(b).

Scenarios	ICER MMF versus AZA (US$)
Base-case (40-year time horizon)	$6,454.24
Excluding indirect costs	Dominanta
Utility
Remission 0.8 (versus base-case 0.7)	$4067.55
Relapse 0.5 (versus base-case 0.6)	$5,808.27
Relapse 0.7 (versus base-case 0.6)	$7,695.58
Increase in probability of ESRD with relapse
0.5% per year	$4590.37
1.0% per year	$3112.96
2.0% per year	$2717.08
Extrapolated treatment effect after 3-year maintenance therapy
Same as during treatment phase (base-case)	$6,454.24
No treatment effect from both MMF and AZA during extrapolated phaseb	$428,894.16
Treatment effect from both MMF and AZA decreases 1% per yearc	$15,096.38
Treatment effect from both MMF and AZA decreases 2% per yearc	$25,713.36
Time horizon (number of years after maintenance therapy)
5 years	$513,712.88
10 years	$67,203.94
20 years	Dominanta
30 years	$5,232.11
Discount rate (base-case 3% for costs and utility)
0%	$5,830.11
5%	$10,230.91
7%	$14,374.62

ICER: incremental cost effectiveness ratio; AZA: azathioprine; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; ESRD: end stage renal disease.

^aMMF is less costly and more effective than AZA-based regimen.

^bAssuming 100% probability of relapse during remission on either MMF or AZA after completing 3-year maintenance therapy.

^cAssuming 1% or 2% per year increase in relapse during remission on either MMF or AZA after completing 3-year maintenance therapy.