Improving Patient Access to New Drugs in South Korea: Evaluation of the National Drug Formulary System

Analysis of drug pricing drivers under South Korea's pharmaco-economic evaluation exemption policy (2015-2022)

Objective

This study analysed the characteristics of new drugs listed under the pharmaco-economic evaluation exemption (PEE) system from 2015 to 2022 in South Korea and examined the factors influencing the pricing decisions under this system.

Methods

A mixed-methods statistical approach was used to comprehensively evaluate the factors influencing drug pricing under PEE system. Descriptive statistics provide an overview of the dataset, while inferential statistics, including t-tests and Pearson's correlation analyses, are used to explore variable associations. Multiple and hierarchical regression models identify and quantify the key determinants of drug prices, controlling for multicollinearity among the variables.

Results

From 2015 to 2022, 30 new drugs were listed under the PEE system. The average annual number of new drugs was four, but this figure significantly increased to eight in 2022. The "KOR/A7 lowest" variable exhibited a strong negative correlation with the budget impact variable (coefficient: 0.838, P < 0.001), indicating that drugs with higher budget impact tend to have lower prices compared to the A7 countrie's lowest price.

Conclusion

Since the introduction of the PEE system in South Korea, patient access to new drugs has significantly improved. However, the rising expenditure on pharmaceuticals has made budget impact a significant consideration in pricing decisions, highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of drug expenditure by payers. As the system evolves, enhanced oversight and policy adjustments will be crucial for balancing cost containment with equitable patient access. Developing tiered RSA models based on drug classification or therapeutic impact could be a viable approach to achieving this balance.

Public value judgments about the criteria for reimbursement of medicines in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

This study quantified the public value (PV) of the criteria and sub-criteria in the current drug reimbursement systems in South Korea and examined sociodemographic factors that associated with PV.

METHODS

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to quantify the PVs of criteria and sub-criteria. We developed a questionnaire to generate pairwise comparison matrices among criteria and sub-criteria. From 27 March to 1 April 2023, we recruited 1,000 study participants using a quota sampling method stratified by age, sex, and region based on Korean census data.

RESULTS

The PVs for the criteria were highest for clinical usefulness (28.5%), followed by cost-effectiveness (27.1%), budget impact (24.3%), and reimbursement in other countries (20.1%). The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants had a significant impact on the PVs of the criteria. Willingness to pay additional premiums for national health insurance was negatively associated with PV for clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness and positively associated with PV for reimbursement in other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The public prioritized clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness as the main criteria. However, the PVs of the criteria were divergent and associated with sociodemographic factors. Divergent public interests require an evidence-informed deliberative process for reimbursement decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus sequential single-gene testing (SGT), including the long-term costs and survival outcomes of relevant treatments for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a decision tree linked to a partitioned survival model to estimate the clinical outcomes and costs over the five-year analysis period. The decision tree consisted of treatment types based on molecular biomarker (ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET, RET, and KRAS alterations) test results. The probability of receiving each targeted therapy was estimated based on 1) the testing rate, 2) the proportion of alterations detected, and 3) the proportion of patients receiving treatment consistent with the testing results. We estimated the long-term overall survival and progression-free survival for each treatment using parametric estimation by reconstructing patient-level data from clinical trials. The costs of testing, drugs, administration, physician visits, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression, and end-of-life care were included. The utility values were obtained from a previous study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NGS within a threshold of $38,701 (50,000,000 KRW) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

The incremental life-years (LYs) and QALYs for the NGS group versus the SGT group were 0.028 and 0.023, respectively. The total medical cost for the NGS group was $8,375 higher than that for the SGT group. The difference in drug costs accounted for most of the differences in total medical costs. NGS was not cost-effective compared to sequential SGT, with an ICER of $300,233/LY and $359,405/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS is not cost-effective for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative NSCLC, but has a survival benefit over sequential SGT. Our findings provide a basis for decision-making regarding the coverage and clinical utilization of NGS in regions where EGFR alterations are prevalent.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024.

RESULTS

Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used.

CONCLUSION

Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness threshold of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China using mean opportunity cost and contingent valuation method

OBJECTIVES

Monetizing health has sparked controversy and has implications for pricing strategies of emerging health technologies. Medical insurance payers typically set up thresholds for quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains based on health productivity and budget affordability, but they rarely consider patient willingness-to-pay (WTP). Our study aims to compare Chinese payer threshold and patient WTP toward QALY gain of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to inform a potential inclusion of patient WTP under more complex decision-making scenarios.

