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