MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405221894 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae167.015

(017) COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODELING OF IMPLANTABLE PROSTHESIS AS A FIRST-LINE OPTION FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION MANAGEMENT

2024· article· en· W4405221894 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Établissements canadiensColumbia College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésErectile dysfunctionPenile prosthesisMedicineFirst lineProsthesisSurgeryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) rates in the United States have increased over the past several decades due to multiple factors, including an aging population and rising rates of diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. Implantable penile prostheses (IPP) are highly effective for refractory ED, however, insurance coverage is variable and often requires demonstration of both failed oral and injectable therapy. Delayed IPP placement in high-risk patients is likely to reduce quality of life metrics as well as increase costs associated with failed pharmacological trials. Objective We aimed to evaluate the quality associated life years (QALY) and the cost per QALY of direct IPP placement for PDE5 inhibitor-resistant ED. Methods A literature review was conducted to gather probability functions of success and complications associated with PDE5 inhibitors, intracavernosal injection (ICI), and IPP, as well as costs and QALYs associated with each therapy. TreeAge was used to generate a Markov model, which evaluated two separate strategies: 1) a standard pathway, in which all patients would be trialed on PDE5 inhibitors and ICI for 1 to 6 months each, and 2) a direct-to-IPP pathway, in which patients would immediately be offered an IPP. Each model was run for 10 000 iterations for 10 years per iteration. The standard pathway was run for 9 scenarios, in which each population would have a varying response rate to PDE5 inhibitors and ICI (10% to 90% response). Cumulative QALY, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each strategy were calculated. Results The standard pathway model considered 10% to 90% response rates to traditional medical management, resulting in average 10-year costs ranging between $22 914 and $44 187. In comparison, the direct-to-IPP group had average 10-year costs of $17 750 (Fig. 1). The ICERs for the standard pathway compared to the direct-to-IPP approach ranged linearly from -$34 221 to -$45 595 (from 10% to 90% medical management success). Average total QALY for a 10-year period ranged from 6.99 (90% medical management success) to 7.61 (direct-to-IPP). Conclusions In this analysis, we sought to quantify the cost-effectiveness of the prevailing management strategy for erectile dysfunction compared to an IPP-first strategy. We found that the ICER of medical management compared to a direct-to-IPP strategy ranged from -$34 K to -$46 K, indicating that medical management was both more costly and less effective in providing patients with ED quality of life. While it is unreasonable to suggest that IPP should be a first-line treatment for all patients with erectile dysfunction, these data are informative for counseling in populations particularly susceptible to high rates of erectile dysfunction, such as those with diabetic neuropathy, a history of radical prostatectomy, or peripheral vascular disease. In these populations, counseling directly on penile prosthesis before PDE5 inhibitors or ICI trials could be both cost-effective and fit within the current American Urological Association guideline statements. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Gregory Joice MD is a consultant for Boston Scientific.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,814
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,403

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle