ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2025
Health Technology Assessment: Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rapid health technology assessment of six non-ergot dopamine-receptor agonists for the treatment of early Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
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
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.