A cost-utility analysis of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of erectile dysfunction
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsErectile dysfunction Diabetes Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-utility analysis Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors CEAC EVPI
JEL ClassificationI1 D61 C1
- 3.Vaaler, S. et al.: Erectile dysfunction among Norwegian men over 40 years of age. Tidsskr. Nor. Legeforen 121, 28–32. https://www.tidsskriftet.no/2001/01/klinikk-og-forskning/erektil-dysfunksjon-hos-norske-menn-over-40-ar (2001). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 4.Tsertsvadze, A.: University of Ottawa evidence-based practice C, United States agency for healthcare R, quality. Diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction: US dept of health and human services agency for healthcare research and quality-AHRQ Publication (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.The European Medicines Agency. ANNEX 1—summary of product characteristics—CIALIS. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/cialis-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2017). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 11.The European Medicines Agency. ANNEX 1—Summary of product characteristics—VARDENAFIL. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/levitra-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2017). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 12.The European Medicines Agency. ANNEX 1.Summary of product characteristics—VIAGRA. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/viagra-epar-product-information_en.pdf (2017). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 13.Hearing – forslag til endringer i legemiddelforskriften § 14-14: Hearing before the ministry of health and care services – Norway: Document number (L)(982698) Sess. (17.02.2016)Google Scholar
- 17.Dansinger, M. Erectile dysfunction and diabetes. https://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/guide/ed-diabetes (2017). Accessed 6 May 2017
- 18.Briggs, A., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.J.: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Handbooks in health economic evaluation series. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006). (Reprint 2011) Google Scholar
- 19.Drummond, M.F., et al.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
- 22.Statens legemiddelverk, Helsedirektoratet, (eds.): Retningslinjer for legemiddeløkonomiske analyser. Statens legemiddelverk, Oslo (2012)Google Scholar
- 23.Waaler Bjornelv, G.M., et al.: Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial. Osteoporos. Int. 23(6), 1711–1719 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Statens legemiddelverk. Trinnpris. https://legemiddelverket.no/refusjon-og-pris/pris-pa-legemidler/trinnpris (2016). Accessed 4 Mar 2017
- 27.Eardley, I., et al.: Factors associated with preference for sildenafil citrate and tadalafil for treating erectile dysfunction in men naïve to phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy: post hoc analysis of data from a multicentre, randomized, open-label, crossover study. BJU International 100(1), 122–129 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Xu, R., et al.: EuroQol (EQ-5D) health utility scores for patients with migraine. An international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation—official journal of the international society of quality of life research 20(4), 601–608 (2011)Google Scholar
- 32.Groeneveld, P.W., et al.: Quality of life measurement clarifies the cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication in peptic ulcer disease and uninvestigated dyspepsia 1 1. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 96(2), 338–347 (2001)Google Scholar
- 36.Statens legemiddelverk. Legemiddelsøk. https://www.legemiddelsok.no/ (2017). Accessed 1 June 2017
- 37.Statens Legemiddelverk. Single Technology Assessment - Dabigatran (Pradaxa) til forebygging av slag og systemisk emboli. legemiddelverket.no: 2012: Report Number 22-05-2012Google Scholar
- 38.The Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Norwegian prescription database. http://www.norpd.no/
- 39.The Norwegian Medicines Agency. Apotekavanse. https://legemiddelverket.no/refusjon-og-pris/pris-pa-legemidler/apotekavanse (2017). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 42.Drummond, M.F., et al.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
- 43.Statistics Norway. Table 10325—deaths by sex and one year age groups. https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/10325/ (2016). Accessed 4 Aug 2017
- 44.Den Norske legeforening. Normaltariff for fastleger og legevakt. https://normaltariffen.legeforeningen.no/pdf/Fastlegetariff_2016.pdf (2016). Accessed 4 Aug 2017