Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab vs bisphosphonates in renal transplant patients
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
UNLABELLED: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; at years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years). Both bisphosphonate and denosumab treatments increased lumbar spine bone density; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Denosumab treatment increased femoral neck BMD, whereas bisphosphonate treatment had a mean decrease in femoral neck BMD at final follow-up. Thus, our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant. INTRODUCTION: To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab and bisphosphonates on bone density and incidence of adverse events in renal transplant patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years). RESULTS: Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD over the treatment period was 0.029 ± 0.075 g/cm2 and - 0.003 ± 0.064 g/cm2, respectively, in the bisphosphonate group. Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD at final follow-up was 0.072 ± 0.094 g/cm2 and 0.025 ± 0.063 g/cm2, respectively, in the denosumab group. Denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in lumbar spine BMD (0.045 g/cm2 greater in the denosumab group). Similarly, the absolute change in BMD at the femoral neck was 0.022 g/cm2 greater in the denosumab group as compared with the bisphosphonate group. The denosumab group had one event of severe hypocalcemia following first injection and one report of hospitalized pneumonia. No serious adverse events were reported in the bisphosphonate group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments increased lumbar spine BMD; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant.
