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

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.