- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2026-04-30 19:05:32
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] When will Enhertu's benefit be available?
- by Jul 31, 2023 05:29am
- Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca's Enhertu are continuing their unstoppable moves. Enhertu, which has achieved remarkable results in breast cancer, has expanded the types of carcinoma to include gastric cancer and lung cancer and is expected to be used in a number of solid cancers that show HER2 expression, such as cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer. Several ADCs have been approved, but none have been as scalable as Enhertu. Indeed, Enhertu is writing ADC history. The phase 2 results for Enhertu announced at ASCO 2023 in June were very positive. Although it was not at a stage that deserved a standing ovation like last year's announcement of low-expression breast cancer of HER2, this announcement raises the possibility that Enhertu will be reborn as an anti-cancer drug regardless of cancer type. The Enhertu DESTINY-PanTumor02 clinical trial announced at ASCO was a study that examined the effects of Enhertu by forming a cohort of cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, bile duct cancer, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, and other solid cancers without a control group. For each cohort, 40 patients were recruited and Enhertu was administered. ORR was set as the primary evaluation index, and DOR, DCR, PFS, OS, and safety were established as secondary evaluation indexes. What is noteworthy is the response rate that Enhertu showed. It recorded a response rate of 50% or more in cervical cancer and endometrial cancer. In particular, the response rate for endometrial cancer reached 57.5%. Seven out of 40 endometrial cancer patients (17.5%) showed complete remission (CR) and 16 (40%) showed partial response (PR). At 12 weeks, 80% (32 patients) of endometrial cancer patients had their disease under control. In conclusion, Enhertu recorded a response rate of 30% or more in all cancer types studied, except for pancreatic cancer, which had a response rate of only 4%, and biliary tract cancer, which had a relatively low response rate of 22%. About a month later, on the 27th, additional analysis results of DESTINY-PanTumor02 were announced. In summary, Enhertu demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS, which were set as secondary evaluation indicators. Follow-up clinical trials should be supported, but it is clear that Enhertu is rapidly taking off as an anti-cancer drug regardless of cancer type. Domestic patients looking at Enhertu's rapid development were very distressed. Although approved, access to treatment is low due to non-reimbursement. Enhertu is an oasis for patients not only in breast cancer but also in gastric cancer where new drug options are limited. Daiichi Sankyo's commitment to Enhertu's fast benefit was also quite large. It is known that several measures were prepared, such as offering the drug price at the lowest price in the world and considering additional RSA. Patients urged Enhertu's speedy reimbursement listing. The national consent petition for this was so supportive that it obtained the consent of 50,000 people last February. The health authorities seem to be paying attention to Enhertu's benefit, as if conscious of public opinion. It can be seen from the fact that even when the review committee was first eliminated, it was concluded through a re-examination rather than not setting a standard. Considering the time it takes for a new drug to be registered for reimbursement in Korea, Enhertu's reimbursement process is fast. Currently, Enhertu has passed the cancer disease review committee after re-examination and is undergoing a PE review. However, it is unclear when it will be presented to the pharmaceutical reimbursement evaluation committee, which is in the final stage. Patients are anxiously awaiting news of the assumption. In about two months, it will be a year since Enhertu was approved in Korea. Even after passing the Drug Evaluation Committee, all procedures for insurance coverage are completed only after drug price negotiations with the NHIS and the health insurance policy deliberation committee of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. By the end of the year, after Enhertu's first global launch, it will take 48 months to receive benefits in Korea, exceeding the OECD average of 45 months. We hope that patients' wait for Enhertu will not be too long.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] A groundbreaking policy is needed
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Jul 24, 2023 05:26am
- Controversy is in full swing over Madopar, a Parkinson's disease drug that withdrew from the Korean market early this year due to profitability issues. Patients want Madopar again, saying that the only remaining generic drug after Madopar was withdrawn has severe side effects. Furthermore, it raises the question of calculating the drug price of the original drug. First of all, the government extended the grace period for Madopar's insurance benefit deletion from July 31st to December 31st. During this period, benefits can be applied even if Madopar is prescribed in stock. However, extending the grace period is only a short-term solution. After December 31st, it is clear that patients' dissatisfaction will increase. Accordingly, some are discussing ways to recall Madopar within the current drug pricing policy. It is said that the upper limit amount will be raised through the drug ceiling amount adjustment system so that the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety must obtain re-permission. The Ministry of Health and Welfare also said that it would speed up the related procedures if it applied for reimbursement after re-permission by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. But