Wednesday, May 16, 2007

FDA Statement - Nuances

Posted on EC List May 15, 2007 Msg #91664

In case anyone is wondering about nuances in the FDA statement, what we
had requested was an exemption from the prohibition on compounding from
bulk drug. What we got was "regulatory discretion". The exemption would
have been a statement that they are allowing it, not considering it
illegal. The regulatory discretion basically means they'll look the
other way but technically they still consider it illegal. Either one
works for us; either one keeps the flow of drug to the compounders.
Only difference is the FDA saves face a bit more with regulatory
discretion. It's purely a matter of semantics. By either publishing an
exemption or making a public statement to the effect they will exercise
regulatory discretion in the framework of a valid prescription, they
are saying they won't move against the compounders or wholesalers. One
statement isn't any stronger than the other. Neither one actually
involves a change in law, and either one can be reversed just as
quickly as it was issued. However, until (and unless) an FDA approved
option comes along (see below), compounding will continue to be your
source of pergolide.

Also, "sponsors of approved product" refers to the 3 companies that
were making the pills before the recall; the only 3 companies that had
applied for and gotten FDA approval to market the drug. A "sponsor" is
a company that seeks FDA approval for a drug. An "approved product" is
a drug that has cleared the FDA approval process for a specific use(s).
So, the rest of the statement, beyond talking about compounding, was to
the effect that they are still trying to encourage the original pill
manufacturers to resume production, and are welcoming any new
sponsors/companies interested in picking it up specifically for equine


No comments: