Health Technology Assessment: Evaluation of 8 CGRP-Targeted Therapy Drugs for the Treatment of Migraine
Rattachement africain : cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Purpose: In order to scientifically evaluate the clinical value of the comprehensive attributes of Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor drugs, a comprehensive literature-based clinical evaluation of CGRP-targeted therapy drugs was conducted using the drug evaluation method modified by expert discussion in the Rapid Guide for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (Second Edition). Methods: Based on evidence-based data and the relevant elements and weighting in the "Selection Guidelines" quantification record form for drug evaluation and selection in medical institutions, adjustments were made according to the characteristics of CGRP-targeted therapy drugs. We systematically evaluated erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, rimegepant, ubrogepant, atogepant, zavegepant for safety, efficacy, economy, and pharmacological properties. Results: The final assessment result scores from highest to lowest were rimegepant (84.5 points), erenumab (75.78 points), galcanezumab (74.02 points), fremanezumab (73.93 points), atogepant (72.64 points), eptinezumab (71.69 points), ubrogepant (70.37 points), zavegepant (56.44 points). Conclusion: Rimegepant, erenumab, fremanezumab, atogepant, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, ubrogepant can be entered into the medication list of medical institutions as strongly recommended drugs.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Health Technology Assessment: Evaluation of 8 CGRP-Targeted Therapy Drugs for the Treatment of Migraine
- Date Crossref
- 01/02/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.