Keytruda vs Trikafta
Side-by-side drug price comparison from Medicare Part D data
Verdict
Trikafta costs 23% less per claim than Keytruda ($13935.00 vs $18176.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Keytruda at $7.2B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
| Metric | Keytruda | Trikafta |
|---|---|---|
| Avg Cost per Claim Average cost Medicare pays per prescription claim | $18,176 | $13,935* |
| Total Medicare Spending Total Medicare Part D spending on this drug | $7.2B | $3.5B |
| Total Claims | 398,000 | 248,000 |
| Year-over-Year Change Price change from prior year (lower is better for patients) | 28.6% | 18.4%* |
| Generic Available | No | Yes |
| Condition | Cancer | Cystic Fibrosis |
| Total Beneficiaries | 82,000 | 18,000 |
Trikafta costs 23% less per claim than Keytruda ($13935.00 vs $18176.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Keytruda at $7.2B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
Explore More
The side-by-side above pulls the CMS Medicare Part D Drug Spending data data for both Keytruda and Trikafta. What follows is the interpretation — which specific axes carry the most weight for Keytruda versus Trikafta, and which differences are large enough to influence a real decision.
For households or analysts using this comparison as a decision input, the right framing is usually not "which is better" in aggregate but "which is better for the specific decision in front of you." CMS Medicare Part D Drug Spending data captures the raw data; the framing depends on whether the question is investment, residency, planning, or research.
Source: CMS Medicare Part D Spending, 2026.