Title: Evaluating Vonoprazan and Tegoprazan for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treatment
in Chinese Healthcare: An EVIDEM Framework Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study mainly used the EVIDEM framework, which involved 5 domains and 13 criteria, to
comparatively evaluate the application value of two new P-CABs, VPZ and TPZ, in the field
of GERD treatment in Chinese Healthcare, and to explore the possibility of using the EVIDEM
framework analysis to help Chinese PTCs make clinical decisions. It’s a relatively novel study
but there are still some shortcomings that need to be addressed:
1. Introduction, lines 60-62, "EVIDEM offers a nuanced......in medical institutions"# please cite
relevant literature in support of this opinion.
2. Introduction, lines 68-70. "Potassium-competitive acid blockers......the available P-CABs in
China", please make a comprehensive search of the P-CABs that can be used in China
3. Introduction, lines 75-85, "This study aims to......to healthcare professionals and
policymakers", please shorten this part since it has a lot of unnecessary clarification.
4. This study mainly evaluates the evidence matrix based on the expert panel's assessment.
The evaluation process is subjective, so it is important to control for any potential biases.
Was blinding used to minimize subjective factors? Additionally, how was the low strength of
evidence resulting from a limited number of papers or their limited relevance addressed when
creating the evidence matrix? The methodology should reflect the content mentioned above.
5. Method, lines 106-113, "This diversity was utmost important......of the drugs in question",
please condense this part since there's too much duplication
6. Please fill the table2
7. What was the search strategy used for each database during the literature review? did you
search Please add the search formula of each database in the appendix.
8. In the first part of the results, I would like to know why the 13 criteria were weighted and
based on what?  and what was the methodology used to calculate the weights? It should clarify
the criteria for what and supplement the calculated method for the weight in the Method part.
9. There's a lot in the manuscript that's not particularly well organized. For example, in lines
204-205, "Both VPZ and TPZ ......, compare to PPIs", Citation 13-16 presents the healing rates
of reflux esophagitis with different types and doses of P-CABs and PPIs. All groups had healing
rates above 90% after 8 weeks of treatment.  Distinct differences in healing rates were observed
between esophagitis treated with P-CABs and PPIs under different doses. The authors just stated
that after 8 weeks of treatment, the healing rates of esophagitis with TPZ and VPZ were over
90%, but did not clarify the dosages. Furthermore, lines 262-263, citation 32 only examine
the therapeutic effects of VPZ 20 mg standard and 10 mg maintenance treatment for RRE,
not examine the efficacy of other P-Cabs, therefore, it is unclear how to conclude that VPZ
is particularly effective in the treatment of RRE. Is there any other literature to support this?
If so, please cite it. If not, use a different format. Finally, please check the manuscript and
supplementary file for similar errors and revise it.
10. Discussion, lines 342-351, "Following extensive discussions.......and drawbacks to the
patient", this paragraph shouldn't be in the Discussion, it belongs to the method, and it would
be beneficial for the author to explore both the pros and cons of this method in the discussion
section.
11. The statement "whereas TPZ's results were similar to those of PPIs" in line 356 is incorrect.
Citation 20 pointed out that 'Tegoprazan exhibited night-time acid suppression for slightly
but not significantly longer than vonoprazan, and greater than esomeprazole', and citation 21
also illustrated that up to 12 hours after evening dosing, tegoprazan presented a stronger acid-
suppressive effect than dexlansoprazole and the dexlansoprazole group presented a comparable
acid-suppressive effect with the tegoprazan groups 12 hours after dosing.  So, please modify
based on the results of relevant research.
12. Please check that citation 13 was quoted right in the supplementary file, and it's better for the
author to supplement relevant literature on the safety of VPZ or TPZ in standard or maintenance
therapy in the safety part of the evidence matrix to strengthen the evidence and the tables in
supplementary files should be prefixed with "supplementary" to distinguish them from tables
in manuscripts.
13. Your manuscript must be carefully edited, with special attention to the logical structure of
the article, the clear expression of the results and relevant points, as well as English grammar,
spelling, and sentence structure, so that the reader can more easily understand the content of the
article. If necessary, it is recommended to seek a proper translation or reviewing service.
