Economic evaluation of eribulin as second-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer in South Korea

Cost-benefit evaluation of advanced therapy lines in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Germany

BACKGROUND

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is responsible for 10-20% cases of breast cancer and is resulting in rising healthcare costs. Thus, health-economic evaluations are needed to relate clinical outcomes and costs of treatment options and to provide recommendations of action from a health-economic perspective.

METHODS

We investigated the cost-benefit-ratio of approved treatment options in metastatic TNBC in Germany by applying the efficiency frontier approach. These included sacituzumab-govitecan (SG), eribulin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine. Clinical benefit was measured as (i) median overall survival (mOS) and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of time to symptom worsening (TSW). To assess medical benefits, literature was systematically reviewed in PubMed for (i) and (ii), respectively. Treatment costs were calculated considering annual direct outpatient treatment costs from a statutory healthcare payer perspective. It was intended that both, (i) and (ii), yield an efficiency frontier.

RESULTS

Annual direct outpatient treatment costs amounted to EUR 176,415.21 (SG), EUR 47,414.14 (eribulin), EUR 13,711.35 (vinorelbine), and EUR 3,718.84 (capecitabine). Systematic literature review of (i) and statistical analysis resulted in OS values of 14.3, 9.56, 9.44, and 7.46 months, respectively. Capecitabine, vinorelbine, and SG are part of the efficiency frontier including OS. The highest additional benefit per additional cost was determined for vinorelbine, followed by SG. Systematic review of (ii) revealed that no TSW data of TNBC patients receiving vinorelbine were available, preventing the presentation of an efficiency frontier including HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Vinorelbine is most cost-effective, followed by SG. Health-economic evaluations support decision-makers to assess treatment options within one indication area. In Germany, the efficiency frontier can provide decision support for the pricing of innovative interventions. Results of our analysis may thus guide reimbursement determination.

An economic evaluation of eribulin for advanced breast cancer treatment based on the Southeast Netherlands advanced breast cancer registry

Background: In 2013, eribulin was reimbursed under a coverage with evidence development (CED) as third or later chemotherapy line for advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients in the Netherlands because of uncertain cost effectiveness. In 2016, the final decision of reimbursing eribulin was taken without considering the evidence collected during CED research. We analysed the cost effectiveness of eribulin versus non-eribulin chemotherapy, using real-world data.Methods: A three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, dead) partitioned survival model was developed. The SOuth East Netherlands Advanced BREast Cancer (SONABRE) registry informed the effectiveness and costs inputs. Health state utility values were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the eribulin and matched non-eribulin chemotherapy was estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed. The financial risk (i.e., the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) plus the expected monetary loss (eML) associated with reimbursing eribulin) and budget impact associated with reimbursing eribulin were calculated.Results: Eribulin led to higher health benefits (0.07 quality-adjusted life year (QALY)) and costs (€15,321) compared with non-eribulin chemotherapy. This resulted in an ICER of €220,608. At a €80,000 per QALY threshold, the risk of reimbursing eribulin was €9,791 per patient (EVPI €13, eML €9,778). Scaled up to the Dutch population, the estimated annual budget impact was €1.9 million and the annual risk of reimbursing eribulin was €2.7 million.Conclusion: From a Dutch societal perspective, eribulin is not cost effective when considering its list price as third and later chemotherapy line for ABC patients.

An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014.

METHODS

This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost-utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND (("metastatic breast cancer") OR ("advanced breast cancer"))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485-498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included.

CONCLUSION

Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.