- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2025-12-21 01:48:49
- Opinion
- [Column] Legal disputes over rebate penalty reducing price
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Dec 05, 2019 06:12am
- This year would be a year to remember as various issues regarding drug pricing broke out, such as ‘lump-sum price reduction on single-use eye drops’, ‘revised generic pricing system’, and ‘litigation against pricing reduction penalty for providing rebate’. Currently the drug pricing system is geared towards paradigm shift, starting with abolished ‘same substance same pricing’ policy. Pharmaceutical companies would be helpless but to seek for other survival tactics in the coming year while the drug pricing ecosystem changes. There are many issues to be talked about regarding drug pricing, but today it would be about a few updates on meaningful court decisions made on pricing reduction as an illegal rebate penalty. However, it would mainly be summarized points of the issues as the lower court made the decisions and the issues are still open for long-running disputes. As I introduced in a column titled ‘Rebate and Kick-back’ published December last year, the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) imposed maximum reimbursement price reduction on 340 items from 11 pharmaceutical companies accused of providing rebate. Currently, the most of affected pharmaceutical companies have filed administrative litigation against the matter. The pricing reduction penalty has not been imposed for years and related legal dispute has not been talked, either. So the recent legal disputes were raised since various issues occurred with MOHW imposing penalty of the massive scale. Going through each dispute issue, the first issue is about whether to consider nature or property of drug pricing reduction penalty as a sanction or not, according to the Item 12 of Paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Regulation for Criteria for Providing Reimbursed Services in the National Health Insurance, stating “a drug that has been confirmed as having disturbed trade orders by offering money or good for sales promotion, etc”, or also known as former rebate regulation. The distinction of the sanction is crucial, because the ministry’s jurisdiction could change depending on the recognition of the discretionary sanction. In other words, when the court recognizes the penalty as discretionary sanction, the judiciary would then decide the penalty was legitimate respecting the administrative agency’s judgment, if without a significant flaw, but if not then the court could revisit the issue. On the issue, the lower court decided drug pricing reduction penalty imposed based on the former rebate regulation ‘could not be seen as sanction, but rather the maximum reimbursement price adjustment should be judged as discretion of reasonable penalty.’ Therefore, the court meant that it would be considered as a legitimate penalty within the discretionary jurisdiction only when the jurisdiction is considered reasonable. With the said premise, the court ruling made decision on jurisdiction of discretionary authority for each specific disputed issue. First, the court ruled that the Minister of Health and Welfare was not obligated to lay down detailed basis of maximum reimbursement price calculation to affected companies, when imposing the price reduction penalty. The court did not see the legitimate reason as for the minister to consider the company as direct subject, because the regulation defines subjects for notice on reimbursed drug are mutually applied among healthcare institute, National Health Insurance Service (NHIS), policyholder, and dependent. Among drugs provided from Pharmaceutical Company B to Hospital A, should the price be reduced only for drugs prescribed by the rebate-received medical profession? Or should maximum reimbursement prices of all drugs supplied by Company B and prescribed by Hospital A be reduced? The court stated all drugs from Company B could be subject for the maximum price reduction. Rebate provision itself is highly likely to have been provided to promote sales of a specific company’s product, and there was no objective evidence to prove the rebate was provided for a specific product instead. So the court decided the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s penalty was within its jurisdiction of discretionary authority. Then what about a case of Hospital A providing both reimbursed and non-reimbursed drugs. How should the maximum reimbursement price reduction rate be calculated? Should the rebate on non-reimbursed drug be disregarded from the calculation of price reduction rate? The court decided proportionally dividing rebate amount on reimbursed drug, while completely disregarding non-reimbursed drug, was a faulty calculation of maximum reimbursement price reduction rate. The calculation formula for the price reduction rate was wrongful as rebate could have been provided for the non-reimbursed drug, and removing the amount provided to non-reimbursed drug from the calculation would have resulted in excessive reduction rate. Lastly, if the rebate provided to a pharmacist was for the cost of the provider’s prescription drug, would it be possible to reduce the maximum price including the rebate cost? Besides from violating Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the court saw that the company’s act of providing rebate is difficult to relate back to prescription and sales of the prescription drug. The principle and the norm of dispensing and sales of prescription drug is decided by doctor’s prescription, so the court judged it is unlikely to see the correlation between rebate provided to pharmacist and ‘promotion of dispensing and sales of prescription drug’, except for a special occasion. Therefore, the court stated reduction rate should be calculated without the rebate cost provided to the pharmacist. As for the last decision, the court reviewed standard and process of imposing maximum reimbursement price adjustment penalty more specifically than other previous rebate decisions, which sets judging standard to see if the maximum reimbursement price reduction penalty was reasonable based on the ministry’s discretionary authority. The decisions were made during respective first trials and they are waiting for the appeal. Attention on the issues is heightened to see if the preceding decisions would be sustained in the appeal. In fact, there is a possibility of the change in decision during the appeal, and whichever decision is made at the Supreme Court later, the cases would definitely be the precedents setting a standard of the rebate-induced drug pricing reduction penalty. The heated legal disputes seem inevitable for the healthcare sector, as it is Korea’s new economic growth engine with visible rapid expansion in quality and quantity. Besides, the highly political and technical drug pricing is right in the center of the dispute. Previously mentioned drug pricing paradigm shift seems like it would bring more interesting topics on the table than just the rebate case. Surely the drug pricing policy would attract even more attention in the coming year 2020.
