Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Duke Health, Duke University, 201 Trent Drive, 4313 Duke South, Orange Zone, DUMC, Box 3094, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Medtronic Global Health Economics & Reimbursement, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.
Osteoporos Int. 2020 Dec;31(12):2461-2471. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05513-x. Epub 2020 Jul 12.
The cost-effectiveness of surgical versus conservative medical management of vertebral compression fractures in the US was analyzed in the context of inpatient versus outpatient treatment. Surgical intervention (balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty) was found to be cost-effective relative to conservative medical management at a US willingness-to-pay threshold.
To date, only one published study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) or vertebroplasty (VP) in US Medicare patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. This study further evaluates the C/E of surgical treatment vs. conservative medical management (CMM), expanding on prior modeling by accounting for quality-adjusted life-years gained.
A Markov microsimulation model of 1000 patients was constructed. Cost data were based on an analysis of Medicare claims payments, with propensity-score matching performed for BKP and VP vs. controls (CMM). Mortality inputs were based on US life tables, modified to account for age at initial fracture, presence of subsequent fracture(s), and relative risk of mortality by treatment. Separate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BKP and VP in inpatient and outpatient surgical treatment locations to account for individual clinical profiles presenting to each.
The discounted ICER for inpatient BKP vs. CMM was $43,455 per QALY gained; for outpatient BKP vs. CMM, $10,922; for inpatient VP vs. CMM, $39,774; and for outpatient VP vs. CMM, $12,293. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that both BKP and VP would be considered C/E vs. CMM at a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY in 80% and 100% of 500 model simulations, respectively. The most sensitive parameters included quality of life estimates and hazard ratios for mortality.
While VP and BKP are more expensive treatment options than CMM in the short term, model results suggest interventional treatment is cost-effective, among patients eligible for surgery, at a US WTP threshold. This conclusion supports those from economic analyses conducted in EU-member countries.
在美国,对接受住院或门诊治疗的椎体压缩性骨折患者,分析了手术与保守医学管理的成本效益。相对于保守医学管理,手术干预(球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术和椎体成形术)被认为具有成本效益。
迄今为止,只有一项已发表的研究评估了美国医疗保险患者骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折患者接受球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术(BKP)或椎体成形术(VP)的成本效益(C/E)。本研究通过考虑获得的质量调整生命年来进一步评估手术治疗与保守医学管理(CMM)的 C/E。
构建了一个 1000 名患者的马尔可夫微模拟模型。成本数据基于对医疗保险索赔支付的分析,对 BKP 和 VP 与对照组(CMM)进行倾向评分匹配。死亡率输入基于美国生命表,经过修改以考虑初次骨折时的年龄、随后骨折的存在以及治疗的相对死亡率风险。为了考虑到每个治疗方案中呈现的个体临床特征,分别计算了住院和门诊手术治疗位置下 BKP 和 VP 的增量成本效益比(ICER)。
住院 BKP 相对于 CMM 的贴现 ICER 为每 QALY 增加 43455 美元;门诊 BKP 相对于 CMM 的贴现 ICER 为每 QALY 增加 10922 美元;住院 VP 相对于 CMM 的贴现 ICER 为每 QALY 增加 39774 美元;门诊 VP 相对于 CMM 的贴现 ICER 为每 QALY 增加 12293 美元。概率敏感性分析证实,在分别为 80%和 100%的 500 个模型模拟中,BKP 和 VP 都将被认为比 CMM 更具有成本效益,在美国 50000 美元/QALY 的支付意愿(WTP)阈值下。最敏感的参数包括生活质量估计和死亡率的危险比。
虽然在短期内,VP 和 BKP 比 CMM 是更昂贵的治疗选择,但模型结果表明,在符合手术条件的患者中,介入治疗具有成本效益。这一结论支持了在欧盟成员国进行的经济分析结果。