Skip to main content

Table 1 Microsimulation model clinical input parameters affecting IPSS progression

From: Fexapotide triflutate vs oral pharmacotherapy as initial therapy for moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis

IPSS

Mean (SD) (Standard deviation)

Distribution

Source

Initial IPSS

23.5 (4.96)

Normal

[5]

IPSS progression per 3-month cycle

FT

− 3.00 (3.32)

Normal

[5]

Combination therapy, 1st cycle

− 4.80 (0)

-

[6]

Combination therapy

− 0.20 (0.21)

Normal

[6]

5-ARI, 1st cycle

− 2.80 (0)

-

[6]

5-ARI

− 0.31 (0.28)

Normal

[6]

α-blockers, 1st cycle

− 4.50 (0)

-

[6]

α-blockers

0.05 (0.19)

Normal

[6]

Natural, off treatment

0.045 (0.305)

Normal

[11]

Surgery effect on IPSS

   

TURP, percent change in IPSS

0.27 (0.22)

Beta

[12]

PVP, IPSS value different from TURP

0.46 (2)

Normal

[12]

UroLift, percent change in IPSS

0.50 (0.34)

Beta

[13]

HoLEP, IPSS value different from TURP

− 0.78 (0.31)

Normal

[14]

No. of cycles

Lower/upper bound

Distribution

Source

No. of cycles to reach maximum effect

FT

2/3

Uniform

[5]

Combination therapy

6/10

Uniform

[6]

5-ARI

6/10

Uniform

[6]

α-blockers

15/17

Uniform

[6]

No. of cycles effect lasts

   

FT

16/31

Triangle

[5] and clinical expert opinion

TURP

16/31

Triangle

[10, 12]

PVP

16/31

Triangle

[10, 12]

UroLift

16/31

Triangle

[13]

HoLEP

16/31

Triangle

[14]

  1. IPSS International prostate symptom score, FT Fexapotide triflutate, 5-ARI 5-α-Reductase inhibitors, TURP Transurethral resection of the prostate, PVP Photoselective vaporization of the prostate, HoLEP Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate