Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Erectile dysfunction management after failed phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor trial: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Moses, Rachel A; Anderson, Ross E; Kim, Jaewhan; Keihani, Sorena; Craig, James R; Myers, Jeremy B; Lenherr, Sara M; Brant, William O; Hotaling, James M.
Afiliación
  • Moses RA; Section of Urology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Anderson RE; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Kim J; Department of Health and Kinesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Keihani S; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Craig JR; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Myers JB; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Lenherr SM; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Brant WO; Veterans Affairs Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Hotaling JM; Division of Urology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Transl Androl Urol ; 8(4): 387-394, 2019 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31555563
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternate erectile dysfunction (ED) management options after failed first line phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors (PDE5-I). METHODS: An empiric, repetitive decision tree analysis model was constructed using literature review and expert clinical judgement. This assessed the expected costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of decision alternatives over a 10-year period. The model incorporated interventions including alternate PDE5-Is, intracorporal injections (ICI) with alprostadil or trimix (alprostadil, phentolamine, and papaverine), and inflatable penile prosthesis placement (IPP) and included respective risks of failure, subsequent interventions, and other complications (including priapism risk). Average model QALY estimates obtained from the literature were as follows: ED =0.56, successful alternate PDE5-I =0.70, successful ICI =0.70, and successful IPP =0.78. Cost data were calculated from a high-volume academic center and published manufacturer data. RESULTS: Over the 10-year period, IPP placement was the most cost-effective management option per preserved QALY (QALY =7.82, cost =$22,009/10 years) as compared to ICI alprostadil (QALY =8.51, cost =$62,890/10 years), ICI trimix (QALY =8.47, cost =$48,617/10 years) and alternate PDE5-I (QALY =7.73, $52,883/10 years). CONCLUSIONS: Using expert opinion and published utility, cost, and complication data in a decision analysis, we demonstrated that IPP placement is the most cost-effective ED intervention following failed initial PDE5-I over a 10-year period as compared to alternate treatment options. Such cost-effectiveness outcomes may be used in ED management counseling.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Transl Androl Urol Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: China

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Transl Androl Urol Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: China