BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of erectile dysfunction after spinal cord injury. This can have a profound effect on quality of life. Treatment options for erectile dysfunction include sildenafil, intracavernous injections of papaverine/alprostadil (Caverject), alprostadil/papaverine/phentolamine ("Triple Mix"), transurethral suppository (MUSE), surgically implanted prosthetic device and vacuum erection devices. However, physical impairments and accessibility may preclude patient self-utilization of non-oral treatments. METHODS: The costs and utilities of oral and non-oral erectile dysfunction treatments in a spinal cord injury population were examined in a cost-utility analysis conducted from a government payer perspective. Subjects with spinal cord injury (n=59) reported health preferences using the standard gamble technique. RESULTS: There was a higher health preference for oral therapy. The cost-effectiveness results indicated that sildenafil was the dominant economic strategy when compared with surgically implanted prosthetic devices, MUSE(R) and Caverject. The incremental cost-utility ratios comparing sildenafil with triple mix and vacuum erection devices favoured sildenafil, with ratios less than CAN$20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, we conclude that sildenafil is a cost-effective treatment for erectile dysfunction in the spinal cord injury population.
BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of erectile dysfunction after spinal cord injury. This can have a profound effect on quality of life. Treatment options for erectile dysfunction include sildenafil, intracavernous injections of papaverine/alprostadil (Caverject), alprostadil/papaverine/phentolamine ("Triple Mix"), transurethral suppository (MUSE), surgically implanted prosthetic device and vacuum erection devices. However, physical impairments and accessibility may preclude patient self-utilization of non-oral treatments. METHODS: The costs and utilities of oral and non-oral erectile dysfunction treatments in a spinal cord injury population were examined in a cost-utility analysis conducted from a government payer perspective. Subjects with spinal cord injury (n=59) reported health preferences using the standard gamble technique. RESULTS: There was a higher health preference for oral therapy. The cost-effectiveness results indicated that sildenafil was the dominant economic strategy when compared with surgically implanted prosthetic devices, MUSE(R) and Caverject. The incremental cost-utility ratios comparing sildenafil with triple mix and vacuum erection devices favoured sildenafil, with ratios less than CAN$20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, we conclude that sildenafil is a cost-effective treatment for erectile dysfunction in the spinal cord injury population.
Authors: Rachel A Moses; Ross E Anderson; Jaewhan Kim; Sorena Keihani; James R Craig; Jeremy B Myers; Sara M Lenherr; William O Brant; James M Hotaling Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-08
Authors: Cristiano M Gomes; Eduardo P Miranda; José de Bessa; Carlos Henrique Suzuki Bellucci; Linamara Rizzo Battistella; Carmita Helena Najjar Abdo; Homero Bruschini; Miguel Srougi; John P Mulhall Journal: Sex Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.491