Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. METHODS: This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

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.

Costs associated with Eribulin treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a comprehensive cancer center in France.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard recommendation for metastatic breast cancer treatment (MBC) after two chemotherapy regimens. Eribulin (Halaven®) has shown a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) in this setting. Its use may however be hampered by its cost, which is up to three times the cost of other standard drugs. We report the clinical outcomes and health care costs of a large series of consecutive MBC patients treated with Eribulin. METHODS: A monocentric retrospective study was conducted at Institut Curie over 1 year (August 2012 to August 2013). Data from patient's medical records were extracted to estimate treatment and outcome patterns, and direct medical costs until the end of treatment were measured. Factors affecting cost variability were identified by multiple linear regressions and factors linked to OS by a multivariate Cox model. RESULTS: We included 87 MBC patients. The median OS was 10.7 months (95%CI = 8.0-13.3). By multivariate Cox analysis, independent factors of poor prognosis were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3, a number of metastatic sites ≥ 4 and the need for hospitalization. Per-patient costs during whole treatment were €18,694 [CI 95%: 16,028-21,360], and €2581 [CI 95%: 2226-3038] per month. Eribulin administration contributed to 79% of per-patient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative and expensive drugs often appear to be the main cost drivers in cancer treatment, particularly for MBC. There is an urgent need to assess clinical practice benefits.

[Efficacy, safety and cost of eribulin in patients with metastatic breast cancer]. / Efficacité, tolérance et coût de l'éribuline chez des patientes présentant un cancer du sein métastatique.

Eribulin gained its approval in March 2011 for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite anthracycline and taxane-containing regimens. This study retrospectively assessed the efficacy, safety and cost of this treatment for all patients with MBC treated by eribulin in Franche-Comté. Ninety-four patients received eribulin between July 2006 and October 2013. The median age was 62 years (35-83). Median overall survival was 10.3 months [95% CI: 7.6 to 17.9]. Median progression-free-survival was 3.8 months [95% CI: 2.9 to 5.0]. Clinical benefit was obtained in 55% evaluable patients [95% CI: 43.1 to 66.9] by RECIST criteria. Most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (38%), asthenia (10%) and peripheral neuropathy (7%). Median cost of the treatment was 9767 € per patient (6344-17,517). This analysis found similar results to the EMBRACE study despite less selected population. A medico-economic evaluation cost-utility type would assess the effectiveness of this strategy compared to standard treatments.

Eribulin for the treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eribulin (Eisai Ltd) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of eribulin as treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LABC/MBC) pre-treated with at least two chemotherapy regimens. This article summarizes the review of evidence by the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and provides a summary of the NICE Appraisal Committee's (AC's) decision. The clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centred, open-label, randomized, phase III study comparing eribulin with treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in 762 patients with LABC/MBC. Clinical effectiveness results were submitted for two populations: the overall intention-to-treat (ITT) population and a subset (n = 488) that included only patients from North America, Western Europe and Australia (Region 1). For the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS), a primary analysis (after 55 % of patients had died) and an updated analysis (after 77 % of patients had died) were conducted. In the ITT population, treatment with eribulin was associated with a significant improvement in median OS compared with TPC in both primary [difference in median OS 2.5 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.99] and updated analyses (2.7 months; HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.67-0.96). A statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was reported for eribulin compared with TPC when assessed by the investigator (difference in median PFS 1.48 months; HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.64-0.90), but not when assessed by the ERG (1.44 months; HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.71-1.05). Gains in OS were greater for Region 1 patients than for the ITT population (3.1 vs. 2.7 months). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data suggested a benefit for eribulin responders, but was based on phase II studies. In the eribulin arm, serious adverse events included febrile neutropenia (4.2 %) and neutropenia (1.8 %), with peripheral neuropathy being the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. The manufacturer's economic evaluation using Patient Access Scheme costs reported a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for eribulin versus TPC (Region 1) of £46,050 per quality-adjusted life year gained (corrected to £45,106 when an erroneous data entry was removed). The ERG's revised ICERs were £61,804 for Region 1 and £76,110 for the overall population. The AC concluded that the evidence had not demonstrated sufficient benefit in OS, cost effectiveness or HRQoL and that eribulin was not recommended for use in this patient group.

Activity of eribulin mesylate in heavily pretreated breast cancer granted access via the Cancer Drugs Fund.

