Cost-effectiveness of olopatadine in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis treatment

References

• Allansmith MR. Immunology of the external ocular tissues. J. Am. Optom. Assoc 61, S16—S22 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Friedlander MET, Okumuto M, Kelley L. Diagnosis of allergic conjunctivitis. Arrh. Ophthalmol. 102, 1198–1199 (1984).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weeke ER. Epidemiology of hay fever and perennial allergic rhinitis. Monogr Allergy 21, 1–20 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith JL. Epidemiology and natural history of asthma, allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis. In: Allergy: principle and practic Vol 2. Middleton E Jr, Reed CE, FTh E et al (Eds). CV Mosby, St Louis, MO, USA, 891–929 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Croner S, Kjellman MH. Development of atopic disease in relation to family history and cord blood IgE levels. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 1, 14–20 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Naderio R Allergic conjunctivitis. N Engl. J. Med 325, 860–869 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Dodge R, Burrows B. The prevalence and incidence of asthma and asthma-like symptoms in a general population sample. Am. Rev Respiratory Disease 122, 567–575 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Weintraub D. levocabastine eye drops: a new approach for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Eur. Ophthalmol. 4(2), 91–101 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mosges R, Hassan H, Wenzel M. Optimal use of topical agents for allergic conjunctivitis, Biodrugs 8(4), 250–264 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hingorani M, Lightman S. Therapeutic options in ocular allergic diseases, Drugs 50(2), 206–221 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• •Medication strategies in SAC.
   Google Scholar
• Ciprandi G, Buscaglia S, Canonica W Management of allergic conjunctivitis. Clin. Immunother. 5(5), 374–391 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Ferrie PJ, Roberts JN. Validation of the standardized version of the Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. J. Allergy Can. Immunol 104, 364–369 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Graaf-in't Veld T, Koenders S, Garrelds IM, Gerth van Wijk R Relationship between nasal hyperreactivity, quality of life, and nasal symptoms in perennial rhinitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 98508–513 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Asthma and allergies: an optimistic future. DHHS, DIIf IS publication no.NIH80-388 Bethesda, MD, USA (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Dart JKG, Buckley RJ, Monnickendan M, Prasad J. Perennial allergic conjunctivitis: definition, clinical characteristics and prevalence. A comparison with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Trans. Ophthalmol Soc. L/1(105(5), 513–520 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• McMenamin P. Cost of hay fever in the United States in 1990. Ann. Allergy 73, 35–39 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Weston JH, Udell IJ, Abelson MB. H1 receptors in the human ocular surface. Invest. Ophthalmol Vis. Li. 20(Suppl.), 32 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Baird RS, Allansmith MR. Tear histamine levels in vernacular conjunctivitis and other ocular inflammations. Ophthalmology 87, 812–814 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Abelson MB, George MA. Allergic conjunctivitis: a survey of new antihistamines. j Ocul. Pharmacol Ther. 7, 313–324 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Miller ST, Gamache DA, Spellman JM, Xu S, Sharif NA. Comparative effects of topical ocular antiallergy drugs on human conjunctival mast cells. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunomodul 79, 541–545 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Miller ST et a/. Characterization of the ocular antiallergic and antihistaminic effects of olopatadine, a novel drug for treating ocular allergy disease. J. Pharmacol Exp. Ther 278, 1252–1261 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• •Olopatadine mechanisms of action.
   Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Stephens DJ, Miller ST et al. The in vitm and in vivo ocular pharmacology of olapatadine an effective anti-allergic/inflammatory agent. j Ocul Pharmacol The]: 12(4), 389–400 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Spitalny L. Combined analysis of two studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity. Am.j Ophthalmol. 125, 797–804 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Welch DL, Lanier RQ. An evaluation of onset and duration of action of Patanol compared to Claritin tablets in acute allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Act. Ophthalmol Land 78, 60–63 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Lanier RQ The added benefit of local Patanol therapy when combined with systemic Claritin for the inhibition of ocular itching in the conjunctival antigen challenge model. Act. Ophthalmol Land 77, 53–56 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Lanier BQ, Gross RD, Bethany Marks BB, Cockrum PC, Juniper EE Olopatadine ophthalmic solution adjunctive to loratadine tablets compared with active seasonal allergic conjunctivitis symptoms Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol 86, 641–648 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, Berdy SS, Brusatti RC. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model. Clin. Ther 22(7), 826–833 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Deschenes J, Discepola M, Abelson M. Comparative evaluation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) versus ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) in the provocative antigen challenge model. Act. Ophthalmol Land 77, 47–52 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Butrus S, Greiner JV, Discepola M, Pmegold I. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin. Ther 22(12), 1462–1472 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Artal MJ, Luna JD, Discepola M. A forced choice comfort study of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% versus ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. Act. Ophthalmol Land 78, 64–65 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Aguilar AJ. Comparative study of clinical efficacy and tolerance in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride versus 0.05% ketotifen fumarate. Act. Ophthalmol Land 78, 52–55 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Nuijten M, Berdeaux G. Costs and consequences of olopatadine 0.1% versus cromolyn sodium 2% in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, Proceedings of the ISPOR fourth annual European conference, Cannes, France, November 2001. Value in Health 4(6), 514 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Cost analysis of olopatadine versus cromolyn.
   Google Scholar
• Katelaris CH, Ciprandi G, Missotten L, Turner FD, Bertin D, Berdeaux G, and the Internaitonal Olopatadine study group. Efficacy and safey of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromoglycate sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic solution, submitted to Gun. Therapeutics (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Nuijten M, Berdeaux G. Costs and consequences of olopatadine 0.1% versuslevocabastin 0.05% in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, Proceedings of the ISPOR fourth annual European conference, Cannes, France, November 2001. Value in Health 4(6), 513 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Cost analysis of olopatadine versus levocabastin.
   Google Scholar
• Bielory L. Update on ocular allergy treatment. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 3(5) 541–553 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Ray NE Baraniuk JN, Thamer M et al Direct expenditures for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in 1996, including the contributions of related airway illnesses. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 103(3 Pt 1), 401–407 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Pinto CG, Lafuma A, Fagnani F, Nuijten MJ, Berdeaux G. Cost effectiveness ofemedastine versuslevocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries. PharmacoEconomics 19(3), 256–265 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Unique cost-effectiveness study in SAC.
   Google Scholar