METHODS

A regression model was constructed with cost as the independent variable and QALY as the dependent variable, where the regression coefficients reflect mean opportunity cost, and by transforming these coefficients, the payer threshold can be obtained. Patient WTP was elicited through a contingent valuation method survey. The robustness of the findings was examined through sensitivity analyses of model parameters and patient heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The payer mean threshold in the base-case was estimated at 150,962 yuan (1.86 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 144,041-159,204). The two scenarios analysis generated by different utility inputs yielded thresholds of 112,324 yuan (1.39 times per capita GDP) and 111,824 yuan (1.38 times per capita GDP), respectively. The survey included 85 patients, with a mean WTP of 148,443 yuan (1.83 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 120,994-175,893) and median value was 106,667 yuan (1.32 times the GDP per capita). Due to the substantial degree of dispersion, the median was more representative. The payer threshold was found to have a high probability (98.5%) of falling within the range of 1-2 times per capita GDP, while the robustness of patient WTP was relatively weak.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, a country with a copayment system, payer threshold was higher than patient WTP, indicating that medical insurance holds significant decision-making authority, thus temporarily negating the need to consider patient WTP.

Introduction of managed entry agreements in Korea: Problem, policy, and politics

Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.

A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare appraisal decisions about anticancer drugs between the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Korea and England, and investigate whether the decisions and supporting evidence are comparable.

METHODS

This study identified 49 anticancer drugs listed by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare between January 2014 and December 2019. Of those, 46 anticancer drugs for 58 indications were included for analysis. Official appraisal documents from both countries for 58 drug-indication pairs were compared and assessed in terms of clinical and economic evidence. Evidence items and their groups for analysis were predefined.

RESULTS

Three-quarters of cases were recommended with managed entry agreements (MEAs) in England and three-fifths in Korea. Finance-based MEA types were most common in both countries. Korean and English authorities made consistent decisions in 48 cases (83%) when classifying decisions as 'recommended' and 'not recommended', while the degree of agreement lowered to 16 cases (28%) when subdividing decisions according to MEA types. When the evidence base was identical, their decisions were more likely to be consistent. Regarding clinical evidence, while the majority of cases referred to the same pivotal studies, differences between the committees' recognized comparators and the appraisal date caused discrepancies in decisions. Economic evidence, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, was identical in only 12 cases (21%), which contributed to discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

England relies on economic evaluation, with increasing use of data collection agreements, in contrast with Korea's new procedure exempting companies from providing economic evaluation. While there is possibility for international cooperation in the assessment of clinical evidence, transferability issues exist, particularly with regard to economic evidence.

Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU

Ever since relevant bioengineering technologies have sufficiently matured to the platformizable commercialization stage, a slew of money has flocked to the cell and gene therapy market over the last few years, resulting in an abundance of clinical studies in the field. Newer modalities have brought up a string of regulatory and legislative tasks, such as developing guidelines and legislative rules to systematically regulate newer pharmaceutical products. Accordingly, another layer of legislation and guidelines tailored for cell and gene therapies has been introduced and is expected to evolve on par with technological progress. Furthermore, authorities have shifted to pricing and reimbursement policies that can share risks for cost and outcome among stakeholders altogether, such as developers and the government, while expanding the accessibility of patients to innovative cell and gene therapies. This review attempts to capture the salient regulatory features of the cell and gene therapy market in the context of South Korea and the European Union and points out where two sovereign entities currently stand on each policy element and how each tackles regulatory challenges. We can observe the converging trend where regulatory, pricing and reimbursement rules of adjoining countries in the supranational union or member countries of a consortium are getting more aligned. Evidently, concerted efforts to share regulatory science knowledge and embrace reference pricing have played their parts. The authors argue that policy priorities should be placed on initiatives to harmonize with other medical authorities to better the rights of patients and clear out the uncertainties of developers, ultimately to share and advance regulatory science and layout forward-looking policies at opportune times.