AIM: Eribulin mesylate is a synthetic analog of halichondrin B and is licensed for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed following treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes. It was not deemed to be cost effective based on a cost analysis by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and therefore it is not funded routinely by the National Health Service. The establishment of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England subsequently enabled access. As with any new chemotherapy drug that enters clinical practice for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) it is often used in heavily pretreated patients and the experience in a routine clinical setting can differ from that in a clinical study. We therefore present the experience of the first 25 cases treated at our institution via the Cancer Drugs Fund. MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 25 patients were treated and in the 22 assessable cases the objective response rate was 18% (four out of 22), with a clinical benefit rate of 41.0% (9 out of 22). RESULTS: The median time-to-progression and overall survival were 4.08 months and 5.89 months, respectively. There was a significant difference in clinical benefit rate (odds ratio: 0.065; 95% CI: 0-0.529; p = 0.0055), as well as time-to-progression (hazard ratio: 9.18; 95% CI: 2.26-37.38; p = 0.002 adjusted for age at diagnosis and interval between initial MBC diagnosis and commencing eribulin) favoring those patients who had not been rechallenged. There was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.44-3.05; p = 0.770 adjusted for age at diagnosis and interval between initial diagnosis of MBC and commencing eribulin). CONCLUSION: Eribulin mesylate shows clinical activity; however, there appears to be differences in terms of benefit in patients based on whether patients have been rechallenged with an anthracycline and/or a taxane. These data require confirmation in larger patient groups.

A cost effectiveness study of eribulin versus standard single-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy for women with previously treated metastatic breast cancer.

Eribulin was FDA approved in 2012 as a treatment for patients with MBC who have previously received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of eribulin versus the three most commonly utilized drugs (TPC) in the EMBRACE trial: vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and capecitabine (X); and to other branded FDA approved drugs: ixabepilone (I), liposomal-doxorubicin (D), and nab-paclitaxel. We created a decision-analytical and a Markov model using clinical data from the EMBRACE trial. Health utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs for drug acquisition, physician visits, and laboratory tests were obtained from Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2012 USD. Life-years saved (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Eribulin added 0.208 LY and 0.119 QALY with an incremental cost over TPC of $25,458, and therefore an ICER of $213,742 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug cost, PFS, OS, and health utility values. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Relative to I, D, A, and X, the ICER for eribulin was $76,823, $109,283, $129,773, and $167,267, respectively. Even with a more contemporary willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $120,000 per QALY, eribulin was not found to be cost effective in the treatment of MBC relative to TPC; relative to some more expensive branded drugs, eribulin appears to be cost effective.

Eribulin mesylate: a novel halichondrin B analogue for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, and administration of eribulin in patients with metastatic breast cancer are reviewed. SUMMARY: Classical chemotherapeutic agents for breast cancer have dominated treatment regimens even in the era of targeted therapy. Disease progression through these agents is often due to the development of resistance or lack of efficacy with these agents. Recently, a new nontaxane agent, eribulin mesylate, was approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in patients who have received at least two prior chemotherapeutic agents. Eribulin is a member of a new class of synthetic cytotoxic agents derived from the Japanese sea sponge Halichondria okadai. Eribulin differs from other antimicrotubule agents in that it can bind to the microtubule cap and inhibit tubulin polymerization, leading to microtubule arrest. In Phase II clinical trials, eribulin demonstrated activity in extensively pretreated patients who had previously received an anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine and had shown disease progression within the last six months of treatment. In a pivotal Phase III clinical trial of heavily pre-treated patients, patients who received eribulin versus the physician's treatment of choice showed a significant increase in overall and progression-free survival. Eribulin has a manageable adverse-effect profile, consisting mainly of neutropenia and fatigue. Eribulin has been associated with a low incidence of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Eribulin, a novel synthetic antimicrotubule agent that binds to the vinca domain of tubulin and inhibits the polymerization of tubulin, offers a new treatment option for metastatic breast cancer or locally advanced breast cancer.

Eribulin mesylate (Halaven) for breast cancer.

Eribulin mesylate (Halaven-Eisai) has been approved by the FDA for treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer who have previously received at least 2 chemotherapy regimens for metastatic cancer. Prior therapy should have included an anthracycline and a taxane in either an adjuvant or metastatic setting. Other drugs used to treat anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer include capecitabine (Xeloda), gemcitabine (Gemzar, and others) and vinorelbine (Navelbine, and others).