ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus crizotinib in first-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recently completed INSPIRE trial demonstrated that iruplinalkib improved progression-free survival and intracranial antitumor activity compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib vs. crizotinib in the Chinese healthcare setting. Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using the partition survival method, with three health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Data from the INSPIRE trial were used to estimate progression-free and overall survival. Costs included drug treatment, disease management, and adverse events management. Drug costs and utilities were the main drivers of the model in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results: Treatment with iruplinalkib versus crizotinib resulted in a gain of 0.55 life-years, 2.11 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and an incremental cost of $4,325.55, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,048.03/QALY. Drug costs and utilities were the main drivers of the model in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), iruplinalkib had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $13,447.89/QALY. Conclusion: Compared to crizotinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for treatment-naïve patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.