Digital multicriteria evaluation of negotiated medicines using Chinese mini-HTA: application of structured methodologies in assessing once-weekly GLP-1 RAs for improved clinical decision-making.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Frontiers in Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-09-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphar.2025.1588056
Xiao Li, Zhihong Qiu, Chaojun Xue, Xiaokai Ren, Zhanjun Dong
{"title":"Digital multicriteria evaluation of negotiated medicines using Chinese mini-HTA: application of structured methodologies in assessing once-weekly GLP-1 RAs for improved clinical decision-making.","authors":"Xiao Li, Zhihong Qiu, Chaojun Xue, Xiaokai Ren, Zhanjun Dong","doi":"10.3389/fphar.2025.1588056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic and transparent evaluation of medicines remains a global challenge. In China, structured frameworks for clinical value assessment are underutilized despite improved access to negotiated medicines. Once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were selected as a representative case for their reimbursement status and clinical and economic relevance. This study applied a quantitative mini-health (mini-HTA) technology assessment to support rational drug selection.<sup>1</sup>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured, three-stage methodology was employed to evaluate four once-weekly GLP-1 RAs. First, a weighted scoring system was established for five dimensions-pharmaceutical properties, effectiveness, safety, economy, and other considerations-based on expert consensus using the Quantitative Record Form for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Medical Institutions. Second, evidence for each dimension was systematically collected using a PICO-based search strategy across guideline databases, literature sources, and official documents. Third, each drug was quantitatively scored in each dimension according to predefined criteria and expert-assigned weights; the total scores were used to classify drugs into recommendation levels (\"strongly recommended,\" \"weakly recommended,\" or \"not recommended\") to guide evidence-based selection in medical institutions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Semaglutide (77.8) and dulaglutide (76.3) achieved the highest totals, driven by superior HbA1c reduction and proven cardiovascular benefit, and were strongly recommended. Exenatide microspheres scored 70.2, mainly owing to favourable acquisition cost, and was also strongly recommended. PEG loxenatide scored 62.9, limited by narrower reimbursement coverage and lower international uptake, and received a weak recommendation. Safety profiles were comparable across agents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates that a structured, expert-informed mini-HTA framework can be feasibly applied for quantitative evaluation and selection of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs in Chinese medical institutions. Key differentiators among agents were efficacy (notably cardiovascular benefit) and economic/policy factors, while safety differences were minimal. This replicable approach improves transparency, consistency, and evidence-based decision-making in clinical pharmacy and institutional formulary management.</p>","PeriodicalId":12491,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1588056"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1588056","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Systematic and transparent evaluation of medicines remains a global challenge. In China, structured frameworks for clinical value assessment are underutilized despite improved access to negotiated medicines. Once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were selected as a representative case for their reimbursement status and clinical and economic relevance. This study applied a quantitative mini-health (mini-HTA) technology assessment to support rational drug selection.1.

Methods: A structured, three-stage methodology was employed to evaluate four once-weekly GLP-1 RAs. First, a weighted scoring system was established for five dimensions-pharmaceutical properties, effectiveness, safety, economy, and other considerations-based on expert consensus using the Quantitative Record Form for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Medical Institutions. Second, evidence for each dimension was systematically collected using a PICO-based search strategy across guideline databases, literature sources, and official documents. Third, each drug was quantitatively scored in each dimension according to predefined criteria and expert-assigned weights; the total scores were used to classify drugs into recommendation levels ("strongly recommended," "weakly recommended," or "not recommended") to guide evidence-based selection in medical institutions.

Results: Semaglutide (77.8) and dulaglutide (76.3) achieved the highest totals, driven by superior HbA1c reduction and proven cardiovascular benefit, and were strongly recommended. Exenatide microspheres scored 70.2, mainly owing to favourable acquisition cost, and was also strongly recommended. PEG loxenatide scored 62.9, limited by narrower reimbursement coverage and lower international uptake, and received a weak recommendation. Safety profiles were comparable across agents.

Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a structured, expert-informed mini-HTA framework can be feasibly applied for quantitative evaluation and selection of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs in Chinese medical institutions. Key differentiators among agents were efficacy (notably cardiovascular benefit) and economic/policy factors, while safety differences were minimal. This replicable approach improves transparency, consistency, and evidence-based decision-making in clinical pharmacy and institutional formulary management.

使用中国mini-HTA对协商药品进行数字多标准评估:应用结构化方法评估每周一次的GLP-1 RAs以改善临床决策。
背景:系统和透明的药物评价仍然是一项全球性挑战。在中国,尽管通过谈判改善了药品的可及性,但临床价值评估的结构化框架并未得到充分利用。选择每周一次的胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂(GLP-1 RAs)作为其报销状况及其临床和经济相关性的代表性案例。本研究采用定量微健康(mini-HTA)技术评估,支持合理的药物选择。方法:采用结构化的三阶段方法评估四个每周一次的GLP-1 RAs。首先,采用《医疗机构药品评价与选择定量记录表》,在专家共识的基础上,从药性、有效性、安全性、经济性等5个维度建立加权评分体系。其次,使用基于pico的搜索策略,系统地收集了指南数据库、文献来源和官方文件中每个维度的证据。第三,根据预定义的标准和专家分配的权重,对每种药物在每个维度上进行定量评分;使用总分将药物分为“强烈推荐”、“弱推荐”、“不推荐”等推荐级别,指导医疗机构循证选择。结果:Semaglutide(77.8)和dulaglutide(76.3)获得了最高的总数,这是由于HbA1c降低和心血管益处的优势,因此强烈推荐使用。艾塞那肽微球得分为70.2分,这主要是由于其收购成本较低,因此也被强烈推荐。PEG洛xenatide得分为62.9分,受报销范围窄和国际使用率低的限制,推荐率较低。各药物的安全性具有可比性。结论:本研究表明,在我国医疗机构每周一次GLP-1 RAs的定量评价和选择中,结构化的、专家知情的mini-HTA框架是可行的。不同药物之间的关键区别是疗效(特别是心血管益处)和经济/政策因素,而安全性差异很小。这种可复制的方法提高了临床药学和机构处方管理的透明度、一致性和循证决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers in Pharmacology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
5163
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Pharmacology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across disciplines, including basic and clinical pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, pharmacy and toxicology. Field Chief Editor Heike Wulff at UC Davis is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信