- Opinion
- [Column]GPP can’t be off anymore
- by Jung, Heung-Jun Nov 27, 2019 06:40am
- GPP is a hot potato in the pharmaceutical society. It is unlikely that a executive of the pharmaceutical association with experience in business would completely deny the introduction of GPP. This is because the government and the public have been asking the pharmaceutical association for decades. But the drive is making slow progress. This is because it is difficult for the Korean pharmaceutical society to roll their arms first for a policy that members are not happy with. Former Executive Committee, Chan-hui Cho held a debate to discuss the GPP, but the members' response was cold. The core of GPP is to elevate pharmacy's work level. This ranges from patient services related to medication to systematic and clean management of pharmacies. It is basic not to make unauthorized persons illegal activities, such as dispensing or selling generic drugs. This system aims to induce improvement by certifying excellent pharmacies through evaluation and to raise the level of work of all pharmacies. But members' response to the GPP is not favorable. They recognize the necessity, but they are not very active in accepting, or even view it as another unnecessary regulations. Some used to run a pharmacy at their convenience, but once the GPP is in place, they have to be more careful to meet the criteria and to include being assessed by an outside agency for certification. Nevertheless, the positive side of the GPP certainly exists. First, they can reduce underage pharmacies which do damage to the entire pharmacist society There are many pharmacies that operate in good faith in accordance with desirable pharmacists, but there are some that do not. Because of these pharmacies, the overall status of the pharmacist society falls. The protection of these pharmacies by the Korean pharmaceutical society is nothing less than the surrender of the rights of the whole members. Second, they can increase public confidence in pharmacies and pharmacists. Support of the public is essential for the pharmacist's petition project such as ingredient prescription. It is important to understand that the current situation with low confidence or expectation in pharmacies is the biggest obstacle to the development of pharmacist functions. Members often avoid GPP because of incorrect information or realistic concerns. The idea is that the GPP is tricky to implement a corporate pharmacy or objectionable because it will cost a lot of interior expense. In particular, there seems to be a misunderstanding that hardware elements such as interior and automatic dispenser are important conditions for becoming a pharmacy. Not like that. In order to provide good service, software factors such as pharmacist knowledge and careful care of patients are more important. And the certification system should be made to reflect these software elements well. This can lead to the development of the pharmacist's function, which is the true purpose of the system. In order for the GPP to be settled in a desirable manner, it is correct that the pharmacist society faithfully carries out these concerns and preemptively implements them. Recently, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission recommends that the Ministry of Welfare undertake a study on the implementation of the GPP. It is a pity to respond aggressively to the changes of the times and to the demands of the people. We must abandon the current situation where the pharmacist society seems to stand up to the consumer's demands, and change to the stage where the pharmacists renew and gain the trust of the people. Change is always painful. But the power to change on its own is the driving force to open the future. Even now, we expect the pharmacist society to gather wisdom and courage to be on the right track of change.
- Opinion
- [FOCUS]Government sophistication to generic regulations
- by Chon, Seung-Hyun Nov 25, 2019 06:21am
- A few years ago, a multinational pharmaceuticals announced “high quality” by launching generics in the domestic market. It is the aspiration to show good quality generics based on strict production management, product monitoring and quality assurance system that have long been recognized in the global market. At the time, the head of the licensing review department of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, who got the news, rejected that "the quality of generic products is meaningless." Generics must pass strict standards from drug substances to finished product manufacturing facilities. In addition, a conformity test should be made in a bioequivalence study demonstrating that the generics are equivalent to the rate and concentration of original drug absorption. "Generic products that have passed all government-set standards and have been approved for sale should be regarded as equal in quality.“ The MFDS is trying to tighten restrictions on generics after last year's issue of Valsartan impurity. The MFDS announced the legislative draft of the “Revision of Partial Rules on the Safety of Pharmaceuticals,” etc. on the 18th. It contains a significant tightening of the licensing requirements for all fair commissioned manufacturing generics. It means that the GMP evaluation data, standards and test method data, which have been exempted from the consigned generic permit screening data, must be submitted. It is noteworthy that MFDS referred to “high quality generics” as the background for strengthening generic regulations. According to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Report of the revised regulations, the MFDS said that they will secure the trust of the people providing 'high quality' medicines and improving the soundness of drug distribution through the quality improvement of generics for each clause that strengthens the regulation of generics. The intention is to supply high-quality generics by strengthening generic regulations. It also means that there is differences in quality between generic products. This is contrary to the conventional view that "quality is equal if it passes the strict licensing process." It seems possible that even with the MFDS, there may be some low quality generics. It is also ambiguous to see how the strengthening of permit standards is related to quality improvement. Submission of GMP assessment data by authorized generic means re-release of data that has already been verified by the MFDS. GMP assessment data need not be submitted when consigning a product that is identical to a previously approved generic. However, one year after the proclamation of amendment, the authorized generics will also be required to produce three manufacturing units (batch) and submit relevant GMP data for approval. The submission of GMP evaluation data by authorized generics disappeared just five years ago. The MFDS implemented ‘the GMP Compliance Certification System’ in 2014, which permits Pharmaceutical production that all factories producing pharmaceuticals requires passing the standards set by the MFDS every three years. At this time, regulations for mandatory production of licensed drugs were relaxed. It was made possible for the establishment within the validity period of the conformity assessment to replace the data on the evaluation of the GMP implementation with the conformity assessment. They have already laid the foundation for strengthening quality management by introducing the ‘Certificate of GMP Compliance of a Manufacturer', and in the situation where the approved facility has determined the suitability of licensed drugs, it is decided that it is redundant regulation to receive the GMP evaluation data of the authorized generics again. The same applies to co-bioequivalence regulations currently underway. On April 15, the MFDS announced a partial revision of the “Regulations on the Authorization, Declaration, and Review of Pharmaceuticals,” which includes tightening regulations on co-bioequivalence regulations. According to the amendment, regulations will be tightened so that up to three authorized generic manufacturers are allowed to one original manufacturer one year after the notification. This means that up to four generics will be granted for each bioequivalence test. After three years, consiged bioequivalence is completely banned. Four years after the notification, only one generic may be approved in one bioequivalence study. As a result, after four years, the same product from the same manufacturing facility must be tested for bioequivalence separately. I don't know what it is related to run separate bioequivalence tests on the same product with ‘high quality generics’. Goal of the MFDS is clear that it tightens regulations of generics. Because of the serious difficulty of generics, the intention is to reduce the number of generics in the market by raising licensing barriers. It is clear that the overflow of generic manufacturing contractors is the cause of generic upheaval. It is also clear that generic upheavals were triggered by changes in government permit regulations. Wouldn't it be better to admit that the government's policies encouraged generic upheaval and try to persuade the reasons for changing the policy stance? Rather, the cause of “quality improvement,” which is not related to the regulations, can lead to confusion in the industrial field. This leads to distrust in government policy. Of course, the government may adjust the regulatory intensity in response to changing market conditions. However, companies need to be able to believe and follow only by providing a clear justification and justification for the new policy. If the government produces a policy without justification and changes the policy stance, in the turn of a hand, credibility falls.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] The Korean bio-health industry in Anomie
- by Lee, Jeong-Hwan Nov 20, 2019 11:50pm
- World-class standards of medical technology is Korea's long-standing pride. Advanced bio-new drugs are the future growth fuel that the world pursues, and the Korean pharmaceutical industry is gradually shifting its development focus from generics to new drugs with technology. Expectations and concerns coexist in the public's spotlight toward the medical and biopharmaceutical industries that will affect the future of Korea. It is rare to oppose the achievement of 'high-tech medical and bio-new drugs' that will lower regulatory barriers, speed up the introduction of new technologies, and ultimately directly benefit society and the public. On the other hand, the question of whether to agree to the provision of personal health information necessary for the development of advanced medical and biologic new drugs is not easily nodded in assent. The order to make high-tech medical and new medicine without medical big data is to offer the best dinner without high quality and abundant raw materials. In this respect, The Korean bio-health Industry fell in Anomi. New norms and social values appropriate for advanced medical and biologic drugs and the fourth industrial revolution must be established, but it is the current status of our society that existing traditional norms and values rarely innovate. In other words, the social values, which are essential for the high-level medical care and advanced new drug industrialization, are in a state of confusion and irregularity. Recently, the 4th Industrial Revolutionary Committee urged the government to advance laws and regulations, and to strengthen the capacity for review and licensing. Specifically, the government said that it would reduce social unrest by strengthening public relations about the objective scientific achievements that the biohealth industry would bring along with the revision of the Personal Information Protection Act, medical law, and bioethics law. KIET stated that the Korean bio, IT, and AI industries with excellent technology have fallen into ‘the prisoner's dilemma’, pursuing their own interests among medical world, civil society, and the government. It is a diagnosis that civil society, which has high technology development and government-industrial distrust, is not able to agree on providing sensitive health and medical personal information, and is hindering the development of telemedicine or biomedicine. After all, how to rescue Korea's bio-health industry in an anomalous state is the solution for advanced medical and biomedicine drugs. Citizen anxiety is likely to grow as regulatory innovations take place, and it can create fear that personal information is being used by government or some industries for other purposes. The government should work with expert groups to make concrete plans to break down civil distrust, and quickly resolve the public's lack of cutting-edge bio-information through various public participation external events. Regulatory innovation and industrial development should not be focused on keywords, it made The public, the government, and the industry struggling with each other, and darken the state-of-the-art medical and biopharmaceuticals the future We should be able to explain transparently and specifically how my medical information is used and protected in the development of the biohealth industry and how the individual can finally benefit. Also, it is time to break down chaos and anomie by creating a way for individuals to participate in the biohealth industry.
- Opinion
- [Column] Imposing fine enough to prevent rebate?
- by Kim, Jung-Ju Nov 13, 2019 01:09am
- Korean government’s plan to revise illegal rebate penalty regulation and replace insurance reimbursement suspension with fine on an accused drug product came under fire. However, the government is committed to protect drug access considering patient’s safety and convenience. For the justification of rebate regulation against rebate, the government points its finger on financial factor, other than pure objective of treatment, intervening the process of selecting and purchasing drug products, and negatively affecting on patient’s health, National Health Insurance (NHI) and general medical expense. The objective of rebate regulation is to induce adequate use of drug and transparent trading. The execution of rebate regulation should be able to achieve the objective, and the regulators should maintain fairness when executing it. The existing penalty against rebate is to revoke NHI reimbursement listing and to impose fine depending on the number of committed offenses. The proposed revision of the regulation starts from lowering of upper limit healthcare expense (drug price) to suspension of healthcare reimbursement, as well as imposing of fine, depending on the number of committed offenses. The major differences are utilization of drug price reduction, increase in amount of fine, and excluding revocation of reimbursement listing. It seems appropriate not to remove the responsible drug product from reimbursement listing for the sake of patient’s stable drug access, because it would be far-fetched to correlate illegal practice and quality of the drug. Furthermore, the regulators should contemplate on how effective the revised penalties would be to eradicate the illegal practice, compared to the revocation of reimbursement listing. The purpose of the regulation should not only stress on punitive aspect, but also stress on preventive aspect. Reduction of drug price and increased fine are undeniably punitive. However, the issue is the severity level of the penalty sufficient enough to bring preventive effect. When the level of penalty is bearable, then companies with agenda would rather take the chance of committing offense. Other issues are drug price reduction, reimbursement suspension period and the unclear definition of the ‘period’ when imposing fine. Positively speaking, they could be seen as ‘flexibility’ in administrative measure, but negatively speaking, ‘voluntariness’ of the administrative measures are questionable. It is easy to predict who would exploit and abuse the regulatory standard (interpretation of the term). Also, the term ‘one year-worth of reimbursement cost’ addressed in the regulation summing the amount of fine is ambiguous. Depending on the point of the ‘year’, the accused company’s absolute amount of fine and countermeasure differ vastly. At the moment, dual penalty system is applied on the rebate giver, a pharmaceutical company, and the receiver, a doctor or healthcare institute. But the off-balance between regulations against the giver and the receiver, as addressed by the National Health Insurance Act, are under fire. The regulators are reinforcing financial penalty on rebate-giving product, instead of imposing regulation on the product itself to maintain access to the treatment. On the other hand, regulators suspends license of the rebate-receiving healthcare provider, and also confiscates illegally obtained financial gain. How about some more attention on re-evaluating the fairness between reimbursement revocation on a drug product and suspension of doctor’s license? Or between drug price reduction and reimbursement cost refund, and financial gain confiscated from healthcare providers? Effective execution and fair penalties of rebate regulation should be revisited at this point in time. Moreover, we should not forget to contemplate on revising the regulation to prevent rebate practice in long-term and fundamental fashion, taking the unique qualities of the pharmaceutical industry’s rebate practice and distribution environment into account. Although the ultimate consumer of a drug product is patient, it is undeniable that doctors are in control over the pharmaceutical options. Keeping in mind that a drug is also a commercial product, the regulators would also have to face the reality of marketing without some form of rebate. The point is to bring down healthcare provider’s openness of receiving rebate and the level of rebate provision. Besides the problem within rebate practice, National Health Insurance’ payment system and healthcare provision system should be reformed to achieve fair and good healthcare.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] DC the absolute power behind hospital
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Nov 11, 2019 11:08am
- When each hospital’s Drug Committee (DC) is convened, pharmaceutical companies starts a fierce war to land a favorable drug deal. Just like any war in the world, the ‘DC war’ has a winner and a loser. Unfortunately, not always do the winners deserve a win or the losers deserve their defeat. To land a ‘drug code-in’ deal at some general hospitals, ‘inappropriate backdoor dealing’ is more important than outstanding evidences of a drug’s indication and efficacy. Such phenomenon is prevalent when an original’s patent is expired and new generic is released. A hospital’s DC mostly consists of doctors from each department and chief pharmacist. However, sometimes unheard-of drugs get their codes in and push out existing drugs, thanks to hospital foundation’s influence. To this date, a hospital with significantly influential DC brings in representative of a pharmaceutical company and demands for so-called ‘drug code maintenance fee’ on an original drug with expired patent. In fact, the hospital removed well-known original hypertension, hyperlipidemic and antithrombotic items for last two to three years. Their codes were removed, simply because the drug companies refused to pay the ‘maintenance fee’. The illegal rebate paid by drug companies is never handed straight to the foundation. Pharmaceutical industry insiders hint that the money is rerouted and laundered through separate corporations owned by the foundation or distribution companies with a close relationship, and finally gets to the foundation. DC lobbying exists between originals when there is a new generation or type of drug is launched. So for pharmaceutical companies to get a drug code-in deal, they need to coax foundation and doctors. Of course, the effort of Dual Penalty System and Fair Competition Agreement has brought some fairness to the business. Unless solid evidence of a drug is available, growing numbers of hospitals are not guaranteeing DC’s approval, regardless of a good connection between a healthcare provider and a pharmaceutical company. However, hospitals still associate DC with an absolute power. Even though it should be given that hospital’s drug coding depends on fair evaluation.
