IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i1d10.1007_s10198-019-01112-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cost-utility analysis of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of erectile dysfunction

Author

Listed:
  • Svenn Alexander Hansen

    (University of Oslo)

  • Eline Aas

    (University of Oslo)

  • Oddvar Solli

    (Pfizer AS)

Abstract

Introduction Patent expiration for erectile dysfunction (ED) treatments like sildenafil means loss of exclusivity (LOE), and other manufacturers may bring generics to the market. This has resulted in price reductions, which influences the cost-effectiveness. In Norway, this development has led to a discussion on whether reimbursement should be granted. Cost-effectiveness analysis in this treatment area is scarce and more research is demanded. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of three separate phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors in ED therapy in a Norwegian setting. Methods The cost-effectiveness was analyzed using two patient populations: (1) 55-year-old patients diagnosed with ED and with no specific underlying illness, and (2) 55-year-old patients diagnosed with ED and with diabetes as an underlying illness. Using a state-transition Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, a “no-treatment” option was compared with three treatment strategies: (1) treatment using 50/100 mg sildenafil; (2) treatment using 10/20 mg tadalafil; (3) treatment using 10 mg vardenafil. A societal perspective was applied. Results All PDE5 inhibitor treatment strategies were cost-effective compared to a “no-treatment” option, with cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year of less than €15,000. With a willingness-to-pay threshold greater than €13,500, sildenafil was estimated as the dominant treatment strategy. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated robust results. However, as the expected value of information was considerable, the cost-effectiveness of conducting further research to reduce uncertainty should be considered. Treating a diabetic population was less cost-effective for all PDE5 inhibitors and was associated with greater uncertainty with regard to choosing the optimal strategy. Conclusions Sildenafil treatment of erectile dysfunction was a cost-effective alternative compared to tadalafil and vardenafil, as well as compared to a “no-treatment” option. Treating a diabetic population is less cost-effective for all PDE5 inhibitors and was associated with greater uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Svenn Alexander Hansen & Eline Aas & Oddvar Solli, 2020. "A cost-utility analysis of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of erectile dysfunction," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(1), pages 73-84, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01112-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01112-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01112-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-019-01112-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. J. Naimark & Michelle Bott & Murray Krahn, 2008. "The Half-Cycle Correction Explained: Two Alternative Pedagogical Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 706-712, September.
    2. David M. Eddy & William Hollingworth & J. Jaime Caro & Joel Tsevat & Kathryn M. McDonald & John B. Wong, 2012. "Model Transparency and Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 733-743, September.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    2. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    3. John Graves & Shawn Garbett & Zilu Zhou & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Josh Peterson, 2021. "Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 453-464, May.
    4. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    5. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    6. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    7. Eric Kaun Santos Silva & June Alisson Westarb Cruz & Maria Alexandra Viegas Cortez Cunha & Thyago Proença Moraes & Sandro Marques & Eduardo Damião Silva, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness in health: consolidated research and contemporary challenges," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    9. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Zhi Qu & Shanshan Zhang & Christian Krauth & Xuenan Liu, 2019. "A systematic review of decision analytic modeling techniques for the economic evaluation of dental caries interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Hill, Sarah R. & Vale, Luke & Hunter, David & Henderson, Emily & Oluboyede, Yemi, 2017. "Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1249-1262.
    12. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    13. Joseph Kwon & Ruairidh Milne & Clare Rayner & Román Rocha Lawrence & Jordan Mullard & Ghazala Mir & Brendan Delaney & Manoj Sivan & Stavros Petrou, 2024. "Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1095-1115, September.
    14. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Ezeofor Victory & Edwards T. Rhiannon & Burnside Girvan & Adair Pauline & Pine M. Cynthia, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Dental RECUR Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluating a Goal-oriented Talking Intervention to Prevent Reoccurrence of Dental Caries in Children," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 431-445, May.
    16. Astrid Van Muylder & Thomas D’Hooghe & Jeroen Luyten, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 973-991, October.
    17. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    18. Rashidah T Uthman & Andrew J Sutton & Louise J Jackson & Olalekan A Uthman, 2018. "Does directly administered antiretroviral therapy represent good value for money in sub-Saharan Africa? A cost-utility and value of information analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Devin Incerti & Jeffrey R. Curtis & Jason Shafrin & Darius N. Lakdawalla & Jeroen P. Jansen, 2019. "A Flexible Open-Source Decision Model for Value Assessment of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 829-843, June.
    20. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Erectile dysfunction; Diabetes; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors; CEAC; EVPI;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01112-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.