• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Pros and cons of compounded pharmaceuticals

    Compounded pharmaceuticals have been used for decades, but does that mean they are reliable and safe?

    “Absolutely,” asserted Dante Pieramici, MD.

    “The literature disagrees,” said Julia Haller, MD.

    The two argued the pros and cons of using compounded pharmaceuticals—and specifically bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) for retinal diseases. With compounding pharmacies accounting for “about 3% of the pharmaceutical market,” they serve a purpose, said Dr. Pieramici, in private practice in Santa Barbara, CA. Fortified antibiotics and intravitreal antibiotics served as precursors to the intravitreal use of compounded bevacizumab (Avastin), he added.

    “Essentially, this is just taking a sterile drug from one container to another,” Dr. Pieramici said.

    It’s not that simple, countered Dr. Haller, ophthalmologist-in-chief, Wills Eye Hospital; professor and chairperson of the Department of Ophthalmology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

    “A literature review reveals a litany of errors, including contamination and infection, with the worse being a multistate outbreak of fungal meningitis,” Dr. Haller said. “Errors in dosage have occurred. In our own field, we know that in Avastin injections, dosages can vary significantly when prepared by compounding pharmacies.”

     

    Compounding oversight

    The incidence of recalls for compounded pharmaceuticals has been on par with that of commercial drug recalls (about 30 a year), Dr. Pieramici said. He added that compounding facilities used to have only state oversight.

    “There have been some issues with compounded drugs being used to treat retinal diseases,” he acknowledged, “including sporadic cluster cases of bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis.”

    As a result of those incidents, the FDA pushed the congressional approval of the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) to ensure uniformity in compounded pharmaceuticals.

    “If you think that has settled everything, it absolutely has not,” Dr. Haller countered. “The DQSA is still a work in progress, particularly since the proposed restrictions create issues with maintaining a supply of compounded and repackaged drugs in our offices. The draft guidance continues to be under discussion by professional groups, including our own American Academy of Ophthalmology.”

    Access to compounded drugs can be problematic for patients as well, and the “Fix DQSA” initiative is active, Dr. Haller added.

    “We are a long way from achieving the balance that we need for safe and reliably available compounded drugs,” Dr. Haller pointed out. However, she acknowledged compounded drugs are becoming reliable.

    “It is incumbent upon us to be scrupulously conscientious,” she said, and remain vigilant about reporting adverse events to the FDA.

    Safety reigns

    2 Comments

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • [email protected]
      Not sure I agree with the comment that the incidence of recalls is about the same in compounded versus branded drugs. If there are about 30 per year in both groups and compounded drugs make up only 3% of the market, doesn't that compute to 33 times more likely to have a recall? That would be incredibly significant.
    • [email protected]
      Not sure I agree with the comment that the incidence of recalls is about the same in compounded versus branded drugs. If there are about 30 per year in both groups and compounded drugs make up only 3% of the market, doesn't that compute to 33 times more likely to have a recall? That would be incredibly significant.

    Latest Tweets Follow

    var script= ' ';