Literature DB >> 25311239

Risk-benefit assessment of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for treatment of erectile dysfunction: a multiple criteria decision analysis.

J C Hsu1, D H Tang, C Y Lu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common male sexual disorder worldwide. Three oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) - sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil - are available for treatment of ED. This study quantitatively evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and safety of these medications to assist treatment decision making.
METHODS: We used multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess the totality of risk-benefit of PDE5Is. We created two models: (i) the overall model included 'overall improvement in erections' and 'any adverse events' and (ii) the detailed model included 'erectile function domain', 'ability for sexual intercourse', 'duration of erection last', 'serious adverse events', 'headache', 'flushing' and 'dyspepsia'. We calculated a synthetic utility for each drug accounting for all of its benefits and risks.
RESULTS: Considering the overall risk-benefit, vardenafil had the highest synthetic utility among three medications; in the order of synthetic utilities: vardenafil (0.568), tadalafil (0.478) and sildenafil (0.437). However, when specific risk and benefit criteria were assessed, tadalafil had the highest synthetic utility (0.602) according to the conjoint evaluation (synthetic utility for vardenafil is 0.491 and sildenafil is 0.442, respectively). The sensitivity analysis based on the uncertainties of weight on risks of any adverse events (including serious adverse events and headache) suggested our results were robust.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a useful approach that comprehensively and systematically assesses and compares the risk-benefit of several treatment alternatives. Our study not only rank treatment alternatives by synthetic utilities based on the risk-benefit balance but also compare specific risk and benefit criteria between these medicines. Our results provide valuable evidence that can guide clinicians and patients in making treatment decisions.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25311239     DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12548

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pract        ISSN: 1368-5031            Impact factor:   2.503


  5 in total

1.  Net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulants: a multiple criteria decision analysis.

Authors:  Jason C Hsu; Cheng-Yang Hsieh; Yea-Huei Kao Yang; Christine Y Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure.

Authors:  Ender Sir; Gül Didem Batur Sir
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Pain Treatment Evaluation in COVID-19 Patients with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Multicriteria Decision-Making.

Authors:  G Didem Batur Sir; Ender Sir
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 4.  Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature.

Authors:  Marie-Laure Kürzinger; Ludivine Douarin; Ievgeniia Uzun; Chantal El-Haddad; William Hurst; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Stéphanie Tcherny-Lessenot
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2020-12-08

Review 5.  Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.

Authors:  Katharina Schmidt; Ines Aumann; Ines Hollander; Kathrin Damm; J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 2.796

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.