Search

The South Korean government in 2014 introduced various policies to enhance accessibility of pharmaceuticals. This study sought to examine whether positive reimbursement recommendations of pharmaceuticals have increased since 2014.Industry submissions evaluated from January 2007 to December 2018 were identified, and characteristics relevant to reimbursement recommendations were extracted. Logistic regression analyses with robust SEs were used to quantify the likelihood of positive recommendations for pharmaceuticals, after controlling for relevant factors influencing the recommendations.During the study period, 355 (72.9%) of 487 submissions were positively recommended; the drugs evaluated after 2014 (77.8%) were significantly more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations than the drugs evaluated before 2014 (69.5%). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, several factors (labeled a noncancer drug, priced less than alternatives, considered clinically superior, and having budget impact10 billion South Korean won) were significantly associated with positive recommendations (P 0.05). When considering interaction effects between evaluation year and other variables, only the interaction between comparative clinical benefit and evaluation year was significant. Specifically, clinically noninferior drugs evaluated after 2014 had 2.85 times the odds of receiving positive recommendations compared with the clinically noninferior drugs evaluated earlier.Recently evaluated drugs are more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations, especially those drugs whose comparative clinical benefits are noninferior.

Rosuvastatin is indicated for hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia and metformin mainly for type 2 diabetes. These 2 drugs are frequently prescribed in combination due to the high comorbidity of the 2 diseases. However the nature of pharmacokinetic interaction between the 2 drugs has not been previously investigated. The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between rosuvastatin and metformin in healthy Korean male volunteers.This was a randomized, open-label, 6-sequence, 3-period, crossover, multiple-dose study. Eligible subjects, aged 20 to 50 years and within 20% of the ideal body weight, received 1 of the following 3 treatments for each period once daily for 5 consecutive days with a 10-day washout period between the treatments: monoadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet, monoadministration of metformin 750 mg tablet, and coadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet with metformin 750 mg tablet. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after the last dose and pharmacokinetic parameters for rosuvastatin and metformin were compared between combination and monotherapy. Adverse events were investigated and evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations.Among the 36 enrolled subjects, 31 completed the study. The coadministration of rosuvastatin with metformin produced a significant pharmacokinetic interaction in rosuvastatin Css,max, with the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (coadministration:monoadministration) being 110.27% to 136.39% (P = 0.0029), whereas no significant interaction was observed in rosuvastatin AUCtau, yielding the 90% CI of 104.41% to 118.95%. When metformin was coadministered with rosuvastatin, no significant pharmacokinetic interaction was observed for Css,max and AUCtau of metformin, yielding the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for coadministration to monoadministration as 87.38% to 102.54% and 86.70% to 99.08%, respectively. Overall, 19 mild and 1 moderate adverse events occurred in 12 subjects, with no significant differences in the incidence among the 3 treatments.Although the Css,max of rosuvastatin was significantly influenced by coadministration with metformin, the degree of interaction seen was considered clinically insignificant, with no significant interaction observed in the other pharmacokinetic measures between the 2 drugs. These results imply that drug effects of rosuvastatin and metformin will also not be significantly influenced by coadministration of the 2 drugs. All treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01526317.