even this is not a fundamental solution. In the future, such a situation may arise again in the market where the original is withdrawn and only the generic remains. This has a problem in that it is difficult to maintain order in the drug price system, and above all, it can further accelerate distrust of generic drugs. We need the best way to calm patients' dissatisfaction right away, but we also need to come up with measures to cut off distrust of generics in the long term. If patients cannot trust generics because of side effects, health authorities should consider verifying their effectiveness through various data and patient interviews. Through this, it is necessary to verify whether some side effects are inflated or whether side effects actually appear only in generic drugs. If side effects appear only in generic drugs, the background should be found and reflected in the improvement of the approval system. This is because the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety may miss something just by verifying the equivalence of drug efficacy. The measures currently put forward by the authorities are only short-term prescriptions aimed at calming patients and public opinion. Even if things become complicated, we must take a broader perspective and respond preemptively. That's the only way for generic trust.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view]Time to think about price by indication
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jul 19, 2023 05:20am
- Now is the time to think. The increasing number of non-insured indications and the steadily increasing number of indications for new drugs have now become quite a big snowball. In an age when a single drug has multiple indications and is used for multiple diseases, the emergence of drugs that target specific gene mutations and further activate the immune system itself has made it possible to focus on the mechanism, not the disease, and apply its efficacy to a wide range. The domestic drug price system, which has a mechanism of decreasing as the amount of use, that is, increases, makes negotiations between the government and pharmaceutical companies lengthy, and patients wait longer. How should we accept the existence of 'drugs that some people use and others can't' and the 'drug prices by indication' that are discussed along with them? 'Drug price by indication' is a method of setting drug prices separately according to the innovativeness of each indication, reflecting the current situation in which a drug is approved for various indications. KRPIA, a representative organization of multinational pharmaceutical companies, has already insisted on the necessity of introducing drug prices by indication several years ago. However, the government was closer to a stronger 'No' than 'I will review'. The problem is that there has been only the answer that it is difficult, but there is no alternative so far. Not long ago, the immune anti-cancer drug 'Keytruda' became a hot topic by submitting an application for insurance benefit registration for as many as 13 indications at once. In other words, 13 indications of cutting-edge new drugs called immuno-anticancer drugs were not actually being prescribed. In Korea's billing system, tracking by indication is difficult, and it may be difficult for patients to accept paying different amounts depending on the disease. However, it is also true that drugs that are clearly useful are not being used for the right patients. First of all, it is important to start a discussion in some way. Even after only 3 to 5 years, the problem of expanding indications for new drugs and accessibility to them will inevitably emerge much more than now. It does not have to be a differential application of refund rates or drug prices for each indication. It's time to put our heads together to find an alternative.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View]Kudos to Keytruda for filing 13 reimb apps
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jul 05, 2023 05:45am
- A truly extraordinary case has emerged. MSD Korea has applied for the reimbursement of 13 Keytruda indications at once. This is an unprecedented event, the first time such a large amount of applications had been filed for a single drug since the positive list system was implemented for drug reimbursement in Korea. After submitting the applications, MSD explained “Cancer is in itself an aggressive and life-threatening condition, and we saw that there was a dire need for improved access to Keytruda in the field due to the lack of alternatives or reimbursed latest treatment options. To address the need, the company decided to apply for the extended reimbursement of Keytruda to cover indications with high clinical need or reimbursement. We seek to improve treatment access to all patients that can benefit from Keytruda.” We should first applaud the company for its effort. Considering the rising number of non-reimbursed immuno-oncology drug indications piling up in the field, MSD duly served its mission as a pharmaceutical company by applying for the reimbursements, regardless of success or failure. Keytruda is currently reimbursed for 7 indications in 4 cancer types in Korea. Applying for the reimbursement of 13 indications is not an easy task. As a drug under the Risk Sharing Agreement scheme, its each and every indication must undergo an evaluation process comparable to that of a new drug to extend reimbursement. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations must be performed for indications that were approved based on a Phase III trial to demonstrate cost-effectiveness, and those approved based on a Phase II trial must undergo negotiations to receive pharmacoeconomic evaluation waivers. The relevant health authorities including the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service also have a lot on their hand as they must concurrently evaluate numerous indications of a single drug. Therefore, the reimbursement extension process will also require considerable effort on the government’s part. Considering how this is an unprecedented situation and that the pharmaceutical companies would not have applied for the reimbursement of 13 indications without prior discussion with the government, anticipation is rising on how the results will turn out for Keytruda. In an era where a single drug owns multiple indications, I hope Keytruda’s case will set a milestone and serve to resolve the rising issues in Korea’s reimbursement extension process. Meanwhile, the 13 indications Keytruda applied for were: ▲ early-stage triple-negative breast cancer; ▲locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, ▲metastatic or with unresectable, recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, ▲ locally advanced or metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) carcinoma, ▲adjuvant treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma, ▲non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, ▲persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer, ▲ advanced endometrial carcinoma, ▲metastatic endometrial carcinoma that is microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) ▲ unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer ▲metastatic MSI-H or dMMR small bowel cancer, ▲ metastatic MSI-H or dMMR ovarian cancer, and ▲ metastatic MSI-H or dMMR pancreatic cancer.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Gvn't policies hinder KOR pharma growth
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Jul 04, 2023 05:37am
- It seems that the pro-business policy the new administration has been implementing to promote Korea’s industries is not benefiting the domestic pharmaceutical companies at all. Rather, the companies have expressed their regrets on how the authorities have been implementing policies that hinder their corporate activities, such as those that lower generic drug prices. Although the policy to reduce the price of generics has not been implemented yet, the industry believes the policy will surface with the release of the 2nd Comprehensive National Health Insurance Plan in the second half of this year. In particular, the drug price-reducing policy is expected to come to the fore because Professor Jinhyun from Seoul National University who has been at the forefront in arguing for generic drug price reductions, has been appointed the joint head of the 2nd Comprehensive National Health Insurance Plan Promotion Team with Korea’s 2nd Vice-Minister of Health and Welfare, Minsoo Park. Therefore, the industry also expressed concerns about the rumors that Vice Minister Park is revamping the drug pricing system to reduce the number of generic items on the market. All in all, it seems that a series of policies unfavorable to domestic pharmaceutical companies will be introduced to Korea in the near future, along with the reorganization of the generic drug pricing system, the complete revision of the actual transaction price discount system, and comparison with overseas generic drug prices. Therefore, it is only natural that domestic pharmaceutical companies are expressing their dissatisfaction regarding the changes being made. The companies have pointed out that the policies are in direct contrast to the government’s goal of becoming one of the 6 global biohealth powerhouses and developing two homegrown new blockbuster drugs that can bring in annual sales of over KRW 1 trillion in 5 years. The Korean pharmaceutical industry has constantly stressed that Korea’s generic drug industry is the driving force behind the self-sufficiency of Korea’s pharmaceutical market. Therefore, adopting a direct comparison model that compares Korea’s situation with other countries that gave way to cheap imported generics is illogical. Also, the companies implored that they cannot fund the long-term research and development required for the introduction of new blockbuster drugs if the government reduces the sales revenue from generic drugs, as it is the major driving force for R&D in most domestic pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, the Korean pharmaceutical industry plans to take action and relay its message on the need to protect the domestic industry before the government implements its generic drug price reform plan. Policies to reduce generic drug prices have been steadily proposed by every administration, regardless of their political tendencies, liberal or conservative. However, the impact made by the conservative governments has been stronger. One leading example is the lump-sum drug price cuts in 2012 made during the Lee Myung Bak administration. The industry, therefore, is more worried that the Yoon Suk Yeol administration will also come up with a policy similar to Lee’s lump sum drug price cut. Of course, the companies are also welcoming some policies that they have longed for, such as regulatory reform. However, most domestic pharmaceutical companies seem to believe that the positive effects of other policies are offset by the generic drug price cut that will inevitably affect most pharmaceutical companies. The Korean pharmaceutical industry is not understanding why the government is so obsessed with measures to reduce Korea’s drug use volume and generic drug prices. One official emphasized, “The company needs to first do well for it to pay the corporate taxes and contribute to the national wealth. However, domestic pharmaceutical companies are applied the lowest rate for corporate taxes due to low revenue. In this context, are policies that further reduce profit really right and necessary? With pharmaceutical companies that have no money to pay corporate taxes, and the unwavering government pushing to cut their profits, this reporter must ask, are pharmaceutical companies included in the government’s business-friendly policies?
