Bioidentical Hormones - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
Bioidentical Hormones - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging Bioidentical Hormones - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging
153 WHITE PAPER #4 REASONS THE FDA SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN PHARMACY COMPOUNDING In the past, Compounding Was Pharmacy! Throughout history, pharmacists compounded drugs for patients as they were prescribed by physicians. * In 1820, the U.S. Pharmacopeia established monographs for pharmacy compounding for the U.S. In 1906, the U.S. Pure Food and Drug Act established the U.S. Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, two of the official compendia of standards for pharmaceuticals in the U.S. * In the early 1 900s, however, the pharmaceutical industry began manufacturing most drugs and dosage forms for patients. * The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was established with the passage of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to develop and enforce standards for manufactured drugs. During the mid-1900s, with the large effort by the pharmaceutical industry to providing numerous strengths and dosage forms for drugs, the need for compounding diminished. Since the late 1900s a lot has changed and the pharmaceutical industry no longer supplies all the medications needed by patients. Pharmacy compounding has experienced tremendous growth. It has not, however, been without its detractors demanding that the FDA control compound-.g. T he FDA iecotgnizes the importance of, and need for pharmacy compounding. This is also true of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress; all recognize the contribution of pharmacy compounding to modern health care today. Individual states enact laws to establish the various professions and their requirements. The State Boards of Pharmacy are established to enforce the components of these acts as they relate to pharmacy. Pharmacy compounding is addressed in state boards ofpharmacy regulations or the laws within the states. This should be adequate and places the control and enforcement of pharmacy compounding at the state level, not the federal level. The FDA was created to enforce requirements on the pharmaceutical industry and not on pharmacy practices. However, the FDA has expanded its reach in recent years due to a blurring of the line between compounding and manufacturing. This gray area needs to be clarified for all involved through the state boards of pharmacy. This presentation does not necessarily address this gray area of compounding but it does address the role of pharmacy compounding in the relationship between a physician, patient and pharmacist. The FDA should not be involved in pharmacy compounding for the following reasons:
154 I. The FDA's definition of a "New Drug" requires that all compounded formulations and any manipulation of a commercially manufactured product outside its officially, approved labeling, is an unapproved hew drug. In fact, a significant percent of drugs are used for indications other than what their official labeling states. 2. It is impractical to require that each and every one of the thousands of formulations prescribed by physicians and compounded every day be submitted to the FDA as an Investigational New Drug with accompanying documentation (this includes hospital intravenous admixtures, etc). The current cost to get a single drug to market is from 200 to 500 million dollars. 3. No entity would be interested in financing all the clinical trials to support each and every one of the compounded formulations as there would be insufficient income from these compounded-preparations to pay for the research and clinical studies. Already, many FDA-approved drugs are discontinued by the pharmaceutical manufacturers for "economic reasons" when sufficient profit is not gained from them. 4. A physician may prescribe a change in strength or delivery route that would, under these requirements, be considered another "New Drug" that has not been tested. Why should a physician be denied the right to prescribe a change in strength or delivery route and a patient be denied the right to adequate health care and treatment that could be cost-saving only because the FDA views it as another "New Drug"? 5. The time requirement and logistics of studies for these compounded formulations would be difficult, if not impossible. For example, providing patient populations for these thousands of studies would be a formidable, if not an impossible task. 6. A change in the vehicle, due to the preferences of different physicians, would again require additional New Drug applications. 7. There is no patent protection for these formulas since they are prescribed by physicians for individual patients. Therefore, there is no incentive to do it. 8. The FDA is a large, complex governmental agency where communication between departments seems somewhat limited. 9. It has become apparent in recent years that the FDA is not really charged with the responsibility of keeping the pharmaceutical supply intact in the U.S. They have closed down manufacturing facilities that eliminated the availability of numerous drugs which left physicians with no alternative source of the drugs other than to prescribe them as medications that need compounding. 10. FDA approval of a drug is no guarantee that adverse events, even deaths, will not occur.
- Page 105 and 106: 102 Bio-identical progesterone repl
- Page 107 and 108: 104 had reached optimum theoretical
- Page 109 and 110: 106 and the patient can be can reas
- Page 111 and 112: 108 Estradiol and Analytical Resear
- Page 113 and 114: 110 A controlled systematic pilot c
- Page 115 and 116: 112 of set doses. The Wiley Protoco
- Page 117 and 118: 114 I'd advocate for either Accredi
- Page 119 and 120: 116 D.C., and established a goal to
- Page 121 and 122: 118 If this legislation passes, fed
- Page 123 and 124: first and second finger on the barr
- Page 125 and 126: 122 These products that have been s
- Page 127 and 128: 124 Bcl-2, survivin and variant CD4
- Page 129 and 130: 126 These are experiments by other
- Page 131 and 132: 128 cerebro-cellular inflammation c
- Page 133 and 134: 130 Years # women *1>0.5 8 *1+ 9 *2
- Page 135 and 136: *Breast cancer 132 -57 y.o. recurre
- Page 137 and 138: 134 *Labor intense for patient and
- Page 139 and 140: 136 Senator SMITH. Thank you very m
- Page 141 and 142: 138 makes these hormones uniquely s
- Page 143 and 144: 140 tomize the Wiley Protocol by ra
- Page 145 and 146: 142 "natural," because all lead to
- Page 147 and 148: 144 maceutical commerce, often with
- Page 149 and 150: 146 WHITE PAPER #1 DID YOU KNOW THA
- Page 151 and 152: 148 WHITE PAPER #2 Pharmacy Compoun
- Page 153 and 154: 150 bleeding of the bowel, locate t
- Page 155: 152 compounding standards can be en
- Page 159 and 160: 156 ORIIGINAL CONTrMIBTION JANMA-EX
- Page 161 and 162: Initially, the design allowed women
- Page 163 and 164: ards analyses," stratified by clini
- Page 165 and 166: year). These 'drop-in" rates were a
- Page 167 and 168: years of prior use, 11 vs 2; HR, 4.