Purpose Rosuvastatin is indicated for hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia and metformin mainly for type 2 diabetes. These 2 drugs are frequently prescribed in combination due to the high comorbidity of the 2 diseases. However the nature of pharmacokinetic interaction between the 2 drugs has not been previously investigated. The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between rosuvastatin and metformin in healthy Korean male volunteers. Methods This was a randomized, open-label, 6-sequence, 3-period, crossover, multiple-dose study. Eligible subjects, aged 20 to 50 years and within 20% of the ideal body weight, received 1 of the following 3 treatments for each period once daily for 5 consecutive days with a 10-day washout period between the treatments: monoadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet, monoadministration of metformin 750 mg tablet, and coadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet with metformin 750 mg tablet. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after the last dose and pharmacokinetic parameters for rosuvastatin and metformin were compared between combination and monotherapy. Adverse events were investigated and evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations. Findings Among the 36 enrolled subjects, 31 completed the study. The coadministration of rosuvastatin with metformin produced a significant pharmacokinetic interaction in rosuvastatin C ss,max , with the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (coadministration:monoadministration) being 110.27% to 136.39% ( P = 0.0029), whereas no significant interaction was observed in rosuvastatin AUC tau , yielding the 90% CI of 104.41% to 118.95%. When metformin was coadministered with rosuvastatin, no significant pharmacokinetic interaction was observed for C ss,max and AUC tau of metformin, yielding the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for coadministration to monoadministration as 87.38% to 102.54% and 86.70% to 99.08%, respectively. Overall, 19 mild and 1 moderate adverse events occurred in 12 subjects, with no significant differences in the incidence among the 3 treatments. Implications Although the C ss,max of rosuvastatin was significantly influenced by coadministration with metformin, the degree of interaction seen was considered clinically insignificant, with no significant interaction observed in the other pharmacokinetic measures between the 2 drugs. These results imply that drug effects of rosuvastatin and metformin will also not be significantly influenced by coadministration of the 2 drugs. All treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01526317.

Background Rosuvastatin, a lipid-lowering agent, has been widely used with olmesartan, a long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, indicated for the treatment of dyslipidemia accompanied by hypertension. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of these 2 drugs was recently developed to enhance the dosing convenience and to increase patient compliance while yielding pharmacokinetic profiles comparable to coadministration of each drug as individual tablets. Objective The goal of present study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of single-dose administration of an FDC tablet containing rosuvastatin/olmesartan 20/40 mg (test formulation) with coadministration of a rosuvastatin 20-mg tablet and a olmesartan 40-mg tablet (reference formulation) in healthy Korean male volunteers, for the purpose of determining bioequivalence. Methods This single-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-period crossover study enrolled subjects aged 20 to 50 years and within 20% of ideal body weight. Each subject received a single dose of the test and reference formulations orally in a fasted state, with a 7-day washout period between the administrations. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after dosing, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for rosuvastatin, its active metabolite ( N -desmethyl rosuvastatin), and olmesartan. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were within the predetermined range of 80% to 125%. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations. Results Among the 58 enrolled subjects, 54 completed the study. The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were as follows: rosuvastatin: AUC last , 85.60% to 97.40% and C max , 83.16% to 98.21%; N -desmethyl rosuvastatin: AUC last , 82.08% to 93.45% and C max , 79.23% to 93.41%; and olmesartan: AUC last , 97.69% to 105.69% and C max , 100.35% to 109.42%. The most frequently noted AE was headache, occurring in 3 and 6 patients with the test and reference formulations, respectively. All of the AEs were expected, and there was no significant difference in the prevalences of AEs between the 2 formulations. Conclusions The pharmacokinetic properties of the newly developed FDC tablet of rosuvastatin/olmesartan 20/40 mg suggest that it is bioequivalent to co-administration of each drug as individual tablets in these healthy Korean male subjects. The two formulations were well tolerated, with no serious AEs observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01823900.

Background Amlodipine and valsartan have different mechanisms of action, and it is known that the combination therapy with the 2 drugs increases treatment effects compared with the monotherapy with each drug. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug is a formulation including fixed amounts of active drug ingredients combined in a single dosage form that is expected to improve medication compliance. Objective The goal of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of single administration of a newly developed FDC tablet containing amlodipine orotate 10 mg and valsartan 160 mg (test formulation) with the conventional FDC tablet of amlodipine besylate 10 mg and valsartan 160 mg (reference formulation) in healthy male Korean volunteers. Methods This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-way crossover study. Eligible subjects were between the ages of 20 and 50 years and within 20% of their ideal weight. Each subject received a single dose of the reference and the test formulations, with a 14-day washout period between formulations. Blood samples were collected up to 144 hours after the dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for amlodipine and valsartan. Adverse events were evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations. Results Forty-eight of the 50 enrolled subjects completed the study. For both amlodipine and valsartan, the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were included in the range for assumed bioequivalence, yielding 90% CI ratios of 0.9277 to 0.9903 for AUC 0–last and 0.9357 to 1.0068 for C max in amlodipine, and 0.9784 to 1.1817 for AUC 0–last and 0.9738 to 1.2145 for C max in valsartan. Dizziness was the most frequently noted adverse event, occurring in 4 subjects with the test formulation, followed by oropharyngeal pain occurring in 1 subject with the test formulation and 3 subjects with the reference formulation. All other adverse events occurred in Conclusions These findings suggest that the pharmacokinetics of the newly developed FDC tablet of amlodipine and valsartan did not differ significantly from the conventional FDC tablet in these healthy Korean male subjects. Both formulations were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01823913.

