- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2026-05-01 13:10:21
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Tylenol is out of stock
- by Jun 02, 2021 06:10am
- As vaccinations began in earnest, the Tylenol crisis broke out in pharmacies. The Tylenol crisis has become inevitable as vaccinations for people aged 75 or older and those aged 65-74 have been implemented following preferential vaccinations for essential social workers. The government and the media are instructing people to take Tylenol if they have a fever after the inoculation. If pharmacists order Tylenol through wholesale, only the quota amount is supplied, so there are always times when the stock is tight or out. "Do you have Tylenol in stock?" "No, but we have the same active ingredient as Tylenol." "Oh, never mind." "Do you have any masks in stock?" "There are no more masks any more" This situation is similar to the mask crisis of the past. Pharmacies with relatively stable supply and demand through Jansen direct transactions do not mean that the situation is better. It is exhausting to guide dozens of consumers to take "after vaccination." Pharmacies are innocent, but it's as if they've become sinners. The pharmacy said this. "The moment I took out Tacenol, the patients looked different. That's exactly where I am going to do business. I don't know why I have to be a merchant, not a pharmacist, with a same pill." The Korean Pharmaceutical Association also urged the government to take Tylenol. The reason why patients only look for Tylenol at a time when many APAP are in sufficient stock is that health authorities have mentioned Tylenol directly since the beginning of the vaccine, causing confusion in their choice of fever reducer. Through the KCDA, the Korean Pharmaceutical Association asked each district health center to guide them to take APAP such as Suspen, Bukwang's Tacenol, and Penzal when fever symptoms occur after inoculation. The government, which authorizes the people to "Tylenol," should correct this issue. The situation has already deteriorated to persuade patients that pharmacies have the same ingredients and that other pharmacies do not have Tylenol. The MFDS has unveiled 70 items that have the same efficacy and effect as acetaminophen preparations, but pharmacists question their effectiveness. Since Tylenol has already been so deeply established in the public's perception, it is necessary to come up with effective measures, saying that the release of 70 products will not be much help unless campaigns and advertisements are combined. The target will also be expanded sequentially. Pharmacies say there will be a bigger problem in the future than it is now. It seems necessary to come up with measures quickly before vaccinations for the entire country are implemented in earnest.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] It's up to pharmaceutical companies
- by An, Kyung-Jin May 17, 2021 05:53am
- Drug quality management is at stake. Over the past two months, four companies, including Binex, Vivozon, Chong Kun Dang and Hanall Biopharma, have been caught violating drug quality control. A total of 62 products are under administrative disposition due to violations of quality control by four companies. Including pharmaceutical companies in consignment contracts, the impact is even greater. Thirty-four pharmaceutical companies that have entrusted production to four companies are also focusing to whether the MFDS will dispose of them further. A total of 38 companies are on the verge of being kicked out of the market because of the trustee's deviant behavior. The pharmaceutical industry fears it will spread to distrust of consignment generics. It is only a matter for some companies, and the consignment act itself should not be a problem. In July 2018, the Valsartan crisis, which shook the global pharmaceutical market, was unprecedented in overseas countries as carcinogenic substance N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was detected in Valsartan manufactured by China's Zhejiang Huahai. NDMA was not originally subject to standard checks on Valsartan. Until Zhejiang Huahai reported that more NDMA was detected than the standard, no pharmaceutical company in the world cared about NDMA detection. The FDA and the EMA were not aware of the need for inspections, but rushed to investigate and come up with measures to determine the cause. It was just an unexpected accident. Chinese raw medicine and generic are starting to be blamed as if they were the causes of "low quality." It is also from this time that regulations on consignment generic have been tightened in Korea. Health authorities set up a "Generic Drug System Improvement Council" and began to come up with measures to curb generic disorder. The MFDS has removed all deregulation granted to Entrusted generic. From next year, mandatory production of licensed products, which had been exempted from consignment generics, will be implemented again. It is also pushing to exclude consignment generics from generic exclusivity. Following the reorganization of the drug price system, which took effect in July last year, the standard for calculating the drug price of consigned generic has also been lowered. The 53.55% upper limit price can be maintained compared to the original drug before the patent expires only when all requirements are met to conduct biological equivalence tests directly and use registered raw material drugs. The regulation on joint development of drugs under discussion at the National Assembly is also key to restricting the permission of consignment generic. Some amendments to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, which limits the number of drugs licensed in one clinical trial, passed the Health and Welfare Committee, leaving procedures for future plenary sessions, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and the plenary session. The government's justification for tightening regulations on generic seems to be somewhat out of standard. The MFDS defines "generic" as a officially licensed drug based on the same quality as the original developed drug. It is not appropriate that the large number of generic drugs authorised by the Government is of low quality. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical companies are largely to blame. If unreasonable regulations and misunderstandings are unfair, they should prevent repeated violations and come up with self-rescue measures to improve competitiveness in drug quality. The drug quality control agenda has already been controversial, although it was not originally due to generic. It is up to pharmaceutical companies to restore generic drug reputation.
- Opinion
- [FOCUS] Uncomfortable co-development regulation of medicines
- by Chon, Seung-Hyun May 11, 2021 05:59am
- There is a growing possibility that a bill will be implemented to regulate joint drug development by pharmaceutical companies. Recently, the National Assembly's Health and Welfare Committee held a bill subcommittee to pass a partial revision to the pharmaceutical practices law that limits the number of drugs that can be licensed through a single clinical trial. It allows up to four drugs that can be licensed with one biological equivalence test or clinical trial data. It does not apply to biopharmaceuticals or generic drugs. Biological equivalence testing is a kind of clinical trial for generic development, which effectively limits drug co-development by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, regulating the number of pharmaceutical companies participating in joint drug development by law is hard to find even in foreign countries. Sharing strategies for drug development through cooperation among pharmaceutical companies is an area of free business activities. The government does not directly intervene by law. If regulations on biological equivalence testing are applied, additional social costs may arise because the same drugs produced in the same manufacturer must be tested separately. This is why the Regulatory Reform Committee has opposed it. At a meeting of the Regulatory Reform Committee in October 2010, the restriction of biological equivalence tests was called a strange system, saying that "unscientific and logical regulations should be abolished." As the government pushed for the regulation again, the Regulatory Reform Committee opposed last year, saying, "Restricting pharmaceutical companies to enter the market also has low direct improvement in drug quality and safety and minimal R&D promotion." IMD's joint development regulations are also seen as the government's involvement in pharmaceutical companies' R&D strategies. There have been many ways to jointly develop new improved drugs while sharing clinical costs with small and medium-sized pharmaceutical companies that do not have enough funds. If development costs are divided and paid, this is to reduce risks caused by failure of development or sluggish sales after commercialization. In other words, the government restricts voluntary R&D cooperation of pharmaceutical companies. The MFDS, which is in charge of the project, is also burdened with regulations on joint development. According to the minutes of the bill subcommittee, Kim Jin-seok, deputy director of the MFDS, said, "I think mentioning the same part as joint R&D in pharmaceutical law exceeds the legal scope." Like Rx drugs, OTC can be cloned indefinitely through consignment, but it is hard to understand that only specialized drugs are subject to regulation. The KPBMA, one of the leading interest groups in the pharmaceutical industry, is welcoming the bill immediately after it is passed by the subcommittee. It is somewhat unusual for the industry to express its support for tightening regulations. It is undeniable that the "limit on the number of joint drug developers" is a strange system in science or common sense. What is even more uncomfortable, however, is the deformed environment of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, which led to the introduction of a strange system. More than 100 pharmaceutical companies are entering the large generic market and are excessively competing. As of December last year, according to the HIRA. A total of 139 pharmaceutical companies released Atorvastatin products. It increased by 40 from 99 in 2015. It has increased from 118 in 2018 to 133 in 2019 and 139 companies in recent years. In 2015, there were 91 domestic pharmaceutical companies that released Clipidogrel, but five years later, it increased to 133 companies, increasing to 42 companies. There were 112 pharmaceutical companies that released Atorvastatin in 2018, and 21 more joined in two years. The number of companies that released Donepezil reached 134 in two years from 89 in 2018. The value of generic is also gradually decreasing. In foreign countries, when the patent of the original drug expires, cheap generic dominates the market. The situation in IMD is similar. The joint development of IMD is seen as trying to curb generics' entry into the market. The new generic drug price system, which took effect in July last year, includes a stair-type drug price system in which the upper limit is lowered as the benefit is registered late. If more than 20 generic items are listed in the specific ingredient market, the upper limit for newly registered items will