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Signs of concern about the Saxenda craze
- by Jun 29, 2023 05:56am
- Five years ago, there was a Saxenda craze in Korea. People rushed to the clinics because they could easily lose weight with self-injection once a day at home, and there were no central nervous system side effects, unlike existing obesity drugs, which are psychotropic drugs. The saying, 'There is no one in Gangnam who does not take Saxenda' was circulating like a trend. Health authorities also launched an intensive crackdown on the indiscriminate use of Saxenda, but the effectiveness was temporary. Saxenda posted record sales of 42.6 billion won in the second year of domestic launch. As of 2023, the diet pill craze is showing signs of spreading once again. This is when the next-generation version of Saxenda appears. Novo Nordisk, which created Saxenda, introduced an injection that is more convenient and more effective for weight loss than Saxenda. Unlike Saxenda, which needs to be injected once daily, the new Wegovy only needs to be injected once a week. Patients participating in the trial lost an average of 15% of their body weight. Following the news that Lilly's 'Mounjaro', which is said to have the most powerful weight loss effect, was soon approved in Korea, people's expectations have risen to the peak. In the United States, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the influencer Kardashian sisters revealed that they succeeded in dieting with these injections, causing a 'shortage phenomenon'. It is currently impossible to obtain these injections in Korea. Wegovy has been approved in Korea, but the domestic release date is undecided due to a lack of supply worldwide. There is a high possibility that it will be difficult to release within the year. As the situation is like this, some people are turning their eyes to overseas direct purchases. It is also illegally purchasing diabetes medications made with the same ingredients as oral medications, not Wegovy. In fact, this drug is for diabetes treatment, and the dose is one-third, so the purchase is pointless, but illegal purchases are not going away. Because news praising the effectiveness of a new anti-obesity treatment is pouring in every day, the targets for which this drug can be used or its side effects are often not mentioned or forgotten. The focus is on just how much weight you lose. First, in the United States, where the craze took place, purchasing and taking Wegovy raw materials at random has emerged as a social problem. Korea, where Wegovy will be released in the future, will not be an exception. In order to receive a prescription for injections, it may be common to run 'open runs' in hospitals or engage in illegal transactions by paying a higher price. There is a high risk that exaggerated advertisements using people's desire to buy will also pour out. These are examples that have already appeared in the Saxenda craze. Preemptive efforts are needed to prevent indiscriminate abuse of obesity drugs. When this drug can be used and when it should not be used, side effect information should be clearly communicated and safe usage instructions should be provided. It is also necessary to pay close attention to the overuse of exaggerated advertisements by some hospitals. There is something we should also remember. A new drug that claims to have lost more than 10 kg, it is difficult to expect such an effect if the participating patients are all overweight and obese and their body mass index (BMI) is less than 30 kg/m2. At the time of the clinical trial, the patients controlled their diet and exercised together. In the end, medicine is the only medicine, and in the end, if you do not continue to control your diet and exercise appropriately, weight loss is only temporary.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Where's the wrong answer note
- by Kim, Jin-Gu Jun 26, 2023 05:53am
- The government is preparing the '2nd National Health Insurance Comprehensive Plan' to be implemented for five years until 2028. The focus of the pharmaceutical industry is on drug spending policies. This is because it is expected to contain the framework of the entire reimbursement system, from new drugs to generics. In the first National Health Insurance Comprehensive Plan announced in 2019, the government set the macro direction of the benefits system as a 'trade-off'. In a word, instead of lowering the price of generic drugs, the plan was to expand insurance coverage for new drugs. In fact, over the past five years, the government has reduced generic drug prices in various ways. In 2020, it revived the tiered drug pricing system and changed the framework of the system. In addition, the re-evaluation of benefits that started with choline alfoscerate is being repeated every year. In addition, the re-evaluation of the maximum amount of 15,000 registered drugs is in progress. The pharmaceutical industry predicts that the government will further strengthen this reevaluation stance in the 2nd Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. If the previous re-evaluation was conducted based on clinical evidence, it is predicted that social necessity and cost-effectiveness will be considered in the future. Ahead of the announcement of the second health insurance comprehensive plan, opinions of criticism are raised here and there. If you listen to their voices, you can see that the complaint is not just because they are simply lowering the price of generic drugs or because the listing of new drugs is not accelerating. The basis of criticism is the 'absence of evaluation' of the last 1st health insurance comprehensive plan. It is said that there is no evaluation of how effective the macroscopic drug spending policy called trade-off was. There is currently no way to know how much money was saved from generics and how many new drugs were listed on the reimbursement list through this. In this situation, the government is showing a move to strengthen the stance of trade-off, so it is perhaps natural that the pharmaceutical industry is resisting. Evaluation and reflection are essential elements in setting a constructive policy direction. You can't cover everything up as in the past. It is the same reason that test takers write incorrect answer notes to get better grades. It isn't easy to create better results without objective evaluation and reflection on oneself. Where is the Ministry of Health and Welfare's wrong answer note about the 1st Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan? How much has domestic pharmaceutical spending decreased over the past five years and how much has insurance coverage been strengthened? What was good about the 1st Comprehensive Health Care Plan and what could be improved? Without a detailed evaluation of this, the resistance of the pharmaceutical industry will inevitably continue. The government should remember that the first step toward creating a better system is to evaluate and reflect on the past.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Closer look into Korea’s new drug access
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jun 21, 2023 05:53am
- “Korea has low new drug access. It needs to be improved.” As much as the phrase comes to heart, we need to look more closely into the matter to correctly assess the situation. Recently, the Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association (KRPIA) recently published a report on Korea’s current new drug release status based on the ‘Global Access to New Medicines Report.’ The Global Access to New Medicines Report was published by the ‘Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ in April. The report investigated new drug release and health insurance reimbursement status in a total of 72 countries including Korea, and subdivided the investigation results by G20, OECD status, and region. The results were based on a survey of a total of 460 new drugs approved for marketing in the US, Europe, and Japan over the past 10 years from 2012 to 2021. According to the report, it takes longer than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country average for new drugs to be introduced to Korea since their global launch, and Korea’s release rate and reimbursement rate were also below the OECD country average. In its report, KRPIA stressed how Korea's release rate of non-reimbursed new drugs was only 5%, which is much lower than the average of 18% found in OECD countries. Non-reimbursed release means the release of drugs without government support. However, one can wonder how significant the comparative advantage in non-reimbursed releases is in this era of high-priced drugs. The rate can be significant for patients who have the financial means to receive prescription drugs without reimbursement, but they are certainly a minority. Moreover, it is also worth noting that it is individual pharmaceutical companies, not the state, that decide whether to release drugs without reimbursement. The reimbursement-related numbers were also interesting. According to KRPIA's data, it took a total of 46 months from the first global launch of a new drug to its reimbursement in Korea. The average in other OECD countries was not that different, at 45 months. However, KRPIA pointed out that compared to Japan (17 months) and France (34 months), it took 10 months to twice as long in Korea for drugs to be reimbursed in Korea. Also, KRPIA stressed that the proportion of new drugs covered by health insurance in Korea was 22%, which was below the OECD average (29%). This is only half that of Japan (48%) and the UK (48%). In fact, my first impression of the data was that ‘the numbers are higher than expected.’ I believed that the time taken to list new drugs in Korea and the reimbursement rate would be much less than that of OECD countries. However, the data showed that there was no difference in the average number of years taken to reimburse new drugs. Although the report compared Korea’s numbers with Japan, unlike Korea, Japan adopts a negative list system rather than a positive list system. Under the negative list system, new drugs that are approved are granted reimbursement after only conducting domestic clinical trials. In addition, we should also bear the characteristics and advantages of Korea’s universal health coverage insurance system in mind. The same goes for the reimbursement rate. It is doubtful whether a 7% difference in reimbursement rates should be considered a significant gap considering the specificity of each country. However, it is noteworthy that the reimbursement rate in the UK, whose health insurance system is most similar to Korea, is 48%. Although the UK is also a reference country for many countries like Korea, its reimbursement rate was fairly high. It stings a little to think that the difference in market size and the influence of NICE in the UK would have contributed to this difference, as a similar system has served as a reason for ‘passing’ Korea. Korea’s reimbursement system has many advantages, but there are definitely areas for improvement. There is also a clear concern that listing new drugs in the future will become increasingly difficult under the current system. Therefore, it remains a regret that the association’s points were not supported by more meaningfully organized data. For example, it could have been possible to elicit stronger awareness if the data presented more detailed indicators that reflect Korea’s reality, such as the listing rate of additional indications rather than the registration of a single drug itself.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Homework left by ASCO 2023’ hot topic
- by Jung, Sae-Im Jun 16, 2023 05:53am
- There is one thing in common with the major studies that drew attention at this year's Annual Conference of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO 2023). It has achieved successful results in adjuvant therapy targeting early cancer where surgery is possible. New drugs used in terminal cancers, such as metastasis and recursation, have already surpassed the standard treatment in early cancers. The CDK 4/6 inhibitor Kisqali has demonstrated post-operative adjuvant treatment in early breast cancer. The risk of recurrence or death was reduced by 25% with a three-year dose of Kisqali after surgery. The blockbuster immuno-oncology drug Keytruda completes the treatment journey not only after non-small cell lung cancer surgery but also before surgery-surgery-after surgery. Patients capable of surgery from the second to third period used Keytruda before and after surgery, reducing the risk of recurrence or death by 42%. It has been proven that using new drugs in early patients also improves the overall survival rate of actual patients. One of the studies selected for this year's ASCO keynote lecture was the non-small cell lung cancer EGFR targeted anticancer agent Taglisso. Looking at the overall survival (OS) of patients when using Tagriso as a post-operative adjuvant therapy, the five-year overall survival rate of the Tagrisso group was 88%, a 51% lower risk of death compared to 78% in the placebo group. Kisqali, Keytruda, and Tagrisso are all drugs used in terminally ill cancer patients. With the recent publication of adjuvant therapy studies of these drugs, they have built confidence that they can be effective enough on early cancer. In addition to these, several anticancer drugs such as the CDK 4/6 inhibitor 'Burgenio', the immuno-oncology drug 'Obdevo', 'Imping', and 'T-Sentrick' have been named for pre- and post-operative adjuvant therapy. In a situation where it is increasingly difficult to create new drugs, this is the result of the efforts of pharmaceutical companies to expand the use of new drugs to the early days of cancer. Early use of new drugs is also welcome for medical staff and patients. Even if they are diagnosed with cancer relatively quickly and have surgery, patients are always at risk of relapse. For example, lung cancer is caused by about 20% of patients in the first period after surgery, and the recurrence rate increases by 75% for patients in the third period. Early cancer is targeted for cure, but many patients follow the steps that progress to terminal cancer. As the latest drugs advance to early cancer, more active treatment is expected for these patients. An oncology professor I met at ASCO rejoiced, saying, "It's significant that the targeted and Immune anticancer agents that have been used for Care have ushered in the era of Cure." There is also a point for our society to think about at a time when more and more chemotherapy adjuvant studies are expected to be conducted in the future. In the meantime, adjuvant therapy has been dismissed as a relatively less important treatment compared to the treatment of terminal cancer, which has often been pushed back from the salary priority. There was no place for adjuvant therapy in front of the question of whether it was a life-threatening situation right now. But ultimately, if the path of our society is to reduce the number of severe patients and lower the mortality rate through early diagnosis and treatment, it is now necessary to properly value adjuvant therapy. Pharmacists should make an effort to find ways to screen patient groups that can maximize the effectiveness of new drugs. Because it's not all-purpose because it's a new drug. Some of the adjuvant therapy studies showed data showing that it was dramatically effective in some groups of patients, while some groups had a tilted head. In the end, it is the challenge of the pharmaceutical industry to find a clear group of patients who can maximize their effectiveness and persuade regulators. This will be a necessary process in the reality that all new drugs are becoming more expensive and health insurance finances are limited.