Cost-effectiveness and willing-to-pay thresholds for vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, what are they based on: a systematic review

Abstract

Objective Although there is substantial clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures, cost-effectiveness is less well known. The objective of this study is to provide a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies and policy-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for different vertebral augmentation (VA) procedures, vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BK), for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).Design A systematic review targeting cost-effectiveness studies of VA procedures for OVFs.Data sources Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception up to May 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies were eligible if meeting all predefined criteria: (1) VP or BK intervention, (2) OVFs and (3) cost-effectiveness study. Articles not written in English, abstracts, editorials, reviews and those reporting only cost data were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Information was extracted on study characteristics, cost-effective estimates, summary decisions and payer WTP thresholds. Incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Studies were summarised by a structured narrative synthesis organised by comparisons with conservative management (CM). Two independent reviewers assessed the quality (risk of bias) of the systematic review and cost-effectiveness studies by peer-reviewed checklists.Results We identified 520 references through database searching and 501 were excluded as ineligible by titles and abstract. Ten reports were identified as eligible from 19 full-text reviews. ICER for VP versus CM evaluated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged from €22 685 (*US$33 395) in Netherlands to £−2240 (*US$−3273), a cost-saving in the UK. ICERs for BK versus CM ranged from £2706 (*US$3954) in UK to kr600 000 (*US$90 910) in Sweden. ICERs were within payer WTP thresholds for a QALY based on historical benchmarks.Conclusions Both VP and BK were judged cost-effective alternatives to CM for OVFs in economic studies and were within WTP thresholds in multiple healthcare settings.