Key result
Policy informed by cost-effectiveness analyses must account for a wide range of utilities and uncertainties in their measurement, showing sildenafil is reasonably cost-effective.
The authors argue that quality of life can be meaningfully measured and compared in cost-effectiveness analyses for sildenafil.
Letters6 February 2001Cost-Effectiveness of SildenafilKenneth J. Smith, MD and Mark S. Roberts, MD, MPPKenneth J. Smith, MDMercy Hospital of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Smith)University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (Roberts)Search for more papers by this author and Mark S. Roberts, MD, MPPMercy Hospital of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Smith)University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (Roberts)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-3-200102060-00021 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:Dr. Beaird asserts that health can't be valued. However, values for differing qualities of life can be and are compared, although values can vary greatly between persons or groups. Measuring quality of life is difficult, but this difficulty does not imply that meaningful, individual differences in preferences for health states do not exist, nor does it “prove wrong the assumption of cost-effectiveness analysts.” Instead, it shows that policy informed by cost-effectiveness analyses must account for a wide range of utilities and the uncertainties in their measurement. As we show in our article, sildenafil is reasonably cost-effective compared to ...References1. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Cass AR, Cardenas MP, Warren MM. Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1997;6:72-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1996. Google Scholar3. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2000;283:2116-21. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Decision analysis. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:250-8. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Kenneth J. Smith, MD; Mark S. Roberts, MD, MPPAffiliations: Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Smith)University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (Roberts) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoThe Cost-Effectiveness of Sildenafil Kenneth J. Smith and Mark S. Roberts Cost-Effectiveness of Sildenafil Jack Beaird Cost-Effectiveness of Sildenafil Peter W. Groeneveld and Bradford W. Duncan Cost-Effectiveness of Sildenafil Richard L. Siegel and Dale B. Glasser Metrics 6 February 2001Volume 134, Issue 3 Page: 250-251 Keywords Clinical trials Erectile dysfunction Health care Morbidity Mortality Population statistics Quality of life ePublished: 6 February 2001 Issue Published: 6 February 2001 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2001 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2001) conducted a letter in Erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil was evaluated. Policy informed by cost-effectiveness analyses must account for a wide range of utilities and uncertainties in their measurement, showing sildenafil is reasonably cost-effective.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: