Saturday, May 26, 2012


Know the Truth About Compounding Drugs website, found here, contains helpful information for both patients and practitioners.  Some of the very useful information, including whether malpractice insurance covers an error in compounding and when the use of compounded drugs is appropriate,  from the website is as follows:

What is drug compounding?Pharmacist compounding is an age-old process used to make non-FDA-approved medications by mixing available ingredients that result in a medication that is unavailable from an approved commercial pharmaceutical manufacturer. Pharmacy compounding is ONLY appropriate when there is no FDA approved alternative to meet a specific patient need (e.g., when a patient is allergic to an ingredient in the FDA approved alternative).
What is the FDA’s position on the use of compounded (non-FDA-approved) drugs?
State and Federal laws govern the availability of compounded unapproved drugs. While the FDA reserves the right to inspect compounding pharmacies; restricted resources limit the FDA’s ability to inspect most compounding pharmacies. When FDA receives a complaint about a compounded medication it typically refers the complaint to the appropriate state’s board of pharmacy.
Compounding is ONLY appropriate when:
  • There is no FDA-approved drug for a patient’s ailment.
  • An individual patient has an allergy to an ingredient used
    in an FDA-approved medication.
  • A pediatric patient requires a medication for which there is
    no suitable formulation.
  • The FDA-approved drug is not currently available
If there is an FDA-approved product that can be used, it should be used. Compounding is intended to address the needs of individual patients; in other words, compounded (non-FDA-approved) drugs should only be produced on a patient-by-patient basis. It is illegal for a compounding pharmacy to make bulk quantities of a medication and sell it.
Have there ever been safety issues with compounded (non-FDA-approved)
medications?

Drug safety is important to both drug compounders and FDA-approved manufacturers. The FDA document titled, The Special Risks of Pharmacy Compounding (link), the FDA provides examples of situations where patients have been injured by compounded drugs. More examples are provided on a page of this website titled, Helpful Links. The FDA asks that adverse events experienced with FDA-approved and compounded medications be reported to FDA MedWatch (link).
Does malpractice insurance cover the potential liabilities associated with prescribing compounded drugs?The liability for physicians using a compounded drug (non-FDA–approved) is significant, with several negative consequences. A major liability for a physician who uses a compounded drug (non-FDA-approved), is the possible invalidation of their malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance typically excludes coverage of procedures that involve the use of non FDA approved drugs. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, compounders do not carry liability insurance that is sufficient to protect physicians from catastrophic damages. The use of a compounded or imported drug could leave a physician with tremendous personal liability and possible criminal prosecution.
Are compounded (non-FDA-approved) medications reimbursed?
The FDA and Medicare can impose criminal charges and significant fines against a physician who is convicted of using illegally imported or illegally compounded drugs. Medicare Part B will pay for compounded (non-FDA-approved) drugs when they meet the criteria for coverage. However, it is considered Medicare fraud to bill for a drug that is non-approved or illegal. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have taken an aggressive position in recent years to prevent fraud. Under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), any person who knowingly submits a false or fraudulent claim to Medicare or Medicaid is liable to the Federal Government for three times the amount of the Federal Government's damages plus penalties of $5,000 to $10,000 for each claim. This is evidenced by the aforementioned 2005 case where the penalized physician was mandated to pay $150,000 restitution under the False Claims Act. In the case, the physician billed Medicare for 62 procedures, all of which Medicare refused payment because the drug utilized was non-approved. Under the Federal False Claims Act, persons who report fraudulent claims to the U.S. Government are entitled to a reward equal to 15% to 25% of the recovery of Federal damages. This provides tremendous incentive to persons who have exposure to Medicare or Medicaid billing to report any activity that may be deemed as false. A fraud conviction can be very costly for a physician, as the penalties are paid out-of-pocket unless the physician has supplemental insurance specifically for Medicare fraud.


Has the US government performed hearings about the issues associated with drug compounding?
Yes, in 2003 hearings were held. The link below will take you to a review of those hearings:
http://www.pharmwatch.org/comp/sellers.shtml

Has the FDA ever quantified quality control issues related to compounded drugs?
There are many significant issues associated with compounded medications. These issues can affect unapproved drug efficacy and patient safety.
  • A sterile compounding environment - The lack of a sterile manufacturing area can compromise the ingredients used to make medicine.
  • Unknown drug stability - It is common for compounded drugs
    (non-FDA-approved) to come without an expiration date and after potency has diminished.
  • Supra-potency - The strength of the compounded medication is higher than the labeling indicates.
  • Low-potency - The strength of the compounded medication is lower than the labeling indicates.

In 2002 and 2006 the FDA evaluated medications supplied by compounding pharmacies.
An overview of the FDA’s 2006 finding can be found here.

What did the US FDA find in their review of compounded (non-FDA-approved)
medications?
Among 198 samples gathered during 2006, 125 were active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and 73 were compounded (non-FDA-approved) finished drug products. All 125 API samples passed analysis. Of the 73 compounded (non-FDA-approved) finished drug products, two-thirds (66%) either couldn’t be tested or failed analytical testing.
Most of the products that failed analysis did so due to sub or super-potency, called assay, or a lack of uniformity of individual dosage units, called content uniformity. Potency ranged from 67.5% (one-third less potent than intended) to 268.4% (2.5 times more potent than intended) of the amount of drug declared on the product labeling. For content uniformity analysis of products containing multiple active components, both sub- and super-potent active components were found within the same product samples. Such variability can lead to uncertainty in dosing and raises concern for patient therapy.
The results of the survey suggest that problems with the quality of compounded drugs occur throughout the country. Of note is that all APIs passed analytical testing, supporting the notion that the observed failures of the finished drug products may be causally related to the compounding processes at pharmacies.
Has the FDA described unacceptable drug compounding?
Yes, in 2002 the FDA re-issued guidance on pharmacy compounding. The following are unacceptable criteria:
  • Compounding drug products that are commercially available
    in the marketplace or that are essentially copies of commercially
    available FDA-approved drug products. In certain circumstances,
    it may be appropriate for a pharmacist to compound a small quantity
    of a drug that is only slightly different than an FDA-approved drug
    that is commercially available. In these circumstances, FDA will
    consider whether there is documentation of the medical need
    for the particular variation of the compound for the particular patient.
  • Compounding of drugs in anticipation of receiving prescriptions,
    except in very limited quantities in relation to the amounts of drugs compounded after receiving valid prescriptions.
  • Using commercial scale manufacturing or testing equipment for compounding drug products.
  • Compounding drugs that were withdrawn or removed from
    the market for safety reasons.
  • Compounding finished drugs from bulk active ingredients that
    are not components of FDA approved drugs without an FDA
    sanctioned investigational new drug application (IND) in accordance
    with 21 U.S.C. § 355(i) and 21 CFR 312.
  • Receiving, storing, or using drug substances without first obtaining
    written assurance from the supplier that each lot of the drug substance
    has been made in an FDA-registered facility.
  • Receiving, storing, or using drug components not guaranteed
    or otherwise determined to meet official compendia requirements.
  • Compounding drugs for third parties who resell to individual
    patients or offering compounded drug products at wholesale to
    other state licensed persons or commercial entities for resale.
  • Failing to operate in conformance with applicable state law regulating the practice of pharmacy.
Are compounded (non-FDA-approved) medications less expensive than FDA-approved medications?
You may hear that compounded (non-FDA-approved) medications are less expensive than FