Objective: This study aimed to overview and assess the effectiveness of the policies and regulations that have governed new drug access in Korea, and to propose policies to enhance patient access to drugs, particularly for new innovative medicines. Methods: We approached drug access issues in two perspectives: approval lag (or availability) and reimbursement lag (or affordability). The issues were identified and evaluated through the review of literature, public documents, reports published by the government agencies and private organizations, and news articles. Results: To shorten approval lag, it is recommended to hire and train more reviewers at the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Increasing user fees to a realistic level can facilitate this process. To reduce reimbursement lag, flexible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, alternative cost-effectiveness evaluation, and establishment of funding source other than the national health insurance are identified as the areas to be improved. Conclusion: The current policies and regulations had to be supplemented by new systems to drastically promote patient accessibility to new drugs, consequently in order to promote national public health.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has made efforts to promote the safe use of medications and prevent doping in sports globally. International standards have been established and experts have advocate anti-doping education to athletes and healthcare professionals. Pharmacists are expected to participate in the pharmaceutical care activity of sports medicine in protecting the athletes while providing the spirits of clean sports. In this review, we described the pharmacists' roles and functions in six areas of sports pharmaceutical care: awareness, treatment, prevention, optimization, abuse, and monitoring. Sports pharmacists should be able to prevent inappropriate drug use and manage athletes' illness and injury using pharmacotherapy. Further pharmacists should actively involve to educate and counsel athletes, trainers, and healthcare teams. In conclusion, pharmacists are expected to play important roles in sports pharmacy, which is the emerging area of specialized pharmaceutical care services.

Background: Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genetic mutations in patients affect their response to drugs. Pharmacogenomic studies aim to maximize drug effects and minimize adverse drug events. The Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency published guidelines for pharmacogenetics in 2005 and 2006, respectively; the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety followed suit in 2015. Methods: This study analyzed pharmacogenomic information in the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety's integrated drug information system to evaluate whether domestic pharmaceutical products reflect the current research on pharmacogenomic differences. Results: In June 2020, the Korean pharmacogenomic database contained genomic data on 90 compounds. Of these, 45 compounds were classified as "Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents." The other 45 non-antineoplastic agents were in the following categories: Anti-infectives, Mental & behavior disorder, Hormone & metabolism related diseases, Cardiovascular system, Skin & subcutaneous tissue disease, Genito-urinary system and sex hormones, Blood and blood forming organs, Nervous system, Alimentary tract and metabolism, Musculo-skeletal system, and Other conditions including the respiratory system. In addition, 30 additives unrelated to the main ingredient were associated with genetic precautions. Conclusion: This study showed that antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents accounted for half the drugs associated with pharmacogenetic information. For antitumor and immunomodulatory drugs, genomic tests were recommended depending on the indication; this was in contrast to genomic testing recommendations for non-antineoplastic medications. Genomic tests were rarely requested or recommended for non-antineoplastic medications because the relationships between genotype and efficacy among those drugs were relatively weak.

Objective: To analyze osteoporosis treatment patterns and teriparatide prescription-associated factors in Korea by using a national health insurance claims database. Methods: We utilized the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service National Patients Sample claims database to identify patients (aged ≥50 years) with at least one osteoporosis claim (International Classification of Disease 10th revision code: M80, M81, M82) and at least one prescription for osteoporosis medication (antiresorptive agents: bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, denosumab, and calcitonin; bone-forming agent: teriparatide) in 2018. Demographic characteristics and healthcare utilization patterns were analyzed. Factors associated with teriparatide prescriptions were assessed using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: Records showed that 44,815 patients were prescribed osteoporosis medications in 2018; the percentage of patients prescribed each treatment was as follows: 86.6% bisphosphonates, 13.9% selective estrogen receptor modulators, 3.1% calcitonin, 2.1% denosumab, and 0.7% teriparatide. A greater proportion of patients prescribed teriparatide were ≥75 years (53.4% vs. 33.8%) and had fractures (63.9% vs. 12.8%) compared to the same for antiresorptives (p<0.001). Patients prescribed teriparatide had higher Charlson comorbidity index values (1.2±1.3 vs. 0.9±1.2) and were more frequently hospitalized (0.8±1.3 vs. 0.1±0.5) than those prescribed antiresorptives (p<0.001). Elderly patients (≥75 years old; adjusted OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.16-2.38) and those with fractures (adjusted OR=6.23; 95% CI 4.76-8.14) were more likely to be prescribed teriparatide than antiresorptives. Conclusion: Patients prescribed teriparatide were older and more likely to have severe osteoporosis than those prescribed antiresorptives.