- Page 169 and 170: trogen plus progestin exposure. Clo
- Page 171 and 172: 168 RISKS AND BENEFITS OF ESTROGEN
- Page 173 and 174: EFFECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTIROGEN
- Page 175 and 176: EFFECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTROGEN
- Page 177 and 178: EFFECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTROGEN
- Page 179 and 180: pEyECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTROGEN
- Page 181 and 182: EFFECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTROGEN
- Page 183 and 184: EFFECTS OF POSTMENOPAUSAL ESTROGEN
- Page 185 and 186: 10000 isoor i I ea '° a wan 20-24
- Page 187 and 188: ~SDt~rpa g~2~Q ~ !~fm~. b~e ~ ng jh
- Page 189 and 190: Is associated with an Increased ris
- Page 191 and 192: 188 Postmenopausal hormone therapy
- Page 193 and 194: group (P= 04001), and In this subgr
- Page 195 and 196: Treatmnent recommendations Based on
- Page 197 and 198: 21.Grodsteln F. Manson JE, Colditz
- Page 199 and 200: _ ORWIGNAL CONTIuBUTION 196 Postmen
- Page 201 and 202: showed no striking differences in H
- Page 203 and 204: (214 cases; P for trend=.72): howev
- Page 205 and 206: 202 HORMONE THERAPY USE AND RISK OF
153<br />
WHITE PAPER #4<br />
REASONS THE FDA SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN PHARMACY<br />
COMPOUNDING<br />
In the past, Compounding Was Pharmacy! Throughout history, pharmacists<br />
compounded drugs for patients as they were prescribed by physicians.<br />
* In 1820, the U.S. Pharmacopeia established m<strong>on</strong>ographs for pharmacy compounding<br />
for the U.S. In 1906, the U.S. Pure Food and Drug Act established the U.S.<br />
Pharmacopeia and Nati<strong>on</strong>al Formulary, two of the official compendia of standards<br />
for pharmaceuticals in the U.S.<br />
* In the early 1 900s, however, the pharmaceutical industry began manufacturing most<br />
drugs and dosage forms for patients.<br />
* The U.S. Food and Drug Administrati<strong>on</strong> (FDA) was established with the passage of<br />
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to develop and enforce standards<br />
for manufactured drugs.<br />
During the mid-1900s, with the large effort by the pharmaceutical industry to<br />
providing numerous strengths and dosage forms for drugs, the need for compounding<br />
diminished. Since the late 1900s a lot has changed and the pharmaceutical industry no<br />
l<strong>on</strong>ger supplies all the medicati<strong>on</strong>s needed by patients. Pharmacy compounding has<br />
experienced tremendous growth. It has not, however, been without its detractors<br />
demanding that the FDA c<strong>on</strong>trol compound-.g. T he FDA iecotgnizes the importance of,<br />
and need for pharmacy compounding. This is also true of the Supreme Court and the U.S.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>gress; all recognize the c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> of pharmacy compounding to modern health care<br />
today.<br />
Individual states enact laws to establish the various professi<strong>on</strong>s and their<br />
requirements. The State Boards of Pharmacy are established to enforce the comp<strong>on</strong>ents<br />
of these acts as they relate to pharmacy. Pharmacy compounding is addressed in state<br />
boards ofpharmacy regulati<strong>on</strong>s or the laws within the states. This should be adequate<br />
and places the c<strong>on</strong>trol and enforcement of pharmacy compounding at the state level, not<br />
the federal level. The FDA was created to enforce requirements <strong>on</strong> the pharmaceutical<br />
industry and not <strong>on</strong> pharmacy practices. However, the FDA has expanded its reach in<br />
recent years due to a blurring of the line between compounding and manufacturing. This<br />
gray area needs to be clarified for all involved through the state boards of pharmacy. This<br />
presentati<strong>on</strong> does not necessarily address this gray area of compounding but it does<br />
address the role of pharmacy compounding in the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between a physician,<br />
patient and pharmacist.<br />
The FDA should not be involved in pharmacy compounding for the following reas<strong>on</strong>s: