This review of the current epidemiological literature on erectile dysfunction (ED) suggests that approximately 5-20% of men have moderate-to-severe ED. Different definitions of ED, age distributions and concomitant medical conditions, as well as methodological differences, may explain much of the variance in reported prevalence rates. Various chronic disorders are associated with elevated rates of ED including depression, diabetes, and cardiovascular and neurological diseases. Such disorders are more common in the elderly, which may partially explain the elevated prevalence of ED in men over 60 y of age. Currently, up to 70% of men with ED are not treated. However, so many men experience considerable distress from their condition, that the increasing awareness of ED as well as the availability of noninvasive treatments may result in a greater proportion of patients seeking treatment, and eventually regaining satisfaction with their sex life.

With the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV-infected patients are living longer and are concerned not only with a treatment's ability to extend their life but also with the quality of the life they are able to lead. Regulatory authorities are also paying closer attention to the use of health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) measures in clinical trials and to the subsequent claims that are made based on the results. This paper reviews existing HR-QOL measures reported in the HIV/AIDS literature since 1990 and identifies those most worthy of consideration for use in future clinical trials.A comprehensive review following predefined selection criteria was conducted. Generic and HIV-targeted measures were assessed for content and practicality for the clinical trial setting. The generic measures were additionally reviewed for the ability to produce preference-based index scores and for the existence of normative general population data. Three generic and six HIV-targeted measures met these selection criteria and were then assessed more fully in terms of their development (HIV-targeted measures), psychometric properties and appropriateness for use in clinical trials.It was determined that each of the selected generic measures (i.e. Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument [SF-36], EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index [HUI]) could serve as a useful adjunct to an HIV-targeted measure in a trial. The Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) and MOS-HIV health survey were deemed the two most appropriate HIV-targeted measures. Each of the measures can be self-administered in < or = 10 minutes and there was ample evidence of their excellent psychometric properties. However, they would not be optimal in all HIV-infected subgroups (e.g. treatment naive vs advanced; adolescents vs older adults) targeted for clinical trial interventions. Although there is no one best HR-QOL measure for use in HIV/AIDS clinical trials, based on our review criteria we identified three generic and two HIV-targeted candidate measures. However, these measures have their limitations and it is clear that greater consensus needs to develop regarding more effective and efficient approaches to HR-QOL measurement in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Along with the increasingly complex HR-QOL measurement task resulting from changes in the HIV-infected population and shifts in the HR-QOL burden associated with HIV infection and its treatment over the past 25 years, it is increasingly important that HR-QOL outcomes become viable endpoints in HIV/AIDS clinical trials.

Financial restrictions and a stronger focus on outcomes assessment require rational decisions regarding the allocation of resources in the health-care system. Such decisions are based on medical, ethical, and economic considerations. Management of the health-care system requires both a medical and an economic orientation at the overall societal level and regarding the selection of appropriate health-care services in hospitals and ambulatory practices. The practical application of health economic methods can be an important tool assuring more transparency and in validating necessary decisions.The methods made available by health economic research represent a rational approach for a structured resource allocation in the health-care system and facilitate the process of a relative assessment of various treatment methods with each other. Although the focus of such studies frequently rests on pharmaceuticals, health economic evaluation methods are suitable for all medical services, procedures, and health-care programs. But, what is assessed from which perspective,

No abstract

Pragmatic trials can improve our understanding of how treatments will perform in routine practice. In a series of eight papers, the GetReal Consortium has evaluated the challenges in designing and conducting pragmatic trials and their specific methodological, operational, regulatory, and ethical implications. The present final paper of the series discusses the operational and methodological challenges of data collection in pragmatic trials. A more pragmatic data collection needs to balance the delivery of highly accurate and complete data with minimizing the level of interference that data entry and verification induce with clinical practice. Furthermore, it should allow for the involvement of a representative sample of practices, physicians, and patients who prescribe/receive treatment in routine care. This paper discusses challenges that are related to the different methods of data collection and presents potential solutions where possible. No one-size-fits-all recommendation can be given for the collection of data in pragmatic trials, although in general the application of existing routinely used data-collection systems and processes seems to best suit the pragmatic approach. However, data access and privacy, the time points of data collection, the level of detail in the data, and the lack of a clear understanding of the data-collection process were identified as main challenges for the usage of routinely collected data in pragmatic trials. A first step should be to determine to what extent existing health care databases provide the necessary study data and can accommodate data collection and management. When more elaborate or detailed data collection or more structured follow-up is required, data collection in a pragmatic trial will have to be tailor-made, often using a hybrid approach using a dedicated electronic case report form (eCRF). In this case, the eCRF should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the burden for practitioners and minimize influence on routine clinical practice.