No abstract

No abstract

One-way sensitivity analyses were performed against all probability, utility, and cost values incorporated into this cost-effectiveness model. Results: In this analysis, AA provides substantial saving with $13,322 per patient versus ENZA. The main drivers of the model are drug costs, health utility values, and efficacy (OS and rPFS). The robustness of the results was supported by sensitivity analyses. ConClusions: Given similar OS benefits, AA is cost saving compared with ENZA for the treatment of patients with mCPRC post-docetaxel based on US data.

No abstract

No abstract