Title: Evaluating Vonoprazan and Tegoprazan for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treatment
in Chinese Healthcare: An EVIDEM Framework Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study mainly used the EVIDEM framework, which involved 5 domains and 13 criteria, to
comparatively evaluate the application value of two new P-CABs, VPZ and TPZ, in the field
of GERD treatment in Chinese Healthcare, and to explore the possibility of using the EVIDEM
framework analysis to help Chinese PTCs make clinical decisions. It’s a relatively novel study
but there are still some shortcomings that need to be addressed:
1. Introduction, lines 60-62, "EVIDEM offers a nuanced......in medical institutions"# please cite
relevant literature in support of this opinion.
2. Introduction, lines 68-70. "Potassium-competitive acid blockers......the available P-CABs in
China", please make a comprehensive search of the P-CABs that can be used in China
3. Introduction, lines 75-85, "This study aims to......to healthcare professionals and
policymakers", please shorten this part since it has a lot of unnecessary clarification.
4. This study mainly evaluates the evidence matrix based on the expert panel's assessment.
The evaluation process is subjective, so it is important to control for any potential biases.
Was blinding used to minimize subjective factors? Additionally, how was the low strength of
evidence resulting from a limited number of papers or their limited relevance addressed when
creating the evidence matrix? The methodology should reflect the content mentioned above.
5. Method, lines 106-113, "This diversity was utmost important......of the drugs in question",
please condense this part since there's too much duplication
6. Please fill the table2
7. What was the search strategy used for each database during the literature review? did you
search Please add the search formula of each database in the appendix.
8. In the first part of the results, I would like to know why the 13 criteria were weighted and
based on what?  and what was the methodology used to calculate the weights? It should clarify
the criteria for what and supplement the calculated method for the weight in the Method part.
9. There's a lot in the manuscript that's not particularly well organized. For example, in lines
204-205, "Both VPZ and TPZ ......, compare to PPIs", Citation 13-16 presents the healing rates
of reflux esophagitis with different types and doses of P-CABs and PPIs. All groups had healing
rates above 90% after 8 weeks of treatment.  Distinct differences in healing rates were observed
between esophagitis treated with P-CABs and PPIs under different doses. The authors just stated
that after 8 weeks of treatment, the healing rates of esophagitis with TPZ and VPZ were over
90%, but did not clarify the dosages. Furthermore, lines 262-263, citation 32 only examine
the therapeutic effects of VPZ 20 mg standard and 10 mg maintenance treatment for RRE,
not examine the efficacy of other P-Cabs, therefore, it is unclear how to conclude that VPZ
is particularly effective in the treatment of RRE. Is there any other literature to support this?
If so, please cite it. If not, use a different format. Finally, please check the manuscript and
supplementary file for similar errors and revise it.
10. Discussion, lines 342-351, "Following extensive discussions.......and drawbacks to the
patient", this paragraph shouldn't be in the Discussion, it belongs to the method, and it would
be beneficial for the author to explore both the pros and cons of this method in the discussion
section.
11. The statement "whereas TPZ's results were similar to those of PPIs" in line 356 is incorrect.
Citation 20 pointed out that 'Tegoprazan exhibited night-time acid suppression for slightly
but not significantly longer than vonoprazan, and greater than esomeprazole', and citation 21
also illustrated that up to 12 hours after evening dosing, tegoprazan presented a stronger acid-
suppressive effect than dexlansoprazole and the dexlansoprazole group presented a comparable
acid-suppressive effect with the tegoprazan groups 12 hours after dosing.  So, please modify
based on the results of relevant research.
12. Please check that citation 13 was quoted right in the supplementary file, and it's better for the
author to supplement relevant literature on the safety of VPZ or TPZ in standard or maintenance
therapy in the safety part of the evidence matrix to strengthen the evidence and the tables in
supplementary files should be prefixed with "supplementary" to distinguish them from tables
in manuscripts.