Purpose Rosuvastatin has been widely used in combination with olmesartan for the treatment of dyslipidemia accompanied by hypertension. With no information currently available on the interaction between the 2 drugs, a pharmacokinetic study was conducted to investigate the influence of rosuvastatin on olmesartan and vice versa when the 2 drugs were coadministered. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic profile of coadministration of the rosuvastatin 20-mg tablet and the olmesartan 40-mg tablet and the associated drug–drug interaction in healthy Korean male volunteers. Methods This was a randomized, open-label, 3-period, multiple-dose crossover study. Eligible subjects were aged 20 to 50 years and within 20% of their ideal body weight. After being randomly assigned to 6 groups of equal number, subjects received each of the following 3 formulations once a day for 7 consecutive days with an 8-day washout period between the formulations: rosuvastatin 20-mg tablet, olmesartan 40-mg tablet, and coadministration of the rosuvastatin 20-mg tablet and the olmesartan 40-mg tablet. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after dosing, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for rosuvastatin, its active metabolite ( N -desmethyl rosuvastatin), and olmesartan. Adverse events were evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations. Findings Among the 36 enrolled subjects, 34 completed the study (mean [range] age, 28.6 [23–49] y; mean [range] weight, 66.4 [52.2–78.7] kg). The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters for the coadministration of the 2 drugs to the mono-administration of each drug were 85.14% to 96.08% for AUC τ and 81.41% to 97.48% for C ss,max for rosuvastatin, and 77.55% to 89.48% for AUC τ and 75.62% to 90.12% for C ss,max for N -desmethyl rosuvastatin; those values were 95.61% to 102.57% for AUC τ and 91.73% to 102.98% for C ss,max for olmesartan. Dizziness was the most frequently noted adverse drug reaction, occurring in 1 subject receiving mono-administration of rosuvastatin, 1 subject receiving mono-administration of olmesartan, and 4 subjects receiving coadministration of rosuvastatin and olmesartan. All the adverse events were expected, and there was no significant difference in the incidence between the 2 formulations. Implications This study suggests that rosuvastatin and olmesartan did not significantly influence each other's pharmacokinetics when coadministered. Although the pharmacokinetics of N -desmethyl rosuvastatin were influenced by olmesartan, such interactions were considered clinically insignificant. All 3 formulations were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events or drug reactions were noted.

An orally disintegrating film (ODF) formulation of sildenafil was recently developed in Korea. This formulation is expected to enhance dosing convenience and increase patient compliance while yielding pharmacokinetics comparable to those of the conventional film-coated tablet (FCT) formulation.The goal of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of a newly developed ODF formulation with those of a FCT formulation of sildenafil in healthy Korean male volunteers.This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-period crossover study conducted in 2 parts. Eligible subjects were between the ages of 20 and 50 years and within 20% of their ideal weight; subjects were equally divided into parts 1 and 2. Each subject received a single dose of the ODF and FCT formulations of sildenafil orally in a fasted state (part 1, 50 mg; part 2, 100 mg), with a 7-day washout period between the formulations. Blood samples were collected up to 24 hours postdosing. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for sildenafil and its active metabolite (N-desmethyl sildenafil). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations.Among the 120 enrolled subjects (60 subjects for each part), 110 completed the study (part 1, n = 53; part 2, n = 57). In both parts, all the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were included in the range for assumed bioequivalence in sildenafil, yielding 90% CI ratios of 91.07% to 120.67% for AUC0-last and 86.68% to 122.93% for Cmax in part 1, and 101.68% to 114.78% for AUC0-last and 93.76% to 109.76% for Cmax in part 2. In part 1, headache was the most frequently noted AE, occurring in 3 subjects with both the test and the reference formulations. All other AEs occurred in3 subjects. In part 2, nasal congestion was the most frequently observed AE (7 with the test formulation and 1 with the reference formulation), followed by abnormal vision (4 with the test formulation and 4 with the reference formulation), headache (4 with the test formulation and 4 with the reference formulation), and rhinorrhea (5 with the test formulation). All other AEs occurred in3 subjects.The study findings suggest that the pharmacokinetics of the ODF formulation of sildenafil do not differ significantly from those of the conventional FCT formulation (50 and 100 mg) in these healthy Korean male subjects. The 2 formulations were well tolerated in both parts of the study, with no serious AEs observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01769638.

A sustained-release (SR) formulation of cilostazol was recently developed in Korea and was expected to yield a lower C(max) and a similar AUC to the immediate-release (IR) formulation.The goal of the present study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of a newly developed SR formulation and an IR formulation of cilostazol after single- and multiple-dose administration and to evaluate the influence of food in healthy Korean subjects. This study was developed as part of a product development project at the request of the Korean regulatory agency.This was a randomized, 3-part, sequential, open-label, 2-period crossover study. Each part consisted of different subjects between the ages of 19 and 55 years. In part 1, each subject received a single dose of SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) and IR (100 mg × 2 tablets, BID) formulations of cilostazol orally 7 days apart in a fasted state. In part 2, each subject received a single dose of the SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) formulation of cilostazol 7 days apart in a fasted and a fed state. In part 3, each subject received multiple doses of the 2 formulations for 8 consecutive days 21 days apart. Blood samples were taken for 72 hours after the dose. Cilostazol pharmacokinetics were determined for both the parent drug and its metabolites (OPC-13015 and OPC-13213). Adverse events were evaluated through interviews and physical examinations.Among the 92 enrolled subjects (66 men, 26 women; part 1, n = 26; part 2, n = 26; part 3, n = 40), 87 completed the study. In part 1, all the primary pharmacokinetic parameters satisfied the criterion for assumed bioequivalence both in cilostazol and its metabolites, yielding 90% CI ratios of 0.9624 to 1.2323, 0.8873 to 1.1208, and 0.8919 to 1.1283 for C(max) and 0.8370 to 1.0134, 0.8204 to 0.9807, and 0.8134 to 0.9699 for AUC(0-last) of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213, respectively. In part 2, food intake increased C(max) and AUC significantly (P0.0001), yielding geometric mean ratios of 3.2879, 2.9894, and 3.0592 for C(max) and 1.7001, 1.7689, and 1.6976 for AUC(0-last) of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213. In part 3, only the C(ssmax) of clilostazol in the reference formulation did not satisfy the criterion for assumed bioequivalence, yielding 90% CI ratios of 1.2693 to 1.4238 and 1.2038 to 1.3441, respectively. When each dose was normalized, the C(max) for the SR formulation was significantly lower (P0.005 for cilostazol). Headache was the most frequently noted adverse effect (part 1, a total of 14 subjects with the IR formulation and 14 with the SR formulation; part 2, a total of 10 without food and 23 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 10 with the IR formulation and 24 with the SR formulation), followed by nausea (part 1, none; part 2, only 1 without food and 3 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 3 with the IR formulation and 3 with the SR formulation), and then dizziness (parts 1 and 2, none; part 3, a total of 4 with the IR formulation and 5 with the SR formulation). All other AEs, including fever, cough, vomiting, palpitation, diarrhea, and epigastric pain, occurred in3 subjects.These findings suggest that in this select group of healthy Korean volunteers, the SR formulation of cilostazol was not significantly different in AUC compared with that of the IR formulation, although it did display a significantly lower C(max) per dose in both the single- and multiple-dose groups. Food significantly increased the bioavailability of the SR formulation. The cilostazol SR and IR formulations were well tolerated in all parts of the study, with no serious adverse events reported. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01455558.