Cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab versus alendronate for improving bone mineral density in renal transplant recipients: a comparative study

Background

Denosumab and alendronate had a positive impact on bone mineral density (BMD) preservation after kidney transplantation. However, the cost-effectiveness of these agents in the context of kidney transplantation remains largely unexplored. We have conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding subcutaneous (SC) 60 mg denosumab every 6 months vs. oral weekly 70 mg Alendronate, to the standard care therapy (vitamin D and calcium) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). The impact of both drugs on BMD t-score improvement and fracture prevention was investigated. A decision-analysis model from a health care payer perspective was applied.

Results

The cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that alendronate add-on to the standard therapy was the most cost-effective regimen, in terms of BMD improvement and fracture prevention with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $154/patient/year. The one-way sensitivity analyses have delineated the change in cost-effectiveness when alendronate retail unit price was increased by 25% and 50%, or when denosumab retail unit price was decreased by 25% and 50%. The model was sensitive to the uncertainties (95% confidence interval) in the probabilities of fracture prevention and the probabilities of attaining the desired outcome.

Conclusion

The model suggests that oral once weekly alendronate add-on regimen to standard therapy seems to be substantially more cost effective than twice yearly SC denosumab in terms of BMD improvement and fracture prevention in RTRs. Longer time horizon models with longer follow-up periods for fracture risks and adverse events are warranted to validate these data.