be up to 85% of the existing lowest price. If a certain pharmaceutical company develops IMD through clinical trials and recruits more than 20 delegated generics, the generic price will drop significantly. Doubts have been raised that many pharmaceutical companies may be trying to reduce the motivation for entering generics through sharing IMD clinical data. As a result, it led to the introduction of a strange system that also limits IMD clinical data sharing companies. With the reorganization of the drug price system, IMD infinite cloning of delegated generics has emerged to preempt high drug prices, and side effects of "intentionally registering drugs at low prices to induce competitors to receive lower prices." It is hard for anyone to understand the recent unprecedented phenomenon of drug production. Whenever regulations are made to solve urgent problems such as the general crisis, it is likely to backfire in the market. Overseas, inexpensive generic drugs are encouraged, and at some point, generic drugs have been ignored in Korea. It is time to reflect on where it went wrong and what responsibilities the government and pharmaceutical companies have and gather wisdom.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Support domestic COVID-19 vaccine first
- by May 10, 2021 05:56am
- The U.S had expressed support for waiving intellectual property (IP) protections for COVID-19 vaccines. Such support can induce the production of copies of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, ultimately increasing vaccine supply. The U.S administration’s support was received with expectations, concerns, support as well as opposition. It is not an exaggeration to say that the key to mRNA vaccines -such as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines – lie in its patent. A sophisticated lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology is required to deliver mRNA, which is vulnerable to the surrounding environment, well into the body. This technology has been preemptively patented by many companies. Moderna has also been paying another company for the LNP technology used in its COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the production of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines is possible without employing patent avoidance strategies, many more companies may make the attempt to produce COVID-19 vaccines. However still, the prominent opinion among experts is that this is not the right solution for addressing the current vaccine crisis. According to foreign media, Scott Gottlieb, a former F.D.A. chief had said, “The production of COVID-19 vaccines requires a complex process and difficult materials. Allowing other manufacturers to use the patented technology will not increase supply immediately.” Chad Landmon, the chair of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider’s Intellectual Property and FDA practice groups, pointed out, “IP has not been the barrier to the production — it’s really been the technology and how complicated” it is to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. He continued, “Also, the issues in the supply chain, such as shortage of raw materials will also be a challenge.” Without the cooperation of big drug companies, patent waivers are unlikely to expand the global supply of coronavirus vaccines, said “Vaccines are difficult to make because they use biological systems which are much more difficult than small molecules. Patents are only codified information. To make it work, the multinational pharmaceutical companies would need to share their actual technological know-how, quality control, manufacturing process. It is like a 3-Michelin Star restaurant. Even if the restaurant shares its recipe, it cannot be simply replicated. “ Rather than follow the false demand for IP waiver, experts advise that the government should listen to the voices of people with abundant drug development experience and implement practical support measures to increase vaccine supply. For example, Gottlieb suggested cooperating with vaccine developers rather than confronting them by increasing manufacturing capacity by assisting in the production of raw materials and purchasing special equipment. So how would this apply to Korea? Even if the controversial IP waiver passes through, the overall opinion stays that it will be difficult for the Korean industry to develop a generic mRNA vaccine. Rather, the focus should be on supporting the development of domestic COVID-19 vaccines that are already in progress. 5 domestic companies - SK Bioscience and Celid, Genexin, Eu Biologics, Cellid – have started clinical trials for their vaccines. It would be more effective for Korea if the government set specific guidelines for their Phase III trial and support the smooth operation of their clinical research.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Interest in the role and vision of GAs