Characteristics and clinical outcome of high-risk multiple myeloma patients in Korea (KMM 1805)

Optimal treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high-risk cytogenetics must be determined, but subgroup features are not well-defined. We used real-world data from the Korean Myeloma Registry (KMR) to analyze the characteristics and clinical outcomes of newly diagnosed MM patients with ≥ 1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality: Group 1: t(4;14) or t(14;16); Group 2: del(17p); Group 3: t(4;14)/del(17p) or t(14;16)/del(17p). Overall, 347 high-risk patients were identified (males, 48.7%; median age, 63 years). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 19.0 months (95% CI 17.0-20.0) and 50.0 months (95% CI 37.0-61.0), respectively. PFS (p = 0.047) and OS (p = 0.020) differed significantly between groups. After stratification by transplant eligibility, PFS and OS were significantly poorer in Group 3 among transplant-eligible patients, and even poorer in those with gain(1q). Patients stratified by cytogenetic abnormality and revised International Staging System (R-ISS) had significantly different PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.003), with the worst survival in R-ISS III/Group 3 (median OS 21.0 months). Higher number of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities was a negative prognostic marker for PFS and OS (p < 0.001). Real-world KMR data showed that risk factors for poor prognosis of MM patients included del(17p), R-ISS stage, and number of cytogenetic abnormalities.

How Do Iranian Stakeholders Think About Pharmaceutical Managed Entry Agreements?

Background: Uncertainty in real-world product profiles is the main barrier to pharmaceutical market access. Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are the formal arrangements to overcome these uncertainties. Despite the extensive experience of developed countries in implementing such agreements, the experience of developing countries is minimal. As health decision-makers in Iran have moved towards implementing MEAs since 2020, seeking stakeholders' insights is crucial for filling this experience gap and facilitating the optimal implementation of these new policies. Methods: Our research was done in three phases: (1) Focus group interviews to disclose the main objectives of implementing MEAs in Iran, (2) the AHP approach to prioritize uncertainties, and (3) individual semi-structured interviews to carry out strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Results: Based on our stakeholders' views, increasing flexibility in improving patients' access to innovative and expensive drugs and responding to budget impact uncertainty seems highly prioritized for conducting MEAs in Iran. The SWOT analysis showed that although MEAs have the chance for success due to their strengths and opportunities, such as providing early and assured access, allocating resources efficiently, and enhancing the efficiency of post-marketing studies, policymakers should consider the weaknesses and threats such as difficulty in defining outcomes, high transaction cost, and lack of suitable infrastructure to increase the success rate. Conclusions: Efficient implementation of MEAs depends on the weaknesses and threats and considering the views of relevant stakeholders. Constructive interaction among all stakeholders is essential for adequately executing MEAs.

Relationships between developmental strategies for additional indications and price revisions for anticancer drugs in Japan

Background

The relationships between developmental strategies for additional indications and drug price revisions have not been thoroughly studied. Here, we investigated the price revisions for anticancer drugs approved in Japan.

Methods

The study was based on published information on anticancer drugs approved between January 2009 and March 2020 in Japan. We investigated the relationships between the pharmacological and regulatory characteristics of anticancer drugs and occurrence/non-occurrence of the Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI) price revisions.

Results

Eighty-one new anticancer drugs were given NHI price listings during the survey. On April 1, 2020, the prices of 23 anticancer drugs had been revised from the initial pricing, the prices were reduced for 21 drugs (91.3%). Several parameters showed the relationships between drug characteristics and NHI price revisions. The achievement of additional indications and compound type were identified as explanatory factors for these relationships. Additional indication profiles were defined to assess the relationships between the methods for additional indication achievement and price revisions. When the type of additional indication was “Expansion”, the percentage of drugs received NHI price revisions was the highest (P<0.001).

Conclusions

NHI price revision was significantly related to the achievement of additional indications and compound type. The strategy for additional indications was found to affect the occurrence/non-occurrence of NHI price revisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07360-w.

Manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement in South Korea

This study aimed to evaluate manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement and to formulate implications in operating a health technology assessment system. In 2019, we conducted a questionnaire survey and a semistructured group interview for domestic (n = 6) and foreign manufacturers (n = 9) who had vast experience in introducing new medicines into the market through a health technology assessment. Representatives of manufacturers indicated that disease severity, budget impact, existence of alternative treatment, and health-related quality of life were relevant criteria when assessing reimbursement decisions. Compared with domestic manufacturers, foreign manufacturers were risk takers when making reimbursement decisions in terms of adopting a new drug and managing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, foreign manufacturers were risk-averse when evaluating new drugs with uncertainties based on real-world data such as clinical effectiveness. Based on manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement, there is room for improvement in health technology assessment systems. Explaining the underlying reasons behind their decisions, unbiased participation by various stakeholders and their embedded roles in the decision-making process need to be emphasized. However, the measures suggested in this study should be introduced with cautions. The process of health technology assessment might be a target for those who undermine the system in pursuit of their private interests.

Is Korean society prepared for the financial burden of novel anticancer drugs? A survey of willingness to pay among National Health Insurance beneficiaries

PURPOSE

Since South Korea's 5-year policy of increasing National Health Insurance (NHI) coverage began in 2017, related pharmaceutical expenditures have increased by 41%. Thus, there is a critical need to examine society's willingness to pay (WTP) for increased premiums to include new anticancer drugs in NHI coverage.

METHODS

Participants aged 20-65 were invited to a web-based online survey. The acceptable effectiveness threshold for a new anticancer drug to be included in NHI coverage and the WTP for an anticancer drug with modest effectiveness were determined by open-ended questions.

RESULTS

A total of 1817 respondents completed the survey. Participants with a family history of cancer or a higher perceived risk of getting cancer had significantly higher WTPs (RR [relative risk] = 1.17 and 1.21, both P = 0.012). Participants who agreed on adding coverage for new anticancer drugs with a life gain of 3 months had a higher WTP (RR = 1.70, P < 0.0001). These associations were greater among the employed and low-income groups. The adjusted mean of acceptable effectiveness for a new anticancer drug was 21.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 19.3 to 24.0, median = 21.9). The WTP for a new anticancer drug with a life gain of 3 months was $5.2 (IQR = 4.0 to 6.0, median = 4.6).

CONCLUSION

The unrealistic expectations in Korean society for new anticancer agents may provoke challenging issues of fairness and equity. Although Korean society is willing to accept premium increases, our data suggest that such increases would benefit only a small proportion of advanced cancer patients.

Pricing and Reimbursement Pathways of New Orphan Drugs in South Korea: A Longitudinal Comparison

This study aimed to analyze four current pathways affecting the listing and post-listing prices of new orphan drugs (ODs) in South Korea. These mechanisms were: (1) essential OD, (2) pharmacoeconomic evaluation (PE) waiver OD, (3) weighted average price OD, and (4) PE OD. We analyzed the ratio of the listing price of 48 new ODs to the average adjusted price (AAP) of seven advanced countries and examined the change in the post-listing price. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the listing and post-listing price changes. The mean and median ratios of the listing price of total new OD to AAP were calculated to be 69.4% and 65.4%, respectively. Essential OD showed the highest mean (93.8%) and median (80.8%) ratios. The mean cumulative price discount rate of the new OD was 7.2% in the third year and 5.7% in the fifth year. The rarity of diseases impacts the listing price of OD, but the political effects of the benefits of OD on the post-listing price of these drugs could not be verified. Further research should be conducted to develop measures that facilitate the practical sharing of budget risks and increase patient access to new ODs.

Use of budget savings from patent expiration of cancer drugs to improve affordability and accessibility

BACKGROUND

The introduction of generics after the loss of patent exclusivity plays a major role in budget savings by significantly decreasing drug prices. The aims of this study were to estimate the budget savings from off-patent cancer drugs in 2020-2024 and to inform decision makers on how these savings could be used to improve the affordability of innovative cancer treatments in South Korea.

METHODS

A model was developed to calculate budget savings from off-patent cancer drug use in Korea over 5 years (2020-2024). Cancer drugs with one or more valid patents that expire between 2020 and 2024 in Korea were selected. Key input parameters in the model included market share of generics, market growth, and prices of originators and generics. To reflect market dynamics after patent expiration, the trends of the off-patent market were estimated using historical sales volume data of IQVIA from 2012 to 2018. The study assumed that the prices of off-patent drugs decreased according to the price regulations set by the Korean government and that the off-patent market sales volume did not grow. Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the uncertainty in model input parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 24 cancer drugs which met selection criteria were identified. In the base case analysis, patent expiration of cancer drugs between 2020 and 2024 could lead to a spending reduction of ₩234,429 million ($203 million), which was 20% of the cancer drug expenditure in the 5-year period. The savings ranged from ₩157,633 million ($136 million) to ₩434,523 million ($376 million) depending on the scenarios in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that patent loss of cancer drugs could lead to a 20% reduction in spending on cancer drugs over the next 5 years in South Korea. The savings could be used to improve the affordability of innovative, advanced cancer drugs for 94,000 cancer patients by reallocating the budget savings from patent expiration.

