TY  - JOUR
AU  - Deng, Hua-liang
AU  - Yu, Si-jun
AU  - Wang, Fan
AU  - Liu, Chun-hui
AU  - Liu, Xia
AU  - Wang, Xiao-ye
AU  - Xu, Wen-ling
AU  - Wang, Jia-xin
AU  - Zheng, Guan-zhong
AU  - Zhou, Jian-hua
AU  - Xie, Xing-ze
AU  - He, Yong
AU  - Zhang, Kai-yan
AU  - Gao, Di-fei
AU  - Cui, Jia-yu
AU  - Sun, Gui-fang
AU  - Li, De-cai
AU  - Xie, Xing-hong
AU  - Cheang, Iokfai
AU  - Ding, Ning-xin
AU  - Jia, Zhen-hua
PY  - 2026
TI  - Economic evaluation of Qili Qiangxin capsules for the treatment of chronic heart failure
JO  - Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine and Technology Assessment
SP  - 9570029
VL  - 2
IS  - 1
AB  - IntroductionChronic heart failure (CHF) confers high mortality and heavy economic burden as a critical public health issue. Qili Qiangxin (QLQX) capsules, a traditional Chinese patent medicine, may improve clinical outcomes in CHF patients. This study evaluated the economic value of QLQX capsules for CHF. MethodsA health economic analysis was performed from the healthcare system perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used for short-term outcomes, and a Markov model-based cost-utility analysis for long-term outcomes. Robustness was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. ResultsA total of 1555 patients were equally randomized to two groups: QLQX capsules plus standard of care (QLQX group) or standard of care alone (control group). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. In the QLQX group, 1-year direct medical costs were ¥9368.08 ($1311.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [¥8980.61, ¥9755.55]), versus ¥6402.21 ($896.31; 95% CI: [¥5903.50, ¥6900.91]) in the control group. The higher costs in the QLQX group were primarily driven by medication expenses. Composite endpoint events occurred in 19.00% (95% CI: [17.07%, 21.03%]) of the QLQX group compared with 23.40% (95% CI: [21.34%, 25.61%]) of the control group (P = 0.003). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was ¥67 406.14 ($9436.86). Over a 15-year time horizon, the QLQX group incurred total costs of ¥57 096 ($7993.44) and achieved 5.46 QALYs, whereas the control group incurred ¥34 016 ($4762.24) and achieved 5.07 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of ¥58 946 per QALY ($8252.44/QALY). This value is below China’s 2023 per capita gross domestic product threshold (¥89 358; $12 510.12), suggesting that QLQX capsule is highly cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses further confirmed the robustness of these findings. ConclusionQLQX capsules were associated with higher short-term costs but greater efficacy than standard care, and long-term modeling supports their high cost-effectiveness.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.26599/eCMTA.2026.9570029
DO  - 10.26599/eCMTA.2026.9570029