Key result
Aficamten plus standard of care proves cost-effective, adding ~2.1 QALYs over standard care alone.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of aficamten plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective was not evaluated.
Does aficamten plus standard of care improve quality-adjusted life years and provide cost-effective treatment compared to standard of care alone in adults with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Does aficamten plus standard of care improve quality-adjusted life years and provide cost-effective treatment compared to standard of care alone in adults with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Effect estimate: ICER US$22,775.17/QALY
Absolute Event Rate: 9.696% vs 7.643%
From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adding aficamten to standard of care is a cost-effective strategy for treating symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Supports aficamten adoption for symptomatic oHCM in China; extends SEQUOIA-HCM data to cost-effectiveness modeling.
Background To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aficamten plus standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone for patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods A four-state Markov model based on the phase III SEQUOIA-HCM trial was developed to simulate lifetime outcomes. The first 24 weeks were modeled using trial data, followed by 4-week cycles for long-term extrapolation. Based on FOREST-HCM, the incremental treatment effect of aficamten was assumed to persist through week 96 and then linearly wane to complete loss by year 3. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 4.5% annually. Model uncertainty was assessed using one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses. Results Total costs were US$143,281.22 with aficamten plus SoC and US$96,509.03 with SoC alone, with 9.696 and 7.643 QALYs, respectively. Aficamten plus SoC yielded an incremental cost of US$46,772.19 and 2.054 QALYs, corresponding to an ICER of US$22,775.17/QALY, below the WTP threshold of US$29,399.70/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective was 76.6% at the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed ICERs of US$19,351.77/QALY when only short-term effects were considered, US$43,752.42/QALY when treatment effects disappeared in year 5, and US$81,220.72/QALY when they disappeared in year 10. Price reductions of 22.0% and 50.5%, respectively, were required in the latter two scenarios. With a permanent discontinuation probability of 0.131% per 4-week cycle, the ICER was US$23,888.94/QALY. Conclusion From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, aficamten plus SoC was cost-effective versus SoC alone for symptomatic oHCM under the base-case assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhai et al. (2026) studied symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM). Aficamten plus standard of care vs. Standard of care alone was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US$/QALY (ICER US$22,775.17/QALY). Aficamten plus standard of care yielded an incremental 2.054 QALYs at an ICER of US$22,775.17/QALY, making it cost-effective compared to standard of care alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: