An Economic Analysis of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Covered Stent Shunt for Variceal Bleeding and Refractory Ascites in a Spanish Setting.

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.

Assessment of portal hypertension severity using machine learning models in patients with compensated cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In individuals with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), the severity of portal hypertension (PH) determines the risk of decompensation. Invasive measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the diagnostic gold standard for PH. We evaluated the utility of machine learning models (MLMs) based on standard laboratory parameters to predict the severity of PH in individuals with cACLD. METHODS: A detailed laboratory workup of individuals with cACLD recruited from the Vienna cohort (NCT03267615) was utilised to predict clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e., HVPG ≥10 mmHg) and severe PH (i.e., HVPG ≥16 mmHg). The MLMs were then evaluated in individual external datasets and optimised in the merged cohort. RESULTS: Among 1,232 participants with cACLD, the prevalence of CSPH/severe PH was similar in the Vienna (n = 163, 67.4%/35.0%) and validation (n = 1,069, 70.3%/34.7%) cohorts. The MLMs were based on 3 (3P: platelet count, bilirubin, international normalised ratio) or 5 (5P: +cholinesterase, +gamma-glutamyl transferase, +activated partial thromboplastin time replacing international normalised ratio) laboratory parameters. The MLMs performed robustly in the Vienna cohort. 5P-MLM had the best AUCs for CSPH (0.813) and severe PH (0.887) and compared favourably to liver stiffness measurement (AUC: 0.808). Their performance in external validation datasets was heterogeneous (AUCs: 0.589-0.887). Training on the merged cohort optimised model performance for CSPH (AUCs for 3P and 5P: 0.775 and 0.789, respectively) and severe PH (0.737 and 0.828, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Internally trained MLMs reliably predicted PH severity in the Vienna cACLD cohort but exhibited heterogeneous results on external validation. The proposed 3P/5P online tool can reliably identify individuals with CSPH or severe PH, who are thus at risk of hepatic decompensation. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: We used machine learning models based on widely available laboratory parameters to develop a non-invasive model to predict the severity of portal hypertension in individuals with compensated cirrhosis, who currently require invasive measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient. We validated our findings in a large multicentre cohort of individuals with advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) of any cause. Finally, we provide a readily available online calculator, based on 3 (platelet count, bilirubin, international normalised ratio) or 5 (platelet count, bilirubin, activated partial thromboplastin time, gamma-glutamyltransferase, choline-esterase) widely available laboratory parameters, that clinicians can use to predict the likelihood of their patients with cACLD having clinically significant or severe portal hypertension.

Current allocation policy is favorable for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are a growing population of the transplantation waiting list (WL) for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). There is no consensus to prioritize these patients while on the WL. AIMS: To assess whether patients with HCC were more prioritized than non-HCC patients based on their WL survival as primary outcome. METHODS: Restrospective cohort study including patients listed for elective OLT from January 2013 to January 2016. RESULTS: 165 patients with cirrhosis were listed for OLT: 64 in the HCC group (38.78%) and 101 in the non-HCC group (61.22%). Outcomes (HCC vs. non-HCC) were: OLT in 75.51% vs. 64.37%; death or dropout due to worsening in 20.41% vs. 27.59%, and delisting because of improvement in 4.08% vs. 8.05%. HCC patients had a significantly higher WL survival rate (HR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.21-0.96); lower MELD score at transplantation (21 [20-24] vs. 24 [20-30]; p = 0.021); higher delta-MELD - the difference between MELD at transplantation and MELD at listing time - (3 [2-6] vs. 0 [0-5]; p = 0.024) and longer waiting time until OLT (143 [70-233] vs. 67 [21-164] days; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Despite having to wait longer, patients with HCC showed higher WL survival than non-HCC patients.