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Apr 26, 2021 05:51am
- Multinational pharmaceutical companies have been eagerly hiring employees for Government Affairs (GA). Even companies that originally had no such position have newly created the position. Until now, the distinction between areas covered by Market Access (MA) and GA was unclear, and GA's target 'government institutions’ were limited to directly relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), Health and Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA), and National Health Insurance Service (NHIS). This was why in quite many companies, the MA managers also took care of GA. However, such industry practices have changed much over the past few years. Many multinational pharmaceutical companies including Novartis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, and MSD have been reinforcing their policy area. Also, other companies including Boehringer Ingelheim, Viatris, and Organon have hired or are in the process of hiring GAs. This change is largely due to the trend of new drugs. With the advent of the ‘'high-priced drug era,' the government and pharmaceutical companies are finding it increasingly difficult to see eye to eye on the price of such drugs. As a result, whether and when the government would list a drug for reimbursement became the determinant that makes or breaks the success of a new drug. However, as issues that cannot be resolved through communication with only ‘directly related ministries’ began to accumulate, the pharmaceutical companies started to seek new solutions such as the National Assembly. This raised the need for experts from various backgrounds including the National Assembly, the government, and the media. The Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association (KRPIA) has also been paying more attention to strengthen its GA-focused HC Policy committee. However, internal and external conflict regarding this increased interest in GAs exists. Contrary to MAs who are typical pharmaceutical industry experts that have a high understanding of drugs and drug pricing systems, GAs are often not from the industry. Therefore, the perception that ‘GAs do not know the industry well' does exist within the industry. Externally, although MAs and GAs both deal with government authorities, the specific authority targeted by each is different. For example, from the MOHW’s perspective, it is natural that it would feel uncomfortable if a drug-related issue is raised by the National Assembly. In such situations, if MA represents the MOHW and GA represents the National Assembly, friction is due to arise. Therefore, only companies that achieve synergy between MAs and GAs may succeed in using GAs. The internal message needs to be integrated first before taking further steps. However, one warning to bear in mind is that companies should not simply use GAs for the generation of profit in the ‘‘'high-priced drug era.’ Publicizing drug issues is like a double-edged sword. Bear in mind how the COVID-19 vaccine issue became embroiled in a political battle.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view]Controversy over Novavax vaccine
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Apr 16, 2021 06:02am
- The government explained that the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, which had signed a technology transfer contract with SK Bioscience on the 12th, could be supplied as soon as possible in June. The release of this announcement raised controversy over the introduction of the Novavax vaccine, which has not yet been licensed abroad. Eventually, the conservative opposition party criticized using the people as clinical maruta. As the controversy continued, the government was controversial over the introduction of the ax vaccine before approval the day after the announcement. The government explained that the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, which had signed a technology transfer contract with SK Bioscience on the 12th, could be supplied as soon as possible in June. The release of this announcement raised controversy over the introduction of the Novavax vaccine, which has not yet been licensed abroad. Eventually, the conservative opposition party criticized using the people as clinical subject of experiment. As the controversy continued, the government refuted the day after the announcement that it had never considered pre-licensing the Novavax vaccine. After reading this controversial article, I couldn't help but laugh. It is not possible at all for Korea to introduce a vaccine developed abroad first. There has not been a case of using overseas drugs developed first under the approval of Korean health authorities. All drugs can be sold only after obtaining approval from the MFDS. The same goes for vaccines. However, the MFDS has so far required to attach a certificate of manufacture and sale of the exporting country when applying for a new drug for import. This is to refer to the case of approval of the exporting country. In early April, the MFDS revised the regulations so that the approval results from exporting countries are not attached when applying for a permit for biological products such as vaccines. The reason is that the MFDS can also be independently screened. According to the regulations, domestic permits were possible without the need for overseas approval. However, there is no possibility that an overseas development company such as Novavax will first apply for a license in Korea instead of in large markets such as the US or Europe. SK Bioscience, which has transferred the technology, can also be approved if it has data from a clinical trial conducted by Novavax. Prior to application for overseas approval, clinical trial results are not shared with other companies in which the technology has been transferred. Among the COVID-19 vaccines, the only basis for the special import of Pfizer vaccine was the case of overseas approval such as the United States and Europe. In order for Novavax vaccine to be introduced in Korea before overseas approval, Novavax should prioritize the small market in Korea, and health authorities or experts must approve the introduction of the vaccine without referencing overseas approval. It is unlikely that this will happen. Health authorities are conservative. If safety or effectiveness is uncertain, it will not be introduced. The safest way is to consult foreign cases, especially FDA or EMA. Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines will be the same, and will be introduced in the future. Through this controversy, I feel that the media and politics are too concentrated on the success or failure of the government vaccine introduction. Anyway, in a situation where vaccine development with our technology has not been made, it is inevitable to be attracted to foreign companies. Japan, which has a lot of Big Pharma, does not have a vaccine developed in-house, so it is the same situation as Korea. Accordingly, the timing of the introduction and the overall supply and demand issue are uncertain. It seems pointless to question whether the policy is successful or not. The government should also be honest about the current situation and demand patience from the people. The media should also not criticize the government's policy of introducing vaccines. And we have to reflect on why we didn't make the vaccine on time.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Expensive vaccine sovereignty
- by Apr 15, 2021 05:56am
- The cervical cancer vaccine is Gardasil 9, and the rotavirus vaccines RotaTeq and Rotarix. Vaccines that are considered essential vaccinations, but consumers are less accessible. Foreign pharmaceutical companies are raising prices all at once. Gardasil 9 and RotaTeq's supply prices rose by 15% and 17%, respectively, from this month. RotaTeq will also become about 12% more expensive from next month. As supply prices rise, consumer vaccination prices also rise. Already, some hospitals are demanding additional costs from consumers who have made a prepayment. Gadasil 9 is already a vaccine that was burdensome at ₩450,000~600,000. Since 2016, women and adolescents aged 12 have been vaccinated free of charge for cervical cancer, but men and women born before 2003 have to get the vaccine at their own expense. Parents who have to give their newborns the rotavirus vaccine are also feeling not good. Due to the increase in supply prices, most hospitals have increased their vaccination prices since April, resulting in an average increase of 50,000 to 60,000 won for parents. Rotavirus vaccine is considered an essential vaccine for newborns, but in Korea it is not included in the national vaccination (NIP) program, so it is unconditionally non-reimbursement benefit. It should be inoculated with. The price of cervical cancer and rotavirus vaccines are rising, which is causing consumer dissatisfaction. In the case of Gardasil 9, even a national petition against the price increase appeared. There is a growing recognition that the cervical cancer vaccine is a vaccine that men