia Pinto
  • Antoine Lafuma
  • Francis Fagnani
  • Mark J.C. Nuijten
  • Gilles Berdeaux
Physical Description
  • article
Notes
  • Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of emedastine, a new antihistamine, versus levocabastine in the treatment of acute allergic conjunctivitis (AAC) in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. Design and setting: Randomised double-blind multicountry clinical trial followed by economic modelling from the treatment provider perspective. Patients: A total of 221 patients (109 emedastine, 112 levocabastine) with AAC were included. Methods: The clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of emedastine 0.05% and levocabastine 0.05%, both twice daily, for 42 days, using ocular redness, itching, days without symptoms and clinical failure as outcome measures. The cost of first-line treatment failure, including visits, drugs and laboratory examinations, was established in each country from a panel of ophthalmologists and general practitioners. Full sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: From day 7 to 42, patients treated with emedastine had less itching (p < 0.001) and less redness (p < 0.001). The failure rate was 10% less (p < 0.02) with emedastine and patients treated with emedastine had an incremental 8.5 days (p < 0.01) without symptoms. Emedastine and levocabastine were equally well tolerated. In all European countries, the cost of failure was lower with emedastine. Emedastine was found to be economically dominant relative to levocabastine, i.e. more effective and less expensive, in Belgium, Germany, Portugal and Sweden; in France, The Netherlands and Norway the incremental cost was low (less than 1 euro per additional symptom-free day). Conclusion: Through a model based on a randomised clinical trial and cost estimates of treatment failure derived from practitioner interviews, emedastine is a cost-effective treatment of AAC.
  • Allergic conjunctivitis, Antihistamines, Cost analysis, Emedastine, Levocabastine, Pharmacoeconomics, Resource use
  • RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:19:y:2001:i:3:p:255-265
Language
  • English
Contributed by
OAIster

Get this edition

  • Set up My libraries

    How do I set up "My libraries"?

    In order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen.

  • All (1)
  • Unknown (1)
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.

User activity


e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this edition

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this version

Add a comment