Clinical and Cost-Saving Effects of the Drug Utilization Review Modernization Project in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Korea.

OBJECTIVES: Korea's national health insurance authority introduced a drug utilization review modernization pilot project in which health professionals provided follow-up services to monitor adverse drug events. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the project on clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: We conducted difference-in-differences analysis using National Health Insurance claims data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. We calculated the number of adverse drug events and allergic reactions as a clinical indicator and medical costs incurred to manage these events as an economic indicator. Absolute difference in each outcome measure was defined as the value after the project minus the value before the project. Difference-in-differences was defined as a difference in absolute differences between the intervention group and the control group. RESULTS: Overall, difference-in-differences were -43 and -826 for the number of drug-related adverse events and allergic reactions and -$198,700 and $53,318 for medical costs in the inpatient and outpatient settings, respectively. For outpatients, the monthly number of adverse drug events and allergic reactions has grown higher for the control group than for the intervention group after implementation of the pilot project. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the pilot project lowered the number of adverse drug events and allergic reactions in the inpatient and outpatient setting. The project also lowered medical costs incurred to manage these events in the inpatient setting only. Based on our findings, we recommend that the pilot project be expanded on a nationwide level at least in the inpatient setting.

Utilization of targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for managing rheumatoid arthritis in the last decade: A two-country comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To compare trends in the use of targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), between Korea and Australia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using sampled claims databases in Korea and Australia (2010 - 2018), we analyzed the trends in the use of individual targeted DMARDs (biologic and targeted synthetic) for RA in both countries. RESULTS: The use of targeted DMARDs for the management of RA showed an increase of over 200 and 300% in Australia and Korea, respectively. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) etanercept and adalimumab were the most commonly prescribed drugs in 2010 in both countries, with non-TNFi use increasing over the study period. The introduction of tofacitinib in 2015 led to 10 and 15% market share uptake in Korea and Australia, respectively. CONCLUSION: Trends in the use of targeted DMARDs for RA were similar in Korea and Australia, and the use of non-TNFis, including tofacitinib, increased in both countries.

Burden of diabetic macular oedema in patients receiving antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy in South Korea: a healthcare resource use and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) and direct medical costs for patients with diabetic macular oedema (DME) treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in Korea by comparing with those for (1) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) without retinopathy and (2) patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with anti-VEGF. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) database from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 1398 patients older than 30 years of age who received anti-VEGF treatment for DME in 2015 after excluding patients who had a diagnosis of nAMD in 2015 and any cancer in the preceding year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year healthcare resource use and direct medical costs of patients with DME treated with anti-VEGF. RESULTS: In total, 1398 patients with DME receiving anti-VEGF, 12 813 patients with DM without retinopathy and 12 222 patients with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF were identified. Hospital admissions and outpatient visits were highest in patients with DME, while the number of licensed anti-VEGF injections in those with DME was about half that of those with nAMD (2.1 vs 3.9 per patient per year). Mean 1-year medical costs were also higher in patients with DME (US$6723) than in those with DM without retinopathy (US$2687) and nAMD (US$4980). In a multivariable analysis with matched cohorts, DME was associated with 66% higher medical costs for comorbid diseases (adjusted OR (aOR), 1.66; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.90) and 50% lower anti-VEGF injections (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.54) compared with nAMD. CONCLUSIONS: The overall HRU and economic burden for DME treated with anti-VEGF were higher than for DM without retinopathy or for nAMD treated with anti-VEGF. Meanwhile, the lower number of licensed anti-VEGF injections compared with nAMD may reflect a potential lack of ophthalmological treatment for DME supported by the NHI in Korea.