Cost-effectiveness of eculizumab treatment after kidney transplantation in patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome

Background. Kidney transplantation in patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS) is frequently complicated by recurrence of aHUS, often resulting in graft loss. Eculizumab prophylaxis prevents recurrence, improving graft survival. An alternative treatment strategy has been proposed where eculizumab is administered upon recurrence. We combined available evidence and performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these competing strategies. Methods. A cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytical approach with Markov chain analyses was used to compare alternatives for aHUS patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD): (i) dialysis treatment, (ii) kidney transplantation, (iii) kidney transplantation with eculizumab therapy upon recurrence of aHUS, (iv) kidney transplantation with eculizumab induction consisting of 12 months of prophylaxis and (v) kidney transplantation with lifelong eculizumab prophylaxis. We assumed that all patients received a graft from a living donor and that recurrence probability was 28.4% within the first year of transplantation. Results. At 8.34 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and a cost of (sic)402 412, kidney transplantation without eculizumab was the least costly alternative. By comparison, dialysis was more costly and resulted in fewer QALYs gained. Eculizumab upon recurrence resulted in 9.55 QALYs gained at a cost of (sic)425 097. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was (sic)18 748 per QALY. Both eculizumab induction and lifelong eculizumab were inferior to eculizumab upon recurrence, as both resulted in fewer QALYs gained and higher costs. Conclusions. Kidney transplantation is more cost effective than dialysis to treat ESRD due to aHUS. Adding eculizumab treatment results in a substantial gain in QALYs. When compared with eculizumab upon recurrence, neither eculizumab induction nor lifelong eculizumab prophylaxis resulted in more QALYs, but did yield far higher costs. Therefore, eculizumab upon recurrence of aHUS is more acceptable.