ArticleOpen heart2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of mavacamten for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a perspective from the Chinese healthcare system.
Article in Open heart, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe clinical management of Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy remains challenging, and the phase III EXPLORER-HCM trial has demonstrated that the novel cardiac myosin inhibitor Mavacamten can significantly improve patients' symptomatic and functional status. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the MBC regimen (Mavacamten plus a β-blocker or a calcium-channel blocker) versus the PBC regimen (placebo plus a β-blocker or a calcium-channel blocker) for treating Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy from the perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System.
methodsA Markov model was constructed using data from the EXPLORER-HCM clinical trial. Cost and utility inputs were sourced from public databases and published literature. Total costs, life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of the model.
resultsCompared with the PBC regimen, Mavacamten treatment yielded an ICER of US$50 587.23/QALY. Its incremental cost was US$106 221.41, providing 2.1 additional QALY and 3.15 LY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the drug price was the key driver influencing changes in the ICER value.
conclusionThis study confirms that Mavacamten provides substantial health benefits to patients, but its relatively high ICER exceeds the commonly accepted willingness to pay.
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.