Fleeman, Nigel 
ORCID: 0000-0002-4637-9779, Bagust, Adrian ORCID: 0000-0002-2142-5767, Duarte, Rui, Richardson, Marty ORCID: 0000-0002-7097-8704, Nevitt, Sarah ORCID: 0000-0001-9988-2709, Boland, Angela ORCID: 0000-0002-5435-8644, Kotas, Eleanor, McEntee, Joanne and Thorp, Nicky
(2019)
Eribulin for Treating Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer After One Chemotherapy Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.
PHARMACOECONOMICS-OPEN, 3 (3).
pp. 293-302.
Abstract
Eribulin is a recommended treatment option for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LABC/MBC) in adults whose disease has progressed after at least two chemotherapy regimens. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eribulin (Halaven<sup>®</sup>; Eisai Ltd) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of eribulin for treating LABC/MBC after one chemotherapy regimen in accordance with the institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, Evidence Review Group (ERG) review and resulting NICE guidance (TA515), issued 28 March 2018. Clinical evidence for eribulin versus capecitabine in LABC/MBC was derived from a subgroup of 392 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-negative disease which had progressed after only one prior chemotherapy regimen for LABC/MBC in the phase III, randomised, controlled Study 301 (n = 1102). Overall survival (OS) but not progression-free survival (PFS) was improved for patients treated with eribulin versus capecitabine in this subgroup. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for eribulin, the company developed a de novo economic model. In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for eribulin versus capecitabine was £36,244 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG identified several problematic issues relating to modelling OS and PFS, drug costing and utility values, and made ten revisions to the company model. The overall impact of all ten revisions was to increase the ICER per QALY gained by £46,499. The Appraisal Committee (AC) accepted all changes made by the ERG except for the change to utility values; the AC considered that the value should be mid-way between the company's and the ERG's preferred values. A modified model was submitted by the company that included this utility value, but maintained some elements of the base case that the AC had been critical of (differential PFS between treatment arms and application of treatment cap). The new model also included a 'blended' comparator (capecitabine and vinorelbine). The AC noted there was no evidence to support a 'blended' comparator, differential PFS between treatment arms or a treatment cap. The AC therefore concluded that the most plausible ICER was likely to be £69,843 per QALY gained (derived from an ERG sensitivity analysis using the AC's preferred utility value, no differential PFS and no treatment cap). Therefore, eribulin was not recommended for treating LABC/MBC in adults who have had only one chemotherapy regimen.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Cancer, 6 Evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions, 6.1 Pharmaceuticals, Cancer, 3 Good Health and Well Being |
| Depositing User: | Symplectic Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 28 Feb 2019 15:57 |
| Last Modified: | 14 Mar 2024 19:00 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s41669-018-0114-z |
| Open Access URL: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-018-0114-z |
| Related URLs: | |
| URI: | https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3033595 |
Dimensions
Dimensions
