Name: Lirafugratinib (Lyrfigtu) in Previously treated FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement-positive cholangiocarcinoma: Scenario analyses
Published: 2026-09-27T09:44:05-04:00

Budget impact model of lirafugratinib: scenario analyses

No evidence found.

Sensitivity and scenario analyses in economic evaluations of advanced biliary tract cancer

“Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was most sensitive to the price of durvalumab.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“In China and the US, the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone was $535,405/QALY and $1,118,607/QALY.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The results of the subgroup analysis indicate that better survival properties subgroups were more likely to be cost-effective, although pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy may not be cost-effective for all subgroups.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“PSA showed price cuts (~50–60%) needed” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“A price reduction of at least approximately 50% improved cost-effectiveness results.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“In the economic models, the cost of the immune-checkpoint inhibitor component was repeatedly identified as a major driver of unfavorable cost-effectiveness results.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Price reductions required for cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib in Canada

“Price reductions exceeding 95% would be required for pemigatinib to achieve an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“If testing costs were $0, a price reduction of 77% (versus ASC alone) and 72% (versus mFOLFOX and ASC) would be required to achieve cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay per QALY gained of $50,000.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Budget impact scenarios for pemigatinib in Canada

“If 100% of patients have public coverage for pemigatinib, the expected 3-year budget impact will increase to $79,507,913.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“If pemigatinib was available at a 95% price reduction, the expected budget impact will be much lower at $979,163 over 3 years.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Price and time-horizon scenarios for pemigatinib from the Taiwanese payer perspective

“When the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 50% or more, pemigatinib gained a positive net monetary benefit (mFOLFOX: NT$55,374; 5-FU: NT$92,437) and a 72% (mFOLFOX) and 77.1% (5-FU) probability of being cost-effective.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the medication cost of pemigatinib, the utility of the PF state and the PD state, and the parameters of OS were the most crucial parameters influencing the results in both CEAs (Fig. 2a, b).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“Our study indicates that pemigatinib would not be cost-effective over short time horizons, such as 2 and 5 years (Scenario 1).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Lifetime break-even analysis shows that pemigatinib reaches the breakeven point in the 8th year, a benefit not evident within shorter time horizons.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Over 80% of incremental costs of pemigatinib incurred during the PF state.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

“In scenario analyses, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive when the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 40% or more.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Price and model scenarios in the Taiwanese cost-effectiveness analysis of a biomarker-driven pemigatinib regimen

“The deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the utility of the progression-free state, the drug cost of pemigatinib, the drug cost of mFOLFOX, and the utility of the progressed disease state played vital roles in the CEA results (Fig. 2).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The scenario analysis showed that the CEA was not sensitive to the change in the survival distribution function, while using log-logistic distributions for all PFS curves and OS curves slightly increased the probability of being cost effective to 55.1% (Fig. 4). The price scenario showed that the new regimen was cost effective with a probability of more than 60% and gained a positive INMB when the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 40% (Fig. 4).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“The probability that the new regimen is cost effective would be 76.4% if effectiveness was considered in life-years instead of QALYs (Fig. 4). When assuming adverse events incurred every cycle during the first 6 months and over the entire time horizon, the probability of the new regimen being cost effective dramatically reduced to 41% and 36.3%, respectively (Fig. 4).” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“Most of the uncertainty came from utilities and drug costs; the expected value of perfect information showed that the new regimen with pemigatinib/modified FOLFOX had a relatively low opportunity cost.” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)

Scenario	ICER, NT$ per QALY	INMB, NT$	Probability of being cost-effective
Base case	“3,411,098”	“-70,268”	“53.2%”
90% price of pemigatinib	“3,252,339”	“-48,873”	“54.9%”
80% price of pemigatinib	“3,093,579”	“-27,478”	“56.3%”
70% price of pemigatinib	“2,934,819”	“-6,083”	“59.3%”
60% price of pemigatinib	“2,776,060”	“15,313”	“62.6%”
50% price of pemigatinib	“2,617,300”	“36,708”	“66.0%”