ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Cost-effectiveness of Qiliqiangxin in HFrEF: adjunctive therapy vs. standard care from a Chinese healthcare perspective.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina has the highest global burden of heart failure (HF), with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients experiencing the greatest mortality risk. The QUEST trial demonstrated that Qiliqiangxin (QLQX) capsules could improve outcomes for Chinese HFrEF patients, but the cost-effectiveness of QLQX has not been previously evaluated.
methodsWe developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding QLQX to standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone in a simulated cohort of 63-year-old HFrEF patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was the primary outcome. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times China's per capita GDP. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.
resultsAdding QLQX to standard treatment resulted in an additional 0.53 QALYs (4.74 vs. 4.22 QALYs) at an incremental cost of 28,760 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (USD 4,081), yielding an ICER of 54,522 CNY (USD 7,737) per QALY. This ICER was significantly below the WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
conclusionQLQX capsules, as adjunctive therapy to standard treatment, represent a cost-effective strategy for managing HFrEF in China, supporting their inclusion in clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies. Real-world studies are needed to validate these results further.
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.