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

Table 1 Microsimulation model clinical input parameters affecting IPSS progression

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]

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

ISSN: 1471-2490