OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib for ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer （NSCLC） patients who had not previously received ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors （TKIs） from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS Based on the INSPIRE clinical trial， a three-health state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the progression of disease， with model cycle of 3 weeks and a life-year time range of 15 years； the discount rate was 5%. For the treatment of ALK-positive advanced NSCLC， total cost， quality-adjusted life year （QALY）， and incremental cost- effectiveness ratio （ICER） were compared between iruplinalkib and crizotinib； using 1-3 times China’s per capita gross domestic product （GDP） （89 358-268 074 yuan） in 2023 as the willingness-to-pay （WTP） threshold， the cost-effectiveness of two regimens were compared. The sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis （altering the distribution of survival curves， utility values） were conducted to assess model robustness. RESULTS Compared with the crizotinib regimen， the ICER for the iruplinalkib regimen was 194 412.74 yuan/QALY， which was below the WTP threshold of three times China’s per capita GDP in 2023 yuan）. The results under the scenario of altering the survival curve distribution were consistent with the base case analysis. However， after increasing the utility value of the disease progression state， the ICER exceeded the WTP threshold， and iruplinalkib no longer had a cost-effective advantage. The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of iruplinalkib and the utility values of disease progression states had a significant impact on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base case analysis results. CONCLUSIONS From the perspective of China’s healthcare system， compared with crizotinib regimen， the therapy with iruplinalkib is cost-effective for ALK-positive NSCLC patients who have not previously received ALK-TKIs.