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] It's time to share the achievements
- by Lee, Seok-Jun Jun 13, 2023 05:43am
- Biopharmaceutical companies attend major overseas conferences in late May and early June. ASCO, EULAR, and BioUSA. During this period, it is said that key workers in the R&D and BD fields are not in Korea. Looking at BIO USA alone, more than 500 Korean companies participated in the event, second only to the US. It is truly a global conference. The purpose is to promote its own pipeline. Through this, it promotes achievements such as partnering and technology transfer. Intangible assets such as building a human network for future partnerships are also obtained. Numerous companies announce their participation through press releases before overseas conferences. content is similar. They were 'invited' to the world's largest academic conference for related diseases, 'selected as a presenter', 'there are plans to meet with a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies', and 'we will promote technology transfer for our own pipeline'. Some attend posters but do not hesitate to advertise extensively. Occasionally, the name of a global pharmaceutical company scheduled for a meeting is also mentioned. The stock price also shines before publicity. Many companies are different before and after attending the conference. It is difficult to make an accurate count, but looking at the annual trend, half of the public relations companies before attending did not release additional data as if nothing had happened. Suddenly, a certain biotech CFO Ha So-Yeon comes to mind. After going public in 2015, the company regularly attends overseas conferences every year. It does not discriminate between large and small conferences. However, it is not producing any significant results. The reason was simple. This is because the company did not have global meeting capabilities. Just because you're good at English doesn't mean you're good at it. To get results, you need to know the global pharma process. Even if clinical results are shared at meetings with foreign pharmaceutical companies, there is no way to transfer technology. The head of the research center discusses the technology transfer contract, and the CFO discusses clinical trials. There are many times when communication is difficult because attendees do not understand the value of their company. Foreign pharmaceutical companies have the property of not moving to the next stage even if the clinical results are good if the communication is not professional. This is the reason why our company has not achieved results despite participating in overseas conferences for several years. Meetings do not bring out the needs of global pharmaceutical companies. From a certain point on, the significance of participation is placed on it. It is safe to see it as a way to raise domestic stock prices. This may be an example of some ventures. There is a way to clear up the misunderstanding. to share achievements. Of course, contracts such as technology transfer are made secretly and can be broken even a few hours in advance, so it is right to keep them confidential. However, the part that can be disclosed should share the achievements. Only then can the objective corporate value be judged. Clinical progress updates, conference attendees' roles, main track presentations, booth grades, number of meetings, and scale of participation can be objective indicators. Now that most of them have returned to Korea after completing overseas conferences, it is necessary to share their achievements. There are already places that share feedback from overseas academic societies through press releases. However, most of them are limited to a few, including large domestic pharmaceutical companies. In addition to this, it is necessary to make efforts to publicize the results. The data that can be disclosed can be limitless, depending on what the company thinks. Investors can judge the value of a company only when there is a lot of information that can be shared. It may be part of it, but it should be part of it, but there should be no more one-time publicity press releases before attending conferences to raise stock prices. Now is the time when it is important to share even small achievements and have their value objectively recognized in the market.
