Cost effectiveness analysis of five different treatment alternatives in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis is an illness which decreases quality of life and is common in society. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation about seasonal alergic conjunctivitis has not been measured in Turkey. The aim of our study is to understand the cost-effective medicines which are used for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis with Turkish data. In our study, effectiveness data from randomized controlled trials done with fluorometholon, epinastin, olopatadin, emedastin and ketotifen were used. Different effectiveness data reported in the trials were reduced to one single dataset. For cost data, direct costs like drug cost and physician meetings were counted in the calculation. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis (ICER) was performed with effectiveness and cost data which were obtained. In cost analysis 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. When the drugs compared for incremental cost-effectiveness, emedastine was dominated by ketotifen and emedastine dominated by olopatadine; ketofien could be compared with fluorometholon and olopatadine. Turkish data obtained and analyzed were similar with the literature. Reimburstment foundations can feature preparations which contain olopatadin and epinastin in treatment protocols, in the light of obtained data.