ArticleBMC health services research2025
Cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.
methodsThe treatment efficacy of deucravacitinib was compared with apremilast using response rates derived from the head-to-head phase 3 clinical trials, POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2. A decision-tree (first 24-week)/ Markov model (later period) was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. The efficacy inputs were based on randomized controlled trials, while adverse event rates, discontinuation probabilities, costs, and utility data were obtained from relevant literature and Chinese sources. A 5% annual discount rate was used for the analysis of outcomes and costs. Model outcomes were characterized by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to examine the robustness of the results.
resultsAccording to the assumed lifetime horizon and model, the ICER of deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily compared with apremilast 30 mg twice daily was 140,047 CNY per QALY. Deucravacitinib was more cost-effective than apremilast at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 287,247 CNY per QALY. In the One-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of deucravacitinib was identified as the parameter exerting the greatest impact on the base-case results. The results of PSA showed the probability of deucravacitinib being cost-effective was 99.4%.
conclusionAt the WTP threshold of 287,247 CNY, deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily was a cost-effective treatment strategy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis compared with apremilast 30 mg twice daily from the Chinese healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon.
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.