English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: Two thirds (62%) of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in Western Europe have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative disease, for which anthracyclines and taxanes are recommended as first-line treatments, followed by microtubule-targeting agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine and/or eribulin. The study objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of eribulin in Spain as a second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC with its current status as a third-line treatment for patients who have received capecitabine. Methods: A Markov model was developed from the perspective of the Spanish healthcare system. The model had three health states: Stable; Progression and Death. In Stable, patients received eribulin or: capecitabine and vinorelbine for HER2-negative patients; primary treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) for post-capecitabine patients. In Progression, all patients received secondary TPC. Model inputs were overall survival, progression-free survival and costs relating to chemotherapies, grade 3/4 adverse events and healthcare utilization. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify uncertainty. Results: As second-line treatment, Eribulin was associated with a greater incremental benefit in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than capecitabine and vinorelbine. Erubilin as third-line treatment was associated with greater benefit in life years (LYs) and QALYs than TPC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for eribulin were higher in the second-line than the third-line setting in terms of LYs (€35,149 versus €24,884) and QALYs (€37,152 versus €35,484). In both settings, deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER is most sensitive to the eribulin price. Conclusion: Eribulin is cost-effective as second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC patients in Spain; albeit, slightly less so than as third-line treatment for MBC patients who have received capecitabine (an ICER per QALY difference of €1,668). This difference may fall within the margin of error for the model and could potentially be addressed by a minor reduction in the eribulin price. 1Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA; 2Eisai Limited, European Knowledge Centre, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9SN; 3Eisai Farmacêutica S.A., Madrid, Spain *Corresponding author gabriel_tremblay@eisai.com

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Eribulin Mesylate as a Treatment for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Spain: Management in the Later Line of Therapy