{"title":"deucravacitinib与apremilast在中国治疗中重度斑块型银屑病的成本-效果","authors":"Bingying Tang, Rumeng Liu, Shaofei Hu","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-13403-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According 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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482001/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in China.\",\"authors\":\"Bingying Tang, Rumeng Liu, Shaofei Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-025-13403-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According 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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482001/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13403-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13403-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in China.
Objectives: The 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.
Methods: The 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.
Results: According 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%.
Conclusion: At 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.
期刊介绍:
BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.