- Opinion
- [Eyes of a Reporter] Are you a ‘good company?’
- by An, Kyung-Jin Nov 08, 2019 08:45am
- Every year around this time, one book hikes up the best seller ranking at book stores. The book, ‘Trend Korea Series’ by Professor Kim Nando of Seoul National University, summarizes next year’s trend in Korea with a list of keywords. ‘Trend Korea 2020’ had a top ten consumer trend keyword list including ‘fair play’. The book explains how the notion of ‘good company’ has gotten popular among consumers over the years, therefore, ‘fair competitiveness’ would become a more vital factor affecting consumer’s choice. At a recent special lecture session, Professor Kim claimed “Growing up in a society where individuality is prevalent, Millennials wants to change their society with a small effort. Even when buying a product, they put value not only in the product itself, but also in the brand’s good influence towards the society”. With his theory, he further explained the lately popular boycott movement against problematic brand is not just a simple aggression, but an expression of desire to be fair and correct. During the lecture, I suddenly thought of a question. Which pharmaceutical company is actually a ‘good company?’ In Korean society, pharmaceutical companies have a relatively positive public image. The society appreciates how the companies provide needed drugs to patients and contribute in saving lives. How wonderful is it that their income made from drug sales is reinvested toward new drug R&D, and also on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. However, some companies have disappointed Koreans and crippled their trust in the industry in recent years. Last year March, a French pharmaceutical company announced it would suspend supplying a contrast agent used for liver cancer treatment due to low pricing in Korea. As a response, the Korean society got infuriated. A British multinational healthcare company has been the infamous company for a while as the one responsible for making humidifier disinfectant with severe health hazard. After developing an anticancer treatment significantly extending patient’s overall survival period, a large-scale pharmaceutical company experienced painful clash and dispute with patient groups as the company insisted on drug pricing at around few million won per month. Global companies are not alone on this topic. Prosecutors are still investigating a Korean bio company accused of manipulating ingredient report on its osteoarthritis gene therapy. An allegation of another Korean company, despite its title of ‘good company’ earned from the society, providing illegal rebate to healthcare provider for prescribing their products turned out to be true and the their executives were sentenced with jail term. Also there are many companies regularly making negative postings at vulnerable time for investors fearing it would affect stock price. In this capitalistic society, reproaching pharmaceutical companies for their profit-making decisions could be too harsh. Supplying needed drug or CSR activities can only be possible, when a company is sustainable. But, shouldn’t the executives of pharmaceutical companies feel more responsible about the society’s higher expectation of business ethics on health related companies? We can only hope that those pharmaceutical companies would repent their wrong choices and stand tall again as a ‘good company’, keeping their initial objective of ‘contributing to public health’ in mind.
- Opinion
- "진성적혈구증가증 치료, 이제는 장기 예후를 논할 시점"(K/T)
- by Son, Hyung Min
- [데일리팜=손형민 기자] "진성적혈구증가증 치료는 단순히 혈구 수를 낮추는 데서 끝나는 질환이 아닙니다. 질환의 원인 자체를 조절하고, 장기적으로는 치료를 중단할 수 있는 가능성까지 고민해야 할 시점에 와 있습니다."홍준식 서울대병원 혈액종양내과 교수는 최근 데일리팜과 만난 자리에서 올해 급여 등재된 인터페론 제제 '베스레미(로페그인터페론 알파-2b)'를 계기로 국내 진성적혈구증가증 치료 환경에 의미 있는 변화가 시작됐다고 설명했다. 홍준식 서울대병원 혈액종양내과 교수홍 교수는 "그동안 국내 치료는 혈전 예방과 증상 조절에 초점이 맞춰져 있었지만, 이제는 JAK2 변이라는 질환의 근본 요소를 조절하고 장기적인 질환 경과를 관리하는 접근을 논의할 수 있게 됐다"고 말했다.진성적혈구증가증은 골수증식종양(MPN)의 한 종류로, 골수 기능이 과도하게 활성화되면서 적혈구를 비롯해 백혈구와 혈소판이 비정상적으로 증가하는 희귀 혈액암이다. 환자의 95% 이상에서 JAK2 유전자 돌연변이가 확인되며, 이 변이가 질환의 주요 발병 원인으로 추정되고 있다.건강보험심사평가원에 따르면 2024년 기준 국내 진성적혈구증가증 환자 수는 5068명으로 집계됐으며, 매년 신규 진단 환자도 꾸준히 증가하는 추세다. 진성적혈구증가증은 혈액 점도를 높여 혈전증·색전증 등 심혈관계 합병증을 유발할 수 있고 장기적으로는 골수섬유증이나 급성골수성백혈병과 같은 치명적인 혈액암으로 진행할 위험도 안고 있다. 평균 생존 기간은 약 14년 수준이지만, 골수섬유증으로 이환될 경우 5~7년, 급성골수성백혈병으로 진행되면 생존 기간이 수개월로 급격히 감소한다. 그동안 국내 진성적혈구증가증 치료는 혈전 예방과 혈구 수 조절에 초점을 맞춰 왔다. 저렴하고 혈전 예방 효과가 입증된 하이드록시우레아가 1차 표준 치료로 널리 사용돼 왔지만 근본적인 질환 조절에는 한계가 있었다. 특히 하이드록시우레아에 불응성 또는 불내약성이 나타나는 환자의 경우 혈전증 위험이 다시 높아지는데도 마땅한 2차 치료 옵션이 없어 미충족 수요가 지속돼 왔다. 이러한 상황에서 올해 9월 진성적혈구증가증 치료제 베스레미가 하이드록시우레아 불응성·불내약성 환자를 대상으로 건강보험 급여에 등재되며 치료 환경에 변화를 예고하고 있다. 베스레미는 3세대 모노-페길화 인터페론으로, 질환의 근본 원인인 JAK2 돌연변이 유전자 부담을 선택적으로 감소시키는 기전을 갖는다. 국내 환자를 대상으로 한 임상에서 베스레미는 치료 12개월 시점에 완전 혈액학적 반응률 52.8%, 분자학적 반응률 39.4%를 기록했으며, 치료 기간이 길어질수록 반응률이 더욱 증가하는 경향을 보였다. 일부 환자에서는 약물 중단 이후에도 반응이 유지돼 '기능적 완치(Potential Operational Cure)' 가능성도 제기되고 있다. 데일리팜은 풍부한 진성적혈구증가증 진료 경험을 보유한 서울대학교병원 혈액종양내과 홍준식 교수를 만나 베스레미 급여 등재 이후 국내 치료 환경의 변화와 향후 역할에 대해 들어봤다. Q. 진성적혈구증가증은 어떤 질환인가? 발병 원인과 함께 설명 부탁드린다.골수의 조혈모세포가 다양한 혈액 세포를 만들어내는 과정에서 후천적 유전자 변이가 생기면서 혈액 세포가 과도하게 증가하는 질환을 '골수증식종양'이라고 한다. 진성적혈구증가증은 골수증식종양의 일종으로 여러 혈액 세포 중에서도 특히 적혈구가 과도하게 증가하는 질환을 의미한다. 골수증식종양에는 혈액 세포가 과도하게 생성되도록 만드는 특정 유전자 변이가 발견된다. 진성적혈구증가증에서 가장 대표적인 것이 JAK2 유전자 변이이며 특히 JAK2V617F가 가장 흔히 나타난다. 진성적혈구증가증 환자의 약 95%가 JAK2V617F 변이를 가지고 있어 거의 모든 진성적혈구증가증 환자가 JAK2 변이를 보유하고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 진성적혈구증가증은 적혈구뿐 아니라 백혈구와 혈소판 수치까지 함께 상승하는 경우가 많다. 이로 인해 혈액 점도가 높아져 혈관이 막히는 합병증 위험이 커진다. 동맥이 막히면 뇌경색이나 심근경색, 정맥이 막히면 정맥혈전증이 발생한다. 실제로 많은 환자들이 이러한 문제로 불편을 겪고 있으며 경우에 따라 삶의 질 저하나 사망으로 이어질 수 있다. 또 하나 중요한 점은 진성적혈구증가증은 후천적 유전자 변이로 생기는 질환이기 때문에 골수 내 염증 상태가 장기간 지속되면 더 심각한 질환으로 진행될 수 있다는 점이다. 진성적혈구증가증이 골수섬유증으로 악화되거나 가장 심각한 경우 급성골수성백혈병으로 진행될 수 있다. 발생 빈도는 혈전증이 훨씬 많지만 중증도 측면에서는 급성골수성백혈병으로의 진행이 가장 위험하다.급성골수성백혈병으로 진행되면 생존 기간이 수개월에 불과해지기 때문에 질환이 진행되지 않도록 치료하는 것이 중요하다. Q. 베스레미의 등장 이후 이전과 비교했을 때 치료 환경의 변화는 어떠한가?베스레미는 진성적혈구증가증에서 현대적 임상시험을 통해 효과와 치료 기전을 명확하게 입증하고 동시에 급여 등재까지 된 최초의 치료제라는 점에서 의미가 크다. 이전 치료 환경은 선택지가 다양하지 않았기 때문에 오래된 약인 하이드록시우레아를 처방하고 부작용이 생기면 용량을 조절하는 대증적 치료에 머무르는 수준이었다. 이제는 장기간 안정적으로 관리하면서 질환의 근본적인 측면까지 고려하는 발전적이고 체계적인 치료가 가능해졌다는 것이 가장 큰 변화이다.가장 먼저 체감하는 변화는 환자들이 하이드록시우레아로 인한 부작용에서 벗어났다는 점이다. 하이드록시우레아에서 베스레미로 전환한 환자들은 입안 궤양, 위장관 증상 등 부작용 부담이 줄면서 삶의 질이 크게 개선되는 경험을 먼저 체감하고 있다. 국내 치료 환경을 고려하면 이 부분이 가장 즉각적이고 중요한 변화라고 생각한다. 임상적 효과 측면에서도 완전혈액학적 반응이 잘 나타나고 있다. 물론 급여 적용 이후 시간이 충분히 지나지 않았기 때문에 다년간 진행된 임상시험에서 확인된 효과가 실제 진료 현장에서 똑같이 재현되고 있다고 단정하기는 조금 이른 단계다. 그럼에도 불구하고 베스레미가 높은 기대를 받는 이유는 질환을 장기적, 근본적인 관점에서 관리하는 데 중요한 이점을 갖고 있기 때문이다.하이드록시우레아가 이미 만들어진 혈액 세포를 세포독성으로 파괴해 혈구 수를 낮춘다면 인터페론 계열인 베스레미는 조혈모세포 또는 그에 가까운 초기 조혈세포 단계에서 작용해 질환의 근본적인 유발 인자를 조절한다. 이런 기전 덕분에 장기적으로는 혈구 수 조절을 통한 혈전증 감소, 더 나아가 골수섬유증이나 급성골수성백혈병으로의 진행 위험을 줄일 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.Q. 기능적 완치의 정확한 정의가 궁금하다. 베스레미를 통해 질환의 완치를 기대할 수 있다는 것인가?기능적 완치란 지속적인 약물치료가 필요한 질환에서 약제의 효과가 매우 우수해 질환의 원인이 되는 유전자나 기전을 충분히 억제하거나 제거함으로써 약을 중단한 뒤에도 상태가 악화되지 않는 상태를 의미한다. 혈액질환 중에서는 만성골수성백혈병에서 이러한 사례가 이미 확인되고 있다. 유전자량이 측정되지 않을 정도로 감소하면 TKI 제제를 중단하더라도 수년간 재발 없이 안정적인 상태가 유지되는 것이다. 이러한 데이터가 축적되면서 기능적 완치가 충분히 가능한 개념이라는 것이 입증되었다고 볼 수 있다. 이 경우 약물 휴지기를 가질 수 있어 경제적, 치료적 부담이 크게 줄어드는 장점도 있다.진성적혈구증가증에서도 베스레미가 등장하면서 기능적 완치 가능성에 대한 기대가 높아지고 있다. 이 질환에서 유전자 정량 자체를 의미 있게 감소시키는 약제는 베스레미가 최초이기 때문이다. 또 만성골수성백혈병의 경험을 보면 약을 중단했다가 원인 유전자가 다시 검출되더라도 재투여 시 다시 치료 효과가 나타난다. 베스레미 역시 중단 이후 JAK2 유전자 변이량이나 혈구 수치가 다시 증가하더라도 재투여를 통해 안정적인 상태로 질환을 조절할 수 있다는 점이 확인되고 있다.Q. 베스레미의 급여 조건에 대해 설명 부탁드린다. 2차 치료에서 모두 급여 적용되는 것인가?베스레미는 하이드록시우레아에 저항성이거나 불내성인 진성적혈구증가증 환자에 급여 적용이 가능하다. 