An economic evaluation of doxazosin, finasteride and combination therapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study (PLESS) and the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) study provide new evidence regarding the benefits of finasteride in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of this study was to utilize data from the PLESS and MTOPS studies to assess the cost-utility of finasteride and finasteride in combination with doxazosin, compared to doxazosin alone in men with moderate to severe BPH symptoms. METHODS: A semi-Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the clinical consequences, costs and cost-utility of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy. Analyses were conducted for a 15-year time frame from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). Results are reported stratified by baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level according to all baseline serum PSA levels, patients with baseline serum PSA > 1.3 ng/ml, and patients with baseline serum PSA > 3.2 ng/ml. RESULTS: Compared to doxazosin alone, combination therapy was more expensive but more effective. Cost-utility ratios ranged from 27,823 dollars/QALY for patients with PSA > 3.2 ng/ml to 34,085 dollars/QALY for all patients. Finasteride, although dominated by doxazosin, may be cost-effective compared to watchful waiting in patients who fail doxazosin and do not choose to proceed to surgery. Compared to watchful waiting, cost-utility ratios for finasteride ranged from 35016 dollars/QALY for patients with PSA > 3.2 ng/ml to 44,336 dollars/QALY for all patients. Results were robust across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy is cost-effective compared to doxazosin with cost-utility ratios under 40,000 dollars/QALY across a wide range of scenarios. The cost-effectiveness of combination therapy increases as serum PSA level increases.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".