@article{Deng2026, 
author = {Hua-liang Deng and Si-jun Yu and Fan Wang and Chun-hui Liu and Xia Liu and Xiao-ye Wang and Wen-ling Xu and Jia-xin Wang and Guan-zhong Zheng and Jian-hua Zhou and Xing-ze Xie and Yong He and Kai-yan Zhang and Di-fei Gao and Jia-yu Cui and Gui-fang Sun and De-cai Li and Xing-hong Xie and Iokfai Cheang and Ning-xin Ding and Zhen-hua Jia},
title = {Economic evaluation of Qili Qiangxin capsules for the treatment of chronic heart failure},
year = {2026},
journal = {Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine and Technology Assessment},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {9570029},
keywords = {Qili Qiangxin capsules, chronic heart failure, pharmacoeconomics, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/eCMTA.2026.9570029},
doi = {10.26599/eCMTA.2026.9570029},
abstract = {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.}
}