ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
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.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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. 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.