The summaries are free for public
use. The Chronic Liver Disease
Foundation will continue to add and
archive summaries of articles deemed
relevant to CLDF by the Board of
Trustees and its Advisors.
Abstract Details
An Economic Analysis of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Covered Stent Shunt for Variceal Bleeding and Refractory Ascites in a Spanish Setting
Adv Ther. 2023 Jul;40(7):3006-3020. doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02517-x. Epub 2023 May 9.
1Servicio de Medicina de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
2Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
3Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
4Departamento de Gastroenterología y Hepatología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.
5W L Gore and Associates Ltd, Newark, USA.
6W L Gore y Asociados SL, Barcelona, Spain.
7York Health Economics Consortium Ltd, Enterprise House, Innovation Way University of York, York, YO10 5NQ, UK. angel.varghese@york.ac.uk.
8York Health Economics Consortium Ltd, Enterprise House, Innovation Way University of York, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
Abstract
Introduction: The primary aim is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) in two indications from a Spanish perspective. Firstly, as pre-emptive treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding (indication 1) compared with endoscopic band ligation plus drug therapy. Secondly, to treat refractory ascites (indication 2) compared with large volume paracentesis.
Methods: A two-state (alive and dead) Markov model was developed to capture the costs and health impact for the two indications over a 2-year time horizon with monthly cycles. In the alive state, patients could experience adverse event(s), associated with costs and disutility, such as recurrent variceal bleeding, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Discount rates of 3% for utilities and costs and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY were applied.
Results: In the base case analysis, TIPSS was estimated to be cost-effective as a pre-emptive treatment for indication 1 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €230 and 0.211, respectively). TIPSS also remained cost-effective (€16,819/QALY) in a conservative scenario analysis, conducted with an alternate source for clinical parameters. The key drivers of the outcomes were survival for the comparator arm, mean band ligation outpatient procedures, and TIPSS treatment costs. TIPSS was estimated to dominate the comparator for indication 2 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €25,687 and 0.531, respectively). The key drivers of the outcomes were monthly paracentesis sessions and cost per inpatient stay for those undergoing paracentesis.
Conclusions: TIPSS is likely to be a cost-effective and a cost-saving treatment in patients with cirrhosis in indications 1 and 2, compared with standard treatments. The analyses estimate clinical benefits along with reduced healthcare costs from avoided downstream resource consumption.