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.

Real-world and trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial. METHODS: A state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of €56,213 and €52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to €278,711 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: According to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario.