Indwelling Pleural Catheter Drainage Strategy for Malignant Effusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Rationale: The likelihood of achieving pleurodesis after indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) placement for malignant pleural effusion varies with the specific drainage strategy used: symptom-guided drainage, daily drainage, or talc instillation through the IPC (IPC + talc). The relative cost-effectiveness of one strategy over the other is unknown.Objectives: We performed a decision tree model-based analysis to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of each IPC drainage strategy from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: We developed a decision tree model using theoretical event probability data derived from three randomized clinical trials and used 2019 Medicare reimbursement data for cost estimation. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over an analytical horizon of 6 months with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to measure the uncertainty surrounding base case estimates.Results: IPC + talc was a cost-effective alternative to symptom-guided drainage, with an ICER of $59,729/QALY. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that this strategy was favored in 54% of simulations. However, symptom-guided drainage was cost effective for pleurodesis rates >20% and for life expectancy <4 months. Daily drainage was not cost effective in any scenario, including for patients with nonexpandable lung, in whom it had an ICER of $2,474,612/QALY over symptom-guided drainage.Conclusions: For patients with malignant pleural effusion and an expandable lung, IPC + talc may be cost effective relative to symptom-guided drainage, although considerable uncertainty exists around this estimation. Daily IPC drainage is not a cost-effective strategy under any circumstance.