ArticleClinical drug investigation2023
Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- DapagliflozinFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Article
- Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients with Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Clinical drug investigation · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSacubitril/valsartan has shown effectiveness in reducing hospitalization compared with valsartan in HFpEF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with heart failure with HFpEF.
methodsA Markov model was built to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with HFpEF, from the healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was a lifetime, with a cycle length of 1 month. Costs were obtained from local information or published papers, discounted at a rate of 0.05 for future costs. The transition probability and utility were based on other studies. The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sacubitril/valsartan was considered cost effective if the ICER obtained was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US dollars (US$) 12,551.5 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analysis, were performed to test robustness.
resultsOver a lifetime simulation, a 73-year-old Chinese patient with HFpEF could gain 6.44 QALYs (9.15 life-years) if sacubitril/valsartan plus standard treatment was administered, and 6.37 QALYs (9.07 life-years) if valsartan plus standard treatment was prescribed. The corresponding costs in both groups were US$12,471 and US$8663, respectively. The ICER was US$49,019/QALY (US$46,610/life-year), higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analysis showed that our results were robust.
conclusionAdding sacubitril/valsartan to standard treatment as an alternative to valsartan for the treatment of HFpEF resulted in more effectiveness but higher costs. Sacubitril/valsartan was likely to not be cost effective in Chinese patients with HFpEF. The cost of sacubitril/valsartan needs to reduce to 34% of its current price to be cost effective in this population. Studies based on real-world data are needed to confirm our conclusions.
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.