Subject(s)
Community Mental Health Services/economics , Developmental Disabilities/economics , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Institutionalization/economics , Intellectual Disability/economics , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Child , Community Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Home Care Services/economics , Humans , Medicaid/economics , United StatesSubject(s)
Community Mental Health Services/trends , Home Care Services/trends , Intellectual Disability/rehabilitation , Long-Term Care/trends , Community Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Deinstitutionalization/legislation & jurisprudence , Deinstitutionalization/trends , Financial Support , Forecasting , Health Services Needs and Demand/legislation & jurisprudence , Home Care Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Long-Term Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality of Life/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesABSTRACT
This 28-d, open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical study was designed to evaluate perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% in patients with active ocular allergic signs and symptoms. The study enrolled 330 patients, 5 to 94 y of age, who had previously used olopatadine 0.1% for active allergic conjunctivitis. Most patients were white (n=230; 70.1%) and female (n=239; 72.9%). Of all enrolled patients, 328 were evaluable for analysis. Throughout the study, patients instilled 1 drop of olopatadine 0.2% into each eye once daily; adverse events were documented and ocular evaluations were conducted to ensure patient safety. Direct evaluations of efficacy were not performed. On days 1 and 7, patients completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, recorded their perceptions of olopatadine 0.1% (day 1) or 0.2% (day 7), and had their ocular allergies assessed globally. On each of the first 6 d of treatment, patients also completed a telephone-based perception questionnaire. On day 28, patients returned to the study center, reported their treatment perceptions, had their ocular allergies assessed, and exited the trial. Overall, patients had a positive perception of olopatadine 0.2%. Patients were more satisfied with olopatadine 0.2% than they remembered being with olopatadine 0.1% (289 vs 257 patients; 87.6% vs 77.8%; P<.05). The majority of the 48 patients who wore contact lenses (n=42; 88%) believed that they could wear their contacts as desired. Significant improvement was noted in all categories of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P<.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported. Patients perceived olopatadine 0.2% to be effective and well tolerated.