Economic Evaluation of Safflower Yellow Injection for the Treatment of Patients with Stable Angina Pectoris in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

12Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Safflower Yellow Injection (SYI) plus conventional treatment (SYI group) versus conventional treatment only (conventional group) for the treatment of stable angina pectoris (SAP) patients in China. Methods: A decision-tree model was constructed and the treatment impact was estimated for up to 1 year. The data, including treatment effectiveness, episodes of angina pectoris (AP)-associated hospitalization and its in-hospital mortality, mortality rate of heart diseases, and cost of hospitalization, were obtained from literature. The costs of medications were calculated based on their average bidding prices in China. The authors also conducted a doctor survey to obtain cost associated with death of cardiovascular events. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. Results: SAP patients in the SYI group (n = 1000) gained incremental 66.01 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of $250,294 compared with patients receiving conventional treatment, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,791/QALY, which was less than Chinese GDP per capita and is considered to be highly cost effective per WHO-recommended economic evaluation guidelines. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust with variations for all major parameters of the model. Conclusion: SYI combined with conventional treatment is a highly cost-effective therapy option compared with the conventional treatment for treatment of SAP in China.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xuan, J., Huang, M., Lu, Y., & Tao, L. (2018). Economic Evaluation of Safflower Yellow Injection for the Treatment of Patients with Stable Angina Pectoris in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 24(6), 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2017.0284

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free