International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility

Background: The demand for implementing a new listing scheme to expedite patient access to novel oncology drugs has increased in South Korea. This study was conducted to compare the prices of anticancer drugs between eight countries and to explore the feasibility of a ‘pre-listing and post-evaluation’ scheme to expedite patient access to oncology drugs. Methods: This study included 34 anticancer drugs, which were reimbursed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017. The unit price and sales volume of the study drugs were collected from eight countries and IQVIA data, respectively. The prices were adjusted to estimate the ex-factory prices using the discount/rebate rate suggested by the Health Insurance Review Agency (HIRA). The four price indices of Laspeyres, Paasche, Fisher, and the unweighted index were calculated using the price in each country, the average price, and lowest price among the study countries. Each currency was converted using the currency exchange rate and purchasing power parity (PPP). The budget impact of implementing the proposed pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme on payers was calculated. Results: Based on the currency exchange rate, anticancer drug prices were higher in other countries (index range: 1.05–2.78) compared to Korea. The prices in Korea were similar to countries with the lowest prices. When the PPP was applied, prices were higher in the US, Germany, Italy, and Japan than in Korea (range: 1.10–2.13); however, the prices were lower in the UK, France, and Switzerland than in Korea (range: 0.72–0.99). The financial burden of implementing the pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme was calculated at 0.83% of the total anticancer drug sales value in Korea from 2013–2017. Conclusions: The prices of anticancer drugs in Korea were similar to the lowest prices among the seven other study countries. A pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme should be considered to improve patient access to novel anticancer drugs by reducing the reimbursement review time and uncertainties.

Effectiveness and Safety of Clofarabine Monotherapy or Combination Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Pragmatic, Non-interventional Study in Korea

Purpose

Effectiveness and safety of clofarabine (one of the treatment mainstays in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL]) was assessed in Korean pediatric patients with ALL to facilitate conditional coverage with evidence development.

Materials and Methods

In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients receiving clofarabine as mono/combination therapy were followed up every 4–6 weeks for 6 months or until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Response rates, survival outcomes, and adverse events were assessed.

Results

Sixty patients (2–26 years old; 65% B-cell ALL, received prior ≥ 2 regimen, 68.3% refractory to previous regimen) were enrolled and treated with at least one dose of clofarabine; of whom 26 (43.3%) completed 6 months of follow-up after the last dose of clofarabine. Fifty-eight patients (96.7%) received clofarabine combination therapy. Overall remission rate (complete remission [CR] or CR without platelet recovery [CRp]) was 45.0% (27/60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32.4 to 57.6) and the overall response rate (CR, CRp, or partial remission [PR]) was 46.7% (28/60; 95% CI, 34.0 to 59.3), with 11 (18.3%), 16 (26.7%), and one (1.7%) patients achieving CR, CRp, and PR, respectively. The median time to remission was 5.1 weeks (95% CI, 4.7 to 6.1). Median duration of remission was 16.6 weeks (range, 2.0 to 167.6 weeks). Sixteen patients (26.7%) proceeded to HSCT. There were 24 deaths; 14 due to treatment-emergent adverse events.

Conclusion

Remission with clofarabine was observed in approximately half of the study patients who had overall expected safety profile; however, there was no favorable long-term survival outcome in this study.

Effect of Treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors on Key Health Outcomes of Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that treatment with the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor class could significantly improve survival outcomes in several oncology indications. However, there is some clinical uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to obtain high-level estimates of the impact of treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor class to oncology treatment on key health outcomes in real-world situations and to inform public health policy decisions about cancer care after reducing uncertainties around new immuno-oncology therapy options in South Korea.