13. Your manuscript must be carefully edited, with special attention to the logical structure of
the article, the clear expression of the results and relevant points, as well as English grammar,
spelling, and sentence structure, so that the reader can more easily understand the content of the
article. If necessary, it is recommended to seek a proper translation or reviewing service.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluating Vonoprazan and Tegoprazan for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treatment
in Chinese Healthcare: An EVIDEM Framework Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study mainly used the EVIDEM framework, which involved 5 domains and 13 criteria, to
comparatively evaluate the application value of two new P-CABs, VPZ and TPZ, in the field
of GERD treatment in Chinese Healthcare, and to explore the possibility of using the EVIDEM
framework analysis to help Chinese PTCs make clinical decisions. It’s a relatively novel study
but there are still some shortcomings that need to be addressed:
1. Introduction, lines 60-62, "EVIDEM offers a nuanced......in medical institutions"# please cite
relevant literature in support of this opinion.
2. Introduction, lines 68-70. "Potassium-competitive acid blockers......the available P-CABs in
China", please make a comprehensive search of the P-CABs that can be used in China
3. Introduction, lines 75-85, "This study aims to......to healthcare professionals and
policymakers", please shorten this part since it has a lot of unnecessary clarification.
4. This study mainly evaluates the evidence matrix based on the expert panel's assessment.
The evaluation process is subjective, so it is important to control for any potential biases.
Was blinding used to minimize subjective factors? Additionally, how was the low strength of
evidence resulting from a limited number of papers or their limited relevance addressed when
creating the evidence matrix? The methodology should reflect the content mentioned above.
5. Method, lines 106-113, "This diversity was utmost important......of the drugs in question",
please condense this part since there's too much duplication
6. Please fill the table2
7. What was the search strategy used for each database during the literature review? did you
search Please add the search formula of each database in the appendix.
8. In the first part of the results, I would like to know why the 13 criteria were weighted and
based on what?  and what was the methodology used to calculate the weights? It should clarify
the criteria for what and supplement the calculated method for the weight in the Method part.
9. There's a lot in the manuscript that's not particularly well organized. For example, in lines
204-205, "Both VPZ and TPZ ......, compare to PPIs", Citation 13-16 presents the healing rates
of reflux esophagitis with different types and doses of P-CABs and PPIs. All groups had healing
rates above 90% after 8 weeks of treatment.  Distinct differences in healing rates were observed
between esophagitis treated with P-CABs and PPIs under different doses. The authors just stated
that after 8 weeks of treatment, the healing rates of esophagitis with TPZ and VPZ were over
90%, but did not clarify the dosages. Furthermore, lines 262-263, citation 32 only examine
the therapeutic effects of VPZ 20 mg standard and 10 mg maintenance treatment for RRE,
not examine the efficacy of other P-Cabs, therefore, it is unclear how to conclude that VPZ
is particularly effective in the treatment of RRE. Is there any other literature to support this?
If so, please cite it. If not, use a different format. Finally, please check the manuscript and
supplementary file for similar errors and revise it.
10. Discussion, lines 342-351, "Following extensive discussions.......and drawbacks to the
patient", this paragraph shouldn't be in the Discussion, it belongs to the method, and it would
be beneficial for the author to explore both the pros and cons of this method in the discussion
section.
11. The statement "whereas TPZ's results were similar to those of PPIs" in line 356 is incorrect.
Citation 20 pointed out that 'Tegoprazan exhibited night-time acid suppression for slightly
but not significantly longer than vonoprazan, and greater than esomeprazole', and citation 21
also illustrated that up to 12 hours after evening dosing, tegoprazan presented a stronger acid-
suppressive effect than dexlansoprazole and the dexlansoprazole group presented a comparable
acid-suppressive effect with the tegoprazan groups 12 hours after dosing.  So, please modify
based on the results of relevant research.
12. Please check that citation 13 was quoted right in the supplementary file, and it's better for the
author to supplement relevant literature on the safety of VPZ or TPZ in standard or maintenance
therapy in the safety part of the evidence matrix to strengthen the evidence and the tables in
supplementary files should be prefixed with "supplementary" to distinguish them from tables
in manuscripts.
13. Your manuscript must be carefully edited, with special attention to the logical structure of
the article, the clear expression of the results and relevant points, as well as English grammar,
spelling, and sentence structure, so that the reader can more easily understand the content of the
article. If necessary, it is recommended to seek a proper translation or reviewing service.
assistant