Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by lateral DXA scanning may be cost-effective when used as part of fracture liaison services or primary care screening
We identified that use of VFA may be cost-effective in either selected women from primary care or women attending after a low trauma fracture.
Lateral DXA scanning of the spine for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is used for research, but its wider role is unclear. We aimed to establish whether VFA is cost-effective in women based on two different scenarios: following a low-trauma fracture, and after screening of high-risk women identified in primary care.
The fracture cohort (FC) consisted of 377 women and the primary care cohort (PCC) of 251. Vertebral fractures were identified on VFA images by quantitative morphometry (QM). Outcome was cost-effectiveness of VFA, based on predicted change in clinical management defined as the identification of a vertebral fracture in a patient who otherwise falls below the threshold for treatment. FRAX treatment thresholds assessed were (1) 20/3 % thresholds and (2) National Osteoporosis Guidelines Group (NOGG) thresholds.
As a result, 9.8 % from FC and 13.9 % from PCC were identified with vertebral fractures. Management was changed in 21 to 22/377 (5.6–5.8 %) in FC and 12 to 26/251 (4.8–10.4 %) from PCC depending on which thresholds were used. Sensitivity analyses identified medication adherence as the assumption which most influenced the model. The best-estimate cost-per-QALY for use of VFA in FC was £3,243 for 20/3 threshold and £2,130 for NOGG; for PCC, this was £7,831 for 20/3 and was cost-saving for NOGG. Further analyses to adjust for potential false-positive vertebral fracture identification with QM showed VFA was no longer cost-effective.
VFA appears to be cost-effective in routine clinical practise, particularly when relatively inaccurate methods of identification of vertebral fractures are used such as QM.
KeywordsCOSHIBA Cost-effectiveness Fracture liaison Vertebral fracture VFA
- 2.WHO Technical Support Series (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: Report of a WHO Study group. 843. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 5.Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, Francis R, Kanis JA, Marsh D, McCloskey EV, Reid DM, Selby P, Wilkins M, on behalf of the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) (2008) Osteoporosis: Clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years on the UK. University of Sheffield PressGoogle Scholar
- 9.Watson SJ, Jones AL, Oatway WB, Hughes JS (2005) Ionising radiation exposure of the UK population. 2005 Review HPA-RPD-001Google Scholar
- 13.Ferrar L, Jiang G, Schousboe JT, DeBold CR, Eastell R (2008) Algorithm-based qualitative and semiquantitative identification of prevalent vertebral fracture: agreement between different readers, imaging modalities, and diagnostic approaches. J Bone Miner Res 23(3):417–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.McLellan AR, Wolowacz SE, Zimovetz A, Beard SM, Lock S, McCrink L, Adekunle F, Roberts D (2011) FLS for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture: a cost-effectiveness evaluation based on data collected over 8 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int 22:2083–2098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Office for National Statistics (2012) Death Registration Summary Tables, England and Wales, 2011. UK Statistics Authority. Table 1. CrownGoogle Scholar
- 24.British National Formulary (2012) BMJ Group and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great BritainGoogle Scholar
- 26.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2011) Hip fracture Costing Report: Implementing NICE guidance CG124Google Scholar
- 34.Grigoryan M, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Delmas PD, Genant HK (2012) Recognising and reporting osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S104–S112Google Scholar
- 39.National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2008) Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women: Technology Appraisal Guidance 161 (amended)Google Scholar