METHODS

A model was developed to estimate the impact of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors on outcomes in situations wherein both anti-PD-1/PD-L1s and standard of care (SOC) were available versus SOC only. A partitioned survival model was utilized to estimate the impact of introducing anti-PD-1/PD-L1s on outcomes, including life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, progression-free survival-years obtained, and grade 3 or higher adverse events avoided for six indications over 5 years. An exponential distribution was fitted to the survival function of the SOC based on visual inspection. Outcomes associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1s were estimated using a piecewise modeling approach with Kaplan-Meier analysis followed by best-fitting survival analysis. The incident number of patients and market share of anti-PD-1/PD-L1s during 2020-2024 were projected using published literature and Korean market survey data. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainty of input parameters.

RESULTS

During the next 5-year period (2020-2024), introducing the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 class led to a gain of 22,001 life-years (+ 31%), 19,073 quality-adjusted life-years (+ 38%), and 22,893 progression-free survival-years (+ 82%); it also avoided 3610 adverse events (- 11%) compared with SOC alone. Most adverse events associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1s were attributed to combination therapy with cytotoxic chemotherapy (91%). In a scenario wherein the time to reimbursement of the anti-PD-1/PD-L1s was accelerated by 1 year, the life-years gained increased by 14% compared with the base-case scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy is expected to provide marked survival benefits for patients with cancer. This study demonstrated the potentially beneficial health impacts of utilizing the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 class at the population level. The findings could inform health policy decision makers about cancer care and ultimately enhance population health through rapid access to innovative cancer drugs.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

Price-Cutting Trends in New Drugs after Listing in South Korea: The Effect of the Reimbursement Review Pathway on Price Reduction

This study aims to analyze the trends of post-listing price changes for new drugs listed from 2007, when the health technology assessment (HTA) was introduced in South Korea, until 2017. We analyzed 135 products that have undergone price cuts. These products were analyzed by their respective review pathways, namely, pharmaco-economic study (PE), weighted average price (WAP), and the without a cost-effectiveness (CE) pathway. Prices were discounted faster in PE than in WAP (p = 0.002 in a comparison between PE and WAP). In addition, the median discount rate of the first price cut was 5.0% (range: 0.1–20.0) for PE, 3.0% (range: <0.1–30.0) for WAP, and 5.0% (range: 0.6–10.9) without a CE pathway. The median cumulative discount rate of PE and WAP showed that the PE pathway products’ discount rates were higher: 10.4% for PE and 6.0% for WAP (p = 0.025 for comparison between PE and WAP). It is necessary to discuss the practical effects of the price-cutting system from a myriad of perspectives, including insurance finance, the value of new drugs, and the accessibility of new drugs to patients.

Reimbursement and pricing of regenerative medicine in South Korea: key factors for achieving reimbursement

In the South Korean health technology assessment system, prices of alternative medicines, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in pharmaco-economic evaluations and patient access improvement systems such as risk-sharing agreements are the most important factors concerning the reimbursement of regenerative medicine (RM). Research and development companies in RM should review the key features of these medicines throughout the product development cycle to increase the probability of successful reimbursement. In addition, the South Korean government should take steps to improve the system to reflect the unique characteristics and value of RM in the reimbursement and pricing policy, to revitalize research and development, and increase patient access.

Patient Accessibility and Budget Impact of Orphan Drugs in South Korea: Long-Term and Real-World Data Analysis (2007-2019)

This study aimed to identify orphan drug accessibility and impact on pharmaceutical budgets in South Korea by analyzing the status of orphan drug designation, approval, reimbursement, and pharmaceutical expenditure. We analyzed the dataset on orphan drugs designated, approved, and reimbursed from 2007 to 2019 based on long-term real-world data. The designated and approved orphan drugs were 165 and 156, respectively, and 88 out of 156 approved products were reimbursed. Total expenditure on orphan drugs increased annually to account for about 1.44% of total pharmaceutical expenditure in 2018. Orphan drug expenditure per patient increased on average by 8.7% per year. The average annual cost of orphan drugs was USD 27,000–USD 47,000, with the maximum value of USD 260,000–USD 560,000. As there are a number of orphan drugs that have not yet been reimbursable after approval, a reimbursement policy should be established that considers the characteristics of orphan drugs. Since the rapid increase in orphan drug expenditure can be a potential threat to the insurance budget, budget management should also be considered. In conclusion, it is necessary to take preemptive measures to manage the health insurance budget efficiently while improving patient accessibility to orphan drugs.