as well as women should get. MSD Korea, a manufacturer, also announced the need for male vaccination by using male comedians such as Jo Se-ho and Yoo Byung-jae as advertising models. It is unreasonable to pay more than ₩600,000 and hope that the male vaccination rate will increase. Unfortunately, there is no basis for restricting pharmaceutical companies from raising the price of non-paid items. However, from the perspective of public health, the nation can expand NIP and support localization of vaccines. The former is the most obvious way to directly reduce the cost of the public, but the fiscal burden is high. In addition, the former has a problem that it is not possible to make a virtuous cycle in domestic demand because the invested finances go only to foreign companies. There is also an indirect method of inducing price cuts by increasing supply by supporting commercialization of domestic vaccines. Of course, it is difficult to predict how much the price cut effect will be in the market, but when a domestic vaccine is released, supply and demand and management are more stable. This is the same opinion as the government that it will secure'vaccine sovereignty' by increasing the self-sufficiency rate of domestic vaccines. Currently, both cervical cancer vaccines and rotavirus vaccines are only products from multinational pharmaceutical companies, so there is no way to deal with them even if prices rise or sell out. It is necessary for the government to make active efforts so that a domestic vaccine can appear as soon as possible and help improve the health rights of the people.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s Eye] MNC CEOs' response to ‘Korea passing'
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Apr 05, 2021 05:52am
- MNC CEOs’ response to the ‘Korea passing’ phenomenon “Have you ever received pressure from corporate headquarters to consider ‘Korea passing’?” This question was asked to every multinational pharmaceutical company CEO interviewed by the reporter. Although the answer differed for each company and CEO, all the answers shared one common sentiment – a sense of burden. With the idea that ‘new drugs come from multinational pharmaceutical companies’ yet firmly established in Korea, it would have been difficult for them to say that “the company will not sell drugs to Korea because Korea sets prices low.” Such a response would imply that the company disregards ‘patients' that are so integral to the system. In addition to the burden, a sense of ‘crisis’ was also ingrained in their responses. “Our company has never chosen ‘Korea passing’ as an option yet," said the CEOs. ”However, Korea’s influence on China, the U.S., and other countries may impact future decisions.” The seemingly simple proposition, ‘better drugs enable people to live longer,' has now become a complicated issue that the government, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, patients, and even the general public can hardly be free from. Even now, highly effective but costly drugs, the special ‘commodities’ that are directly related to human health that cost hundreds of millions of won are waiting in line to enter our society. Although Market Access is responsible for such drugs, the CEOs are the real point of contact when it comes to communicating with headquarters. Therefore, their thoughts and even their philosophy may affect access to new drugs in Korea. That Korea is a good country for reference with a small market is a dilemma that we must bear. Despite pressure from civic groups, it is encouraging that the government has taken the first steps to expand the Risk Sharing Agreement (RSA) system. However, more must be done to minimize the risk of ‘Korea passing.’ as the pressure adds on with the possibility that the U.S. may also consider using Korea’s drug price as a reference. Nevertheless, in the process of improving policies, as well as discussing and persuading headquarters to release the company’s drugs in Korea, those in charge should bear a sense of responsibility for the commodity - the drug itself. Responsibility is one value that ‘those who bring their company’s drugs to Korea’ should cherish at all times. The ‘Korea passing’ phenomenon should not be abused as a pretext for easier listing in Korea. Our eyes will be on those who manage the Korean subsidiaries of MNCs, to see which companies choose to sideline Korea after detecting the slightest unfavorable element and whether management is doing their part to persuade their headquarters while pushing for systemic improvement in Korea.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s Eye] How was working from home for a year?
