A comprehensive assessment of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease based on drug selection recommendations for Chinese medical institutions.
Jieqiong Lv, Xianbin Cai, Zhaopeng Yang, Bin Li, Yanqiong Zhou, Fenge Li, Hongbo Fu
{"title":"A comprehensive assessment of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease based on drug selection recommendations for Chinese medical institutions.","authors":"Jieqiong Lv, Xianbin Cai, Zhaopeng Yang, Bin Li, Yanqiong Zhou, Fenge Li, Hongbo Fu","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2026.2715983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are widely used to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the optimal choice remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the overall clinical value of seven ChEI formulations to provide evidence‑based guidance for rational AD pharmacotherapy selection. We constructed an evaluation framework based on the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition), which combined mini‑health technology assessment with the System of Objectified Judgment Analysis (SOJA). Seven formulations were assessed across five weighted dimensions: pharmacological properties, efficacy, safety, economy, and other attributes. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and official regulatory databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within this assessment framework, donepezil tablets achieved the highest score (74.86), followed by rivastigmine patches (73.50) and rivastigmine capsules (72.28). These three formulations are recommended as priority options for inclusion in Chinese hospital formularies. The remaining four drugs may be prescribed according to individual patient conditions and available institutional resources.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides evidence‑based guidance for clinical and institutional decision‑making in AD management and delivers a generalizable assessment framework adaptable to local real‑world data for healthcare institutions globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2026.2715983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are widely used to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the optimal choice remains unclear.
Research design and methods: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the overall clinical value of seven ChEI formulations to provide evidence‑based guidance for rational AD pharmacotherapy selection. We constructed an evaluation framework based on the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition), which combined mini‑health technology assessment with the System of Objectified Judgment Analysis (SOJA). Seven formulations were assessed across five weighted dimensions: pharmacological properties, efficacy, safety, economy, and other attributes. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and official regulatory databases.
Results: Within this assessment framework, donepezil tablets achieved the highest score (74.86), followed by rivastigmine patches (73.50) and rivastigmine capsules (72.28). These three formulations are recommended as priority options for inclusion in Chinese hospital formularies. The remaining four drugs may be prescribed according to individual patient conditions and available institutional resources.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence‑based guidance for clinical and institutional decision‑making in AD management and delivers a generalizable assessment framework adaptable to local real‑world data for healthcare institutions globally.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.