Background: Migraine is a common neurological disorder that affects the quality of life and causes several health problems. Preventive migraine treatment can reduce migraine frequency, headache severity, and health care costs. This study aimed to estimate the utilization of migraine preventive therapy and associated factors in eligible patients. Methods: We studied 534 patients with migraine who were eligible for migraine preventive therapy using 2017 National Patient Sample (NPS) data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). We estimated the migraine days by calculating the monthly average number of defined daily dose (DDD) of migraine-specific acute drug. Patients with a monthly average number of DDD of 4 or more were considered as subjects for preventive treatment. Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to determine the association between the preventive therapy and the influencing variables. Results: Less than half of the eligible patients for prophylaxis (n=234, 43.8%) were prescribed preventive therapy. Multiple logistic regression results show that migraine preventive therapy was influenced by age, the type of migraine, and some comorbidities. Patients over the age of 50 tend to receive less prophylactic treatment than under the age of 40. On the other hand, migraine patients with epilepsy or depression were more likely to receive preventive therapy. Sumatriptan was the most preferred medication for acute treatment, and propranolol was the most commonly prescribed drug for prevention. Conclusions: More than half of the patients who were candidates for migraine prophylaxis were not receiving suitable preventive treatment. Positive factors affecting the use of migraine prevention were the presence of comorbidities such as epilepsy and depression.

Background: Post-transplant immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) is associated with kidney function impairment while mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, such as everolimus, can be used for its renal-sparing effects. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of everolimus with low dose tacrolimus (EVR+Low TAC) and conventional dose tacrolimus (TAC) in liver transplantation recipients. Methods: Medical records of recipients who received liver transplantation at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Cohort entry date was defined as the day everolimus was initiated and tacrolimus dosage was reduced. All patients were followed up for 1 year. Indicator of efficacy was the incidence of rejection and safety was evaluated by incidence of drug adverse events including renal function. Results: Among 118 patients, there were 40 patients (33.9%) in EVR+Low TAC group. Incidence of rejection, including both biopsy proven acute rejection and clinical rejection, was similar in two groups [7.5% (n=3) vs. 6.4% (n=5), p=1.000]. Renal dysfunction was less frequent in EVR+Low TAC [17.5% (n=7) vs. 35.9% (n=28), p=0.038]. However, incidence rates of dyslipidemia, oral ulcer were more frequent in EVR+Low TAC [45.0% (n=18) vs. 21.8% (n=17), p=0.009; 15.0% (n=6) vs. 1.3% (n=1), p=0.006]. Conclusions: In terms of prevention of rejection, EVR+Low TAC was as effective as TAC and had renal-sparing effect but was associated with increased risk of dyslipidemia and oral ulcer. This study demonstrates that EVR+Low TAC could be an alternative to liver transplant recipients with nephrotoxicity after administration of conventional dose tacrolimus.

Objective: To gather the opinions of hands-on workers for successful introduction of the Development Safety Update Report (DSUR) according to a five-year comprehensive plan for clinical trial development [Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 2019]. Methods: We conducted a survey on considerations that industry stakeholders may have related to the enforcement of the DSUR. A questionnaire was distributed among pharmacovigilance specialists from 13 pharmaceutical companies in South Korea on June 4, 2020. The questionnaire comprised two sections: 1) current status of the Drug Safety Data Management System and 2) considerations on the implementation and management of the DSUR. Results: All respondents have agreed the introduction of DSUR is inevitable for regulatory harmonization and safety of trial subject. However, most respondents (85%) felt concern about additional workload with DSUR implementation. They answered that format and operation system of DSUR should be harmonized with those of international standards and authorities need to minimize double burden due to related report. Conclusion: All respondents asserted that domestic DSUR should be harmonized with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E2F guidelines. Respondents from global companies also suggested regulatory authorities allow DSUR written in English to replace Korean version considering their deadline for submission. Moreover, every respondent agreed regulatory authorities need delicate effort when implementing mandatory submission of DSUR to ensure that even small pharmaceutical companies with no experience in DSUR can comply with the system.

Background and Objective: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) increases the risk of negative health outcomes, including drug-related admissions. Tools for structured medication review have been developed to ensure optimal medication use and safety. Here, we aimed to evaluate medication use review (MUR) tools for community-dwelling older patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 1991 to 2020, excluding tools that are specifically applied to hospitalized patients or nursing home residents. We identified the most common inappropriate medications, drug-disease interactions, drug-drug interactions and prescribing omissions presented among tools. Results: From among 9,788 identified reports screened, 60 met our inclusion criteria; finally, 27 were eligible for data analysis considering originality and up-to-dateness. Most tools presented explicit criteria (93%), and only one was specific to community-dwelling elderly. The most common PIM was tricyclic antidepressants. Use of diltiazem and verapamil in patients with heart failure and the combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics and warfarin were the most frequent disease-specific PIM and drug-interaction, respectively. Conclusions: Although several medication review tools have been developed for older adults, specific guidelines for community-dwelling populations remain limited. Furthermore, the list of PIMs differed among available tools. In future, specific but integrating MUR tools need to be developed for clinical practice considering this population.