ABSTRACT
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.
