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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
246<br />
Only <strong>on</strong>e state, Utah, requires that active ingredients be approved by FDA for some<br />
medical use.<br />
See Utah Admin. Code r. 156- 17b-614(3)(d). Of the three remaining states, <strong>on</strong>e requires<br />
that the ingredients meet or exceed USP/NF standards, see Nev. Admin. Code § 639.757,<br />
and two require that the chemical be procured from another entity registered by that<br />
state's board, see 3 Colo. Code Regs. § 719-1.00.24 and Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 20, §<br />
2220-2.400.<br />
3. Determinati<strong>on</strong> of Medical Necessity.<br />
* No state other than Arkansas requires documentati<strong>on</strong> ofmedical necessity prior to<br />
dispensing a compounded product.<br />
In Arkansas, a pharmacist must obtain documentati<strong>on</strong> of a "specific medical need" when<br />
the compounded product is "essentially a copy" of a commercially available FDAapproved<br />
drug product. 3<br />
4. Standards for Compounding Sterile Pharmaceutical Products<br />
* Onlyfour states require compliance with the United States Pharmacopoeia<br />
(USP) chapter <strong>on</strong> sterile compounding.<br />
The USP, a private entity recognized in the FDCA with regard to certain pharmaceutical<br />
standards, has provided a chapter c<strong>on</strong>taining standards for sterile compounding (USP<br />
) that is intended to be mandatory. The USP standards are far less strict than FDA<br />
standards for approved drugs and provide patients with less protecti<strong>on</strong>. Although<br />
opp<strong>on</strong>ents of FDA oversight of sterile compounding point to the USP standards as an<br />
alternative to the higher FDA standards, compounding interests have opposed adopti<strong>on</strong><br />
by the states of the USP requirement and the states have generally failed to adopt the USP<br />
chapter as a requirement. Only four states have adopted the USP chapter. See Utah<br />
Admin. Code r.156-17b-19 (2007); N.M. Code R. § 16.19.6.11 (2007); 856 Ind. Admin.<br />
Code 1-30-1, et seq. (2007); 247 Mass. Code Regs. 9.01(3) (2007).<br />
3 The Arkansas rule provides:<br />
Compounding a drug product that is commercially available in the marketplace or that is<br />
essentially a copy of a commercially available FDA-approved drug product is generally<br />
prohibited. However, in special circumstances a pharmacist may compound an appropriate<br />
quantity of a drug that is <strong>on</strong>ly slightly different than an FDA-approved drug that is commercially<br />
available based <strong>on</strong> documentati<strong>on</strong> provided by the prescribing physician of a patient speci ic<br />
medical need (e.g. the physician requests an alternate product due to hypersensitivity to excipients<br />
or preservative in the FDA-approved product, or the physician requests an effective alternate<br />
dosage form) or if the drug product is not commercially available. The unavailability of such drug<br />
product must be documented prior to compounding. The recommended methodology for<br />
documenting unavailability is to print the screen of wholesalers showing back-ordered.<br />
disc<strong>on</strong>tinued, or out-of-stock items." Id (emphasis added).<br />
070-02-0001 Ark. Code R. (2007).