ArticleBMC public health2024
Cost-utility analysis of add-on vericiguat for the treatment of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in China.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-utility analysis of add-on Qili Qiangxin capsules in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in China.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- New Therapeutics for Heart Failure Worsening: Focus on Vericiguat.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the addition of vericiguat for treating chronic heart failure (CHF) in China from the healthcare payer's perspective.
methodsA Markov model was built to estimate the cost and utility of treating CHF using vericiguat plus standard treatment (vericiguat group) vs. standard treatment alone (standard treatment group). The clinical parameters (mortality of cardiovascular and hospitalization rate of HF) were calculated according to the VICTORIA clinical trial. The HF cost and utility data were obtained from the literature published in China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were performed.
resultsAccording to the 13-year model, vericiguat was more expensive (155599.07 CNY vs. 259396.83 CNY) and more effective (4.41 QALYs vs. 4.54 QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 802389.27 CNY per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that cardiovascular mortality in the two groups was the parameter that had the greatest impact on the results. The GDP per capita in 2022 in China was 85,700 CNY. The probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that the probability of vericiguat being cost-effective was only 41.7% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times GDP per capita (257,100 CNY).
conclusionsIn China, the treatment of CHF with vericiguat is not cost-effective. The drug price could decrease to 145.8 CNY, which could be considered cost-effective.
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.