Background: Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and vonoprazan are recommended as first-line therapies for erosive esophagitis (EE). However, it is uncertain how the magnitude of efficacy and safety of first-line therapy, the choice of individual PPIs or vonoprazan in the treatment of EE remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and PPIs in healing esophageal mucosal injury in patients with EE. Methods: Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of proton pump inhibitors and vonoprazan in the treatment of reflux esophagitis up to December 2021. Studies on standard-dose PPIs or vonoprazan that were published in Chinese or English and assessed healing effects in EE were included in the analysis. Stata16.0 was used to conduct a network Meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the treatment. Results: A total of 41 literatures were included with 11,592 enrolled patients. For the endoscopic cure rate, all the PPIs and vonoprazan significantly improve compared to Placebo; Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, Ilaprazole ranked first, followed by esomeprazole, vonoprazan, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole and placebo therapy ranked the last. For the rate of adverse events, there was no significant difference among all the PPIs, vonoprazan, and placebo. Conclusions: Ilaprazole, esomeprazole and vonoprazan have more advantages in mucosal erosion healing, there was no significant difference in the comparative safety among all interventions.

Object: Based on the best available evidence, rapid health technology was used to assess 4 CDK4/6 inhibitors approved for marketing in China. This assessment aims to provide a reference basis for the selection of drugs by medical institutions in China and to promote the rational use of drugs in the clinic. Methods: Depending on the Rapid Guidelines for Drug Evaluation and Selection in Chinese Medical Institutions (the Second Edition), a percentage quantitative scoring approach was used to objectively score the pharmacological properties, efficacy, safety, economy, and other attributes of CDK4/6 inhibitors. Results: The composite score rankings were, in descending order, 78.09 points for abemaciclib, 78.04 points for palbociclib, 72.15 points for dalpiciclib, and 69.24 points for ribociclib by integrating the result of the 5 dimensions. Conclusion: Until the clinical studies, guideline recommendations, prices, and many other aspects of this assessment are updated, abemaciclib and palbociclib, which have the top 2 scores, can be used as a priority recommendation for Chinese medical institutions to select CDK4/6 inhibitors and optimize the use of the drug catalog based on the scoring results of this assessment.