Trial reportPloS one2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Shexiang Baoxin Pill (MUSKARDIA) as the add-on treatment to standard therapy for stable coronary artery disease in China.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Shexiang Baoxin Pill (MUSKARDIA) on Cardiovascular Outcomes by Baseline Hemoglobin Levels in 2,494 Patients with Chronic Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Secondary Subgroup Analysis.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent evidence indicates that Shexiang Baoxin Pill (MUSKARDIA), as an add-on treatment to standard therapy for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), is effective. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of introducing the Shexiang Baoxin Pill (Abbreviation SBP) to the current standard treatment for patients with CAD in China remains unknown.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing SBP into the current standard treatment in China for patients with CAD.
methodThe effects of two treatment strategies-the SBP group (SBP combined with standard therapy) and the standard therapy group (placebo combined with standard therapy)-were simulated using a long-term Markov model. The simulation subjects might experience non-fatal MI and/or stroke or vascular or non-vascular death events. The study parameters were primarily derived from the MUSKARDIA trial, which was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IV randomized clinical trial. Furthermore, age-related change, event costs, and event utilities were drawn from publicly available sources. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% per annum. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model. Based on the MUSKARDIA trial results, the risk with the events of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was decreased (P < 0.05) in the female subgroup treated with SBP therapy compared with standard therapy. Consequently, a scenario analysis based on subgroups of Chinese females was conducted for this study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved.
resultsAfter 30 years of simulation, the SBP group has added 0.32 QALYs, and the cost has been saved 841.00 CNY. Compared with the standard therapy, the ICER for the SBP therapy was -2628.13 CNY per QALY. Scenario analyses of Chinese females showed that, after 30 years of simulation, the SBP therapy has been increased by 0.82 QALYs, and the cost has been reduced by 19474.00 CNY. Compared with the standard therapy, the ICER for the SBP therapy was -26569.51 CNY per QALY. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThis is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SBP in the treatment of CAD. In conclusion, SBP as an add-on treatment to standard therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for CAD in Chinese patients.
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.