- by Kim, Jin-Gu Mar 31, 2021 06:09am
- A year has passed since the COVID-19 has bled into people’s daily lives. The pharmaceutical industry also has faced big changes and working from home was one the biggest changes. Although it was forcefully introduced, the work from home system, unlike the beginning of the outbreak, became a norm—the office staffs have been working from home and the sales at site for a long time. After spending some time to get used to it, the companies are now seeing some positive side of the system. A team lead at a multinational pharmaceutical company commented, “The company struggled a bit in the beginning, but the work productivity has improved significantly compared against pre-COVID-19. Now we are rather worried about post-COVID-19.” Of course, there is an opposite side to it. Another company’s team lead said, “Because work tends have its inertia, the high productivity would be maintained for a while. But for a long-term, working from home would not help. There are definitely limitations in creativity and team work.” Both sides are right. The evaluation on working from home would vary depending on the company and team’s ambiance, workload, and position within the organization. Also the evaluation would be based on the work habit, distance from the office, and private issues like child care. Surely, the problem has no definite answer. The U.S., already preparing for the end of COVID-19 before South Korea, is taking interesting stance. Recently, major companies in the U.S. are having heated dispute over whether to continue work from home after the end of COVID-19. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings apparently called work from home a “pure negative.” Meanwhile, Apple CEO Tim Cook sees the outcome of working from home was impressive. And other companies are also contemplating on the pros and cons of working from home. South Korea should also consider the life after COVID-19. As the vaccination has been initiated, the end of COVID-19 is seemingly getting closer. The government anticipates achieving the herd community in coming November. Around early next year, the COVID-19 pandemic that has been draining the South Koreans over a year would finally mark the end. Also the time is coming for the pharmaceutical company to make a decision on either to continue working from home or go back to the office. Working from home was never an option in the beginning. Pharmaceutical companies were forced to work from home as the outbreak spread nationwide. But the companies can decide to stop working from home. And the decision has to be quick and bold. They should avoid the confusion they caused in the beginning at all cost. If some of the companies decide to continue working from home, they would need to be well-prepared. A simple guideline would not cut it. A well-designed remote working system should be established and organizational culture and personnel evaluation system should be entirely reformed. They should be aware the work from home guideline from the bygone days ordering ‘only the essential staffs to report to office’ has a clear limitation.
- Opinion
- [Editor’s View] One year after the pandemic
- by Chon, Seung-Hyun Mar 25, 2021 05:58am
- A year has passed since COVID-19 hit the world. About this time last year, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic of COVID-19, the KOSPI index dropped to the 1400 line. But suddenly, the KOSPI index recovered to 3000. On March 19 of last year, the KRX healthcare index, composed of major pharmaceutical and bio companies, fell to 2,187.22 and rose to 4,569.86 in one year. Over the past year, vaccines and treatments have become the most powerful weapons to overcome the unexpected infectious disease crisis. Many domestic pharmaceutical bio companies have announced the development of vaccines and treatments. After one year of the pandemic, pharmaceutical bio companies also developed COVID-19-related drugs. However, domestic companies are not able to produce very satisfactory results. Last month, Celltrion received a conditional marketing authorization (CMA) for the first domestically developed COVID-19 treatment, but it is difficult to predict how effective it will be at the actual prescription site. Many domestic companies are accelerating clinical trials by proclaiming the development of COVID-19 treatments, but there are cases in which the superior clinical trial results are not obtained one after another. COVID-19 treatment approval has also been denied. Covid-19 vaccination has begun around the world, but domestic companies' vaccine development is still ongoing. Over the past year, the stock prices of companies delivering news of vaccine and treatment development have soared. They even used the pandemic crisis as a stock price. Press releases were pouring out, as if a great achievement was imminent, but no news was heard afterwards. In the context of ending COVID-19 through collective immunity around the world, it is time to verify the results of the development of corona drugs by domestic companies. The later the development of COVID-19 drug is, the less valuable the drug is. Companies developing COVID-19 treatments or vaccines can be verified with data whether their promises to patients or investors over the past year have been properly fulfilled, and can be judged by commercial outcomes through government approval. The efforts of most pharmaceutical bio companies to conquer COVID-19 should not be dismissed. It is unavoidable even if it failed by mobilizing all of its R&D capabilities with a large amount of money. This means that the failure to develop new drugs should not be blamed. In 2019, as many domestic bio companies failed clinical trials for new drugs in succession, there were some doubts that the clinical data were intentionally distorted and released. The time is approaching when the promises of pharmaceutical bio companies to conquer COVID-19must also be verified over the past year. Even if companies have failed to achieve their goals, they should inform them honestly in terms that the people can understand. It is time to verify the COVID-19 R&D as well.
