Cost-Effectiveness of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt versus Large-Volume Paracentesis in Refractory Ascites: Results of a Markov Model Incorporating Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis and Nationally Representative Cost Data

Abstract

PurposeTo compare relative cost-effectiveness of serial large-volume paracentesis (LVP) and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for treatment of refractory ascites. Materials and MethodsA decisional Markov model was developed to estimate payer cost and quality-adjusted life-ears (QALYs) associated with LVP and TIPS treatment strategies for cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites. Survival estimates were derived from an individual patient-level meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials. Health utilities for potential health states were derived from a prospective study of patients with cirrhosis. Cost data were derived from national representative claims databases (MarketScan and Medicare) and included reimbursement amounts for relevant procedures, hospitalizations, and outpatient pharmaceutical costs. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. ResultsLVP resulted in 1.72 QALYs gained at a cost of $41,391, whereas TIPS resulted in 2.76 QALYs gained at a cost of $100,538. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TIPS versus LVP was $57,003/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay ratio of $100,000/QALY, TIPS has a 62% probability of being acceptable compared with LVP. ConclusionsThis study suggests that TIPS should be considered cost-effective in a country that places a relatively high value on health improvements but less so in countries with lower levels of health care resources.