已发表论文

健康技术评估:用于治疗视神经脊髓炎谱系障碍的单克隆抗体的评估

 

Authors Wang C, Wu H , Huang Y, Liu A, Lai S

Received 23 May 2025

Accepted for publication 1 September 2025

Published 8 September 2025 Volume 2025:19 Pages 7909—7927

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S535347

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Manfred Ogris

Changsheng Wang,1 Hanbiao Wu,1 Yeqing Huang,2 Aiqun Liu,2 Sha Lai1 

1Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence: Aiqun Liu, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 20-61337324, Fax +86 20-61321967, Email 179624095@qq.com Sha Lai, Key Specialty of Clinical Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 20-87622305, Fax +86 20-61321967, Email gylaisha@126.com

Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical value of monoclonal antibodies for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD), a multidimensional assessment of three monoclonal antibody therapies (eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab) was conducted using the updated drug evaluation framework from the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (2nd Edition). This study aims to provide evidence-based guidance for optimizing monoclonal antibody selection in clinical practice.
Methods: A quantitative scoring system was employed across five distinct domains: pharmacological properties (28 points), efficacy (27 points), safety (25 points), economics (10 points), and other attributes (10 points).
Results: The comprehensive evaluation scores, with a maximum of 100 points, were as follows: eculizumab (70.43), satralizumab (69.33), and inebilizumab (68).
Conclusion: Eculizumab is strongly endorsed as the first-line therapeutic option due to its optimal benefit-risk profile. Satralizumab and inebilizumab may be considered as conditional alternatives, contingent upon institutional resources and individual patient factors. This tiered recommendation framework facilitates adaptive formulary management that aligns with the evolving therapeutic landscape and socioeconomic conditions, thereby providing a replicable model for healthcare systems worldwide.

Keywords: monoclonal antibodies, satralizumab, inebilizumab, eculizumab, NMOSD, health technology assessment