Objective: To explore the perception of drug utilization review (DUR) system and DUR modernization pilot project among healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: We conducted 8 times of focus group interviews (FGI) between August 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The healthcare professionals and patients who participated in the DUR modernization pilot project were included in the present study. Based on the type of project participation or medical institution, the participants were divided into the following four groups: group 1, hospital; group 2, clinic; group 3, pharmacy; and group 4, patient. Within each group, interviews were conducted under a pre-defined agenda to identify the implicit perceptions of the participants; the contents of the interviews were, then, categorized. Results: Healthcare professionals established a consensus on the positive aspects of the DUR system and DUR modernization pilot project. However, substantial concerns remain, such as additional workload associated with monitoring adverse events or acquiring consents from patients. Furthermore, a difference of opinion over the DUR convenience system was observed. Among 3 DUR convenience system, the personal medication history review service was highly utilized, but pop-up hold function and communication system was rarely used. Conclusion We observed that systematic intervention using the DUR system is effective for both healthcare providers and consumers. Adverse events caused by inappropriate drug use can be prevented by continuous patient monitoring. Therefore, the role of DUR system needs to be expanded to establish a safe drug management system.

Objective: To explore the perception of drug utilization review (DUR) system and DUR modernization pilot project among healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: We conducted 8 times of focus group interviews (FGI) between August 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The healthcare professionals and patients who participated in the DUR modernization pilot project were included in the present study. Based on the type of project participation or medical institution, the participants were divided into the following four groups: group 1, hospital; group 2, clinic; group 3, pharmacy; and group 4, patient. Within each group, interviews were conducted under a pre-defined agenda to identify the implicit perceptions of the participants; the contents of the interviews were, then, categorized. Results: Healthcare professionals established a consensus on the positive aspects of the DUR system and DUR modernization pilot project. However, substantial concerns remain, such as additional workload associated with monitoring adverse events or acquiring consents from patients. Furthermore, a difference of opinion over the DUR convenience system was observed. Among 3 DUR convenience system, the personal medication history review service was highly utilized, but pop-up hold function and communication system was rarely used. Conclusion We observed that systematic intervention using the DUR system is effective for both healthcare providers and consumers. Adverse events caused by inappropriate drug use can be prevented by continuous patient monitoring. Therefore, the role of DUR system needs to be expanded to establish a safe drug management system.

Background: and Purpose Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases worldwide. Although diverse treatment regimens have been recommended, there is insufficient evidence for which treatment patterns to apply in routine clinical settings. Methods: We used nationwide claims data from South Korea for 2015–2021 to identify incident migraine patients with at least one prescription for migraine. Patients were categorized according to their initial treatment classes and followed up from the date of treatment initiation. Treatment regimens included prophylactic treatments (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] inhibitors) and acute treatments (acetaminophen, antiemetics, aspirin, ergotamine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, and triptans). The treatment patterns of migraine were evaluated until the end of the study period, including the secular trends, prevalence, persistence, and changes in migraine treatment. Results: Among the 761,350 included patients who received migraine treatment, the most frequently prescribed acute treatment was an NSAID (69.9%), followed by acetaminophen (50.0%).The most-prescribed prophylactic treatment was flunarizine (36.9%), followed by propranolol (24.4%). Among the patients, 54.8% received acute treatment, 13.5% received prophylactic treatment, and 31.6% received both treatment types. However, 65.7% of the patients discontinued their treatment within 3 months. The 3-month persistence rate was highest for triptans (25.2%) among the acute treatments and for RAAS inhibitors (62.0%) among the prophylactic treatments. Conclusions While the prevalence rates of medication use were found to align with current migraine guidelines, frequent switching and rapid discontinuation of drugs were observed in routine clinical settings.

Background: and Purpose Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases worldwide. Although diverse treatment regimens have been recommended, there is insufficient evidence for which treatment patterns to apply in routine clinical settings. Methods: We used nationwide claims data from South Korea for 2015–2021 to identify incident migraine patients with at least one prescription for migraine. Patients were categorized according to their initial treatment classes and followed up from the date of treatment initiation. Treatment regimens included prophylactic treatments (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] inhibitors) and acute treatments (acetaminophen, antiemetics, aspirin, ergotamine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, and triptans). The treatment patterns of migraine were evaluated until the end of the study period, including the secular trends, prevalence, persistence, and changes in migraine treatment. Results: Among the 761,350 included patients who received migraine treatment, the most frequently prescribed acute treatment was an NSAID (69.9%), followed by acetaminophen (50.0%).The most-prescribed prophylactic treatment was flunarizine (36.9%), followed by propranolol (24.4%). Among the patients, 54.8% received acute treatment, 13.5% received prophylactic treatment, and 31.6% received both treatment types. However, 65.7% of the patients discontinued their treatment within 3 months. The 3-month persistence rate was highest for triptans (25.2%) among the acute treatments and for RAAS inhibitors (62.0%) among the prophylactic treatments. Conclusions While the prevalence rates of medication use were found to align with current migraine guidelines, frequent switching and rapid discontinuation of drugs were observed in routine clinical settings.

Background: and Purpose Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases worldwide. Although diverse treatment regimens have been recommended, there is insufficient evidence for which treatment patterns to apply in routine clinical settings. Methods: We used nationwide claims data from South Korea for 2015–2021 to identify incident migraine patients with at least one prescription for migraine. Patients were categorized according to their initial treatment classes and followed up from the date of treatment initiation. Treatment regimens included prophylactic treatments (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] inhibitors) and acute treatments (acetaminophen, antiemetics, aspirin, ergotamine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, and triptans). The treatment patterns of migraine were evaluated until the end of the study period, including the secular trends, prevalence, persistence, and changes in migraine treatment. Results: Among the 761,350 included patients who received migraine treatment, the most frequently prescribed acute treatment was an NSAID (69.9%), followed by acetaminophen (50.0%).The most-prescribed prophylactic treatment was flunarizine (36.9%), followed by propranolol (24.4%). Among the patients, 54.8% received acute treatment, 13.5% received prophylactic treatment, and 31.6% received both treatment types. However, 65.7% of the patients discontinued their treatment within 3 months. The 3-month persistence rate was highest for triptans (25.2%) among the acute treatments and for RAAS inhibitors (62.0%) among the prophylactic treatments. Conclusions While the prevalence rates of medication use were found to align with current migraine guidelines, frequent switching and rapid discontinuation of drugs were observed in routine clinical settings.

Background: and Purpose Migraine is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases worldwide. Although diverse treatment regimens have been recommended, there is insufficient evidence for which treatment patterns to apply in routine clinical settings. Methods: We used nationwide claims data from South Korea for 2015–2021 to identify incident migraine patients with at least one prescription for migraine. Patients were categorized according to their initial treatment classes and followed up from the date of treatment initiation. Treatment regimens included prophylactic treatments (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] inhibitors) and acute treatments (acetaminophen, antiemetics, aspirin, ergotamine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, and triptans). The treatment patterns of migraine were evaluated until the end of the study period, including the secular trends, prevalence, persistence, and changes in migraine treatment. Results: Among the 761,350 included patients who received migraine treatment, the most frequently prescribed acute treatment was an NSAID (69.9%), followed by acetaminophen (50.0%).The most-prescribed prophylactic treatment was flunarizine (36.9%), followed by propranolol (24.4%). Among the patients, 54.8% received acute treatment, 13.5% received prophylactic treatment, and 31.6% received both treatment types. However, 65.7% of the patients discontinued their treatment within 3 months. The 3-month persistence rate was highest for triptans (25.2%) among the acute treatments and for RAAS inhibitors (62.0%) among the prophylactic treatments. Conclusions While the prevalence rates of medication use were found to align with current migraine guidelines, frequent switching and rapid discontinuation of drugs were observed in routine clinical settings.

Purpose: Following the withdrawal of propacetamol in Europe owing to safety issues, the regulatory authority of South Korea requested a post-marketing surveillance study to investigate its safety profile. Materials and Methods: We conducted nested case-control and case-time-control (CTC) analyses of cases and controls identified for outcomes of interest, including anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), using the claims database of South Korea, 2010–2019. Risk-set sampling was used to match each case with up to 10 controls for age, sex, cohort entry date, and follow-up duration. Exposure to anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and SJS was assessed within 7, 90, and 30 days of the index date, respectively. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using conditional logistic regression to assess the risk of outcomes associated with propacetamol. Results: We identified cases of anaphylaxis (n=61), thrombosis (n=95), and SJS (n=1) and matched them to controls (173, 268, and 4, respectively). In the nested case-control analysis, the ORs for anaphylaxis and SJS were inestimable given the small number of propacetamol users during the risk period; meanwhile, the OR for thrombosis was 1.60 (95% CI 0.71–3.62). In the CTC design, the effect estimate was only estimated for thrombosis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09–3.47). Conclusion In both nested case-control and CTC analyses, propacetamol was not associated with an increased risk of anaphylaxis, thrombosis, or SJS. The findings from this study, which used routinely collected clinical data, provide reassuring real-world evidence regarding the safety of propacetamol in a nationwide population to support regulatory decision-making.

Background: Regimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) have been changed from injectable-containing regimens to all-oral regimens. The economic effectiveness of new all-oral regimens compared with conventional injectable-containing regimens was scarcely evaluated. This study was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness between all-oral longer-course regimens (the oral regimen group) and conventional injectablecontaining regimens (the control group) to treat newly diagnosed MDR-TB patients. Methods: A health economic analysis over lifetime horizon (20 years) from the perspective of the healthcare system in Korea was conducted. We developed a combined simulation model of a decision tree model (initial two years) and two Markov models (remaining 18 years, sixmonth cycle length) to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two groups. The transition probabilities and cost in each cycle were assumed based on the published data and the analysis of health big data that combined country-level claims data and TB registry in 2013–2018. Results: The oral regimen group was assumed to spend 20,778 USD more and lived 1.093 years or 1.056 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) longer than the control group. The ICER of the base case was calculated to be 19,007 USD/life year gained and 19,674 USD/QALY. The results of sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were very robust and stable, and the oral regimen was cost-effective with a 100% probability for a willingness to pay more than 21,250 USD/QALY. Conclusion This study confirmed that the new all-oral longer regimens for the treatment of MDR-TB were cost-effective in replacing conventional injectable-containing regimens.