이번 급여의 가장 큰 의미는 그동안 하이드록시우레아 외에 치료 옵션이 없었던 환자들에게 새로운 치료 선택지가 열렸다는 점이다. 반대로 하이드록시우레아만으로 치료 효과가 충분히 나타나는 환자나 하이드록시우레아를 쓰지 않고 아스피린만으로 관리 가능한 저위험군 환자는 급여 대상에 포함되지 않는다.급여 조건을 충족한 환자가 베스레미를 투여하면 초기 1년간 급여가 적용된다. 그리고 1년 시점에서 치료 반응을 평가한다. 이 평가에서 완전혈액학적 반응이 유지될 경우 추가 2년 동안 급여가 적용돼 최대 3년간 급여 치료가 가능하다. 진성적혈구증가증에서 완전혈액학적 반응은 적혈구용적률(Hematocrit) 45% 미만, 혈소판 수 40만 개 미만, 백혈구 수 1만 개 미만을 모두 충족하는 것을 의미한다.Q. 글로벌 가이드라인은 베스레미를 1차 치료부터 권고하는 추세인데 국내에서도 베스레미를 1차 치료 옵션으로 도입하는 것에 대해 의견 부탁드린다.국내에서 베스레미가 하이드록시우레아 저항성·불내성 환자에게만 급여 적용된 것은 우리나라의 진료 환경과 건강보험 재정 상황이 현실적으로 반영된 결과라고 볼 수 있다. 사실 베스레미의 허가 임상인 PROUD/CONTINUATION-PV 연구는 대상 환자를 저항성·불내성 환자로 제한하지 않았다. 초기 진단 환자나 하이드록시우레아를 사용한 경험이 없더라도 혈구 수 감소가 필요한 환자라면 모두 포함해 치료 효과를 평가했다.연구 결과를 보면 기존에 하이드록시우레아를 사용하던 환자들보다 초기부터 베스레미를 사용한 환자들에서 완전혈액학적 반응 등 주요 지표의 결과가 더 우수하게 나타났다. 이런 점을 고려하면 저항성·불내성 여부와 관계없이 1차 치료부터 베스레미를 사용하는 것이 의학적으로 유의미한 방법이다. 더불어 베스레미는 약제 휴지기를 가질 수 있다는 점에서 주목할 만하다. 유럽에서 진행된 연구에서는 베스레미를 투여해 2년 이상 완전혈액학적 반응을 유지하고 JAK2 유전자 변이가 10% 미만으로 감소한 환자에게 치료 중단을 시도했는데 상당 기간 휴지기를 유지한 환자들이 나타났다. 휴지기를 확보할 수 있다는 점은 건강보험 재정 차원에서도 부담을 줄일 수 있는 의미 있는 결과다. 다만 건강보험은 여러 요인을 함께 고려해야 한다.Q. 진성적혈구증가증 치료 환경에 남은 미충족 수요가 있다면?베스레미가 도입되면서 특히 유전자 조절과 기능적 완치, 장기 휴약 가능성 같은 새로운 치료 목표를 기대할 수 있게 된 만큼 이를 뒷받침할 진단 환경의 개선이 꼭 필요하다. 현재 국내에서는 JAK2 변이를 양성·음성으로만 확인하는 경우가 많고, 정량적(allele burden) 평가를 정기적으로 시행하기 어렵다. 초진 시에는 급여가 가능하지만 추적 검사에서는 급여가 제한되는 경우가 많아 실제 임상에서 정기 모니터링에 어려움이 있다. 다행히 국내 전문가들을 중심으로 정량 검사 표준화가 논의되고 있어 가까운 시기에 개선될 것으로 기대하고 있다.또 임상적 근거를 기반으로 베스레미가 더 넓은 골수증식종양 질환 영역에서 활용될 필요가 있다. 이를 위해서는 진성적혈구증가증 치료를 골수증식종양의 큰 틀에서 이해하는 것이 필요하다. 본태성혈소판증가증, 골수섬유증 등 다른 골수증식종양 질환도 진성적혈구증가증과 기전을 공유하여 이들 질환을 대상으로 한 베스레미 임상 연구도 이미 진행 중이다. 이 임상 결과를 바탕으로 더 넓은 질환 영역에서 확대 적용될 필요가 있다.더불어 중증으로 악화될 가능성이 있는 만성질환에서는 가능한 조기에 효과적인 약제를 합리적인 범위 안에서 도입하는 것이 중요하다. 베스레미도 현재 급여 기준이 하이드록시우레아 저항성·불내성 환자로 국한되어 있는데 향후 경제성 평가 등을 토대로 기준이 완화되기를 기대한다.마지막으로 현실적인 미충족 수요 중 하나는 골수증식종양 임산부 환자 치료 문제다. 임신 중에는 하이드록시우레아를 사용할 수 없어 사실상 인터페론이 유일한 치료 옵션인데, 국내에는 인터페론 계열 약제가 많지 않아 베스레미가 사실상 유일한 대안이다. 실제로 국내에서도 다섯 명의 임산부 환자가 허가 외 상황에서 베스레미 치료를 받았던 사례가 있다. 이러한 특수한 임상 상황에서도 안전하게 사용할 수 있는 치료 접근성이 넓어져야 한다는 점은 여전히 중요한 과제로 남아있다.
