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

Pouwels, Xavier; Ramaekers, Bram; Geurts, S.M.E.; Erdkamp, Frans; Vriens, B.E.P.J.; Aaldering, Kirsten N. A.; Wouw, Agnès J. van de; Dercksen, M. Wouter; Smilde, Tineke J.; Peters, Natascha A. J. B.; Riel, J.M.G.H. van; Pepels, M.J.A.E.; Heijnen-Mommers, J.; Tjan‐Heijnen, Vivianne C. G.; Boer, Maaike de; Joore, Manuela A.

doi:10.1080/0284186x.2020.1775289

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ICUR was $14800 /QALY, which was less than WTP ($42300 /QALY), indicating that eribulin was cost-effectiveness and similar to the results of this study. Xavier et al [25] evaluated the economy cost-effectiveness of Eribulin from the perspective of the whole society based on local real-world data in the Netherlands. The treatment regimens were eribulin group or non-Eribulin chemotherapy group (including capecitabine, vinorelbine, carboplatin, gemcitabine, etc.).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-utility analysis of eribulin versus capecitabine in HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Hong

Shen

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of eribulin versus capecitabine in the treatment of HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer(AMBC). Methods: Based on the data of a phase III trial, a partition survival modelwas constructed with a study duration of 10 years. Uncertainty analysis were used to evaluate the robustness of the results. Results: The results showed that compared with capecitabine group, the eribulin group obtained 0.24 more QALY, spent $5287.11 more, and ICUR was $22084.93/QALY, which was less than the threshold. uncertainty analysis showed that the results were robust, and the probability of eribulin being cost-utility is 69.28% at the threshold of $33881.17. Conclusions: Eribulin is cost-utility than capecitabine in the treatment of HER-2 negative AMBC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-utility analysis of eribulin versus capecitabine in HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Hong

Shen

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cost items included in this analysis were comprehensive and consisted of all healthcare products and services reimbursed by the NHI. Although the estimated treatment costs cannot be compared with other studies directly due to different health care policies and systems among countries and variations in study methods, previous cost and cost-effectiveness studies conducted in the US, the UK, and the Southeast Netherlands also concluded that eribulin was expensive and not cost-effective when compared to other chemotherapies [ 23 , 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yang

Kuo

2021

The Breast

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the BIAs included in the study. Among them, about half (n = 8) of the studies were conducted in Europe [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], three in the United States [34][35][36], three in Asia [37][38][39], two in Russia [40,41], and one in Australia [42]. BIAs were performed in the period 2004-2021.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review

Mohammadnezhad

Sattarpour

Moradi

2022

J of Pharm Policy and Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer globally among women, with 2,261,419 new cases in 2020; systemic treatment may be neo-adjuvant, adjuvant, or both. BC subtype guides the standard systemic therapy administered, which consists of endocrine therapy for all HR + tumors, trastuzumab-based HER2-directed antibody therapy plus chemotherapy for all HER2 + tumors (with endocrine therapy given in addition, if concurrent HR positivity), and chemotherapy alone for the triple-negative subtype. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and systematically review all budget impact analyses (BIAs) of BC medications worldwide. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were thoroughly searched up to 26th March 2022 to identify original published studies which evaluate BIA of BC medications. ISPOR Task Force guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results In total, 17 BIAs were included in the study. About half of the studies were conducted in Europe. The results of the BIAs showed that most of the included BIAs are conducted from the payer’s perspective; they have different methodological frameworks for recommended chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy agents to treat BC. For the same medications, the results of budgetary effects are not consistent in diverse countries. Nine out of the 17 studies were focused on trastuzumab, in which the biosimilar form reduced costs, but the brand form increased costs, especially in a 52-week treatment period. Conclusion Researchers should conduct the budget impact analysis of high-value medications such as anti-tumor drugs more objectively, and the accuracy of parameters needs to be more strictly guaranteed. Furthermore, it is worthy of declaring that the budgetary impact of the same drug is not always consistent over time, so the researchers should measure access to medication in the long run.

show abstract

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Cost-utility analysis of eribulin versus capecitabine in HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Cost-utility analysis of eribulin versus capecitabine in HER-2 negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

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

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About