Cost analysis of fixed-dose combination of dutasteride and tamsulosin compared with concomitant dutasteride and tamsulosin monotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We estimate the lifetime cost of treatment for moderate/severe symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a cohort of Canadian men aged 50 to 59, and we evaluate the costs of 2 daily bioequivalent treatment options: fixed-dose combination (FDC) of dutasteride (0.5 mg) and tamsulosin (0.4 mg), or concomitant administration of dutasteride (0.5 mg) and tamsulosin (0.4 mg) monotherapies. METHODS: The expected lifetime costs were estimated by modelling the incidence of acute urinary retention (AUR), BPH-related surgery and clinical progression over a patient's lifetime (up to 25 years). A model was developed to simulate clinical events over time, based on a discrete Markov process with 6 mutually exclusive health states and annual cycle length. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime budget cost for the cohort of 374 110 men aged 50 to 59 in Canada is between $6.35 billion and $7.60 billion, equivalent to between $16 979 and $20 315 per patient with moderate/severe symptoms associated with BPH. Costs are lower for FDC treatment, with the net difference in lifetime budget impact between the 2 treatment regimens at $1.25 billion. In this analysis, the true costs of BPH in Canada are underestimated for 2 main reasons: (1) to make the analysis tractable, it is restricted to a cohort aged 50 to 59, whereas BPH can affect all men; and (2) a closed cohort approach does not include the costs of new (incident) cases. CONCLUSION: Canadian clinical guidelines recommend the use of the combination of tamsulosin and dutasteride for men with moderate/severe symptoms associated with BPH and enlarged prostate volume. This analysis, using a representational patient group, suggests that the FDC is a more cost-effective treatment option for BPH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".