Economic evaluation of ponatinib vs reference and generic imatinib in front-line management of philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A value dilemma

Ponatinib demonstrated cost savings relative to reference imatinib, though its incremental costs were substantially higher when compared with both average and weighted imatinib, for an approximate gain of 3 months of life and 6 months of quality-adjusted life. This presents a value dilemma: whether to save money with more affordable alternatives for a slightly lower clinical benefit, possibly parlaying these cost-efficiencies into expanded patient access. This highlights the challenge of balancing clinical benefits with economic sustainability, particularly when the modest health gains come at a substantially higher cost. Although ponatinib offers therapeutic value, payers and policymakers must carefully evaluate whether the clinical outcomes justify the additional costs, considering also its safety profile.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2026.32.4.413
Primary Topic
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Economic evaluation of ponatinib vs reference and generic imatinib in front-line management of philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A value dilemma

Seongseok Yun, Brian L. Erstad, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Ivo Abraham et al.
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
article

Economic evaluation of ponatinib vs reference and generic imatinib in front-line management of philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A value dilemma

Seongseok Yun, Brian L. Erstad, Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Ivo Abraham, Rosemond Sussana Amamoo, Brielle Schuerman
article en

Abstract

Ponatinib demonstrated cost savings relative to reference imatinib, though its incremental costs were substantially higher when compared with both average and weighted imatinib, for an approximate gain of 3 months of life and 6 months of quality-adjusted life. This presents a value dilemma: whether to save money with more affordable alternatives for a slightly lower clinical benefit, possibly parlaying these cost-efficiencies into expanded patient access. This highlights the challenge of balancing clinical benefits with economic sustainability, particularly when the modest health gains come at a substantially higher cost. Although ponatinib offers therapeutic value, payers and policymakers must carefully evaluate whether the clinical outcomes justify the additional costs, considering also its safety profile.

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacyVol. 32(4)
University of Arizona (US), North-West University (ZA), Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.