<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>25(1)</volume><submitter>Tang B</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>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%.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>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.</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMC health services research</journal><pagination>1222</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12482001</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in China.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12482001</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Hu S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tang B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu R</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Cost-effectiveness of deucravacitinib versus apremilast of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in China.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>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%.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>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.</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Sep</publication><modification>2026-06-04T00:12:00.632Z</modification><creation>2026-05-03T03:11:51.94Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12482001</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41029430</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12913-025-13403-3</doi></cross_references></HashMap>