Balloon kyphoplasty compared to vertebroplasty and nonsurgical management in patients hospitalised with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a UK cost-effectiveness analysis
The purpose of the study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of balloon kyphoplasty compared to nonsurgical management and vertebroplasty for the treatment of hospitalised osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in the UK. A cost-effectiveness model was constructed and used for analysis. Balloon kyphoplasty may be cost-effective compared to relevant alternatives.
The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) for the treatment of patients hospitalised with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) compared to percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and nonsurgical management (NSM) in the UK.
A Markov simulation model was developed to evaluate treatment with BKP, NSM and PVP in patients with symptomatic OVCF. Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with acute OVCF were derived from the FREE and VERTOS II randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and normalised to the NSM arm in the FREE trial. Estimated differences in mortality among the treatments and costs for NSM were obtained from the literature whereas procedure costs for BKP and PVP were obtained from three National Health Service hospitals. It was assumed that BKP and PVP reduced hospital length of stay by 6 days compared to NSM.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at Great Britain Pound Sterling (GBP) 2,706 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and GBP 15,982 per QALY compared to NSM and PVP, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of BKP vs. NSM was robust when mortality and HRQoL benefits with BKP were varied. The cost-effectiveness of BKP compared to PVP was particularly sensitive to changes in the mortality benefit.
BKP may be a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of patients hospitalised with acute OVCF in the UK compared to NSM and PVP. Additional RCT data on the benefits of BKP and PVP compared to simulated sham surgery and further data on the mortality benefits with BKP compared to NSM and PVP would reduce uncertainty.
KeywordsHTA Markov Osteoporosis QALY Spinal fracture United Kingdom
- 1.(2002) Incidence of vertebral fracture in europe: results from the European prospective osteoporosis study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 17: 716–24Google Scholar
- 2.Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA, Compston J, Cooper C, McKloskey EV, Jonsson B (2011) Osteoporosis: burden, health care provision and opportunities in the EU. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 6:59–155Google Scholar
- 7.Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S (2001) The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation study. Arthritis Rheum 44:2611–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Culham EG, Jimenez HA, King CE (1994) Thoracic kyphosis, rib mobility, and lung volumes in normal women and women with osteoporosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1250–1255Google Scholar
- 21.Jensen ME, McGraw JK, Cardella JF, Hirsch JA (2007) Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the American society of interventional and therapeutic neuroradiology, society of interventional radiology, American association of neurological surgeons/congress of neurological surgeons, and American society of spine radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:325–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van MJ, Bastian L, Tillman JB, Ranstam J, Eastell R, Shabe P, Talmadge K, Boonen S (2009) Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 373:1016–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J, Jansen FH, Tielbeek AV, Blonk MC, Venmans A, van Rooij WJ, Schoemaker MC, Juttmann JR, Lo TH, Verhaar HJ, Van der Graaf Y, Everdingen KJ, Muller AF, Elgersma OE, Halkema DR, Fransen H, Janssens X, Buskens E, Mali WP (2010) Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 376:1085–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–79Google Scholar
- 40.Strom O, Leonard C, Marsh D, Cooper C (2009) Cost-effectiveness of balloon kyphoplasty in patients with symptomatic vertebral compression fractures in a UK setting. Osteoporos IntGoogle Scholar
- 41.NICE (2008) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Technology Appraisal GuideGoogle Scholar
- 42.OECD (2011) Consumer prices—annual inflationGoogle Scholar
- 43.Ara R, Tumur I, Pandor A, Duenas A, Williams R, Wilkinson A, Paisley S, Chilcott J (2008) Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 12(iii):xi–iii, 212Google Scholar
- 46.Stevenson M, Davis S (2006) Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of pooled alendronate and risedronate, compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, etidronate and teriparatide. The University of Sheffield, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
- 48.Curtis L (2008) Unit costs of health and social care. Personal Social Services Research Unit, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
- 56.NHS (2011) Prescription Services. Drug tariffGoogle Scholar
- 62.Strom O, Bianchi ML, Dimai HP, Lekander I, Svedbom A, F T, Borgstron T (2011) Characteristics of patients with vertebral fractures stratified by treatment type (non-surgical management, balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty)—results from the Austrian, French and Italian ICUROS substudies. Osteoporos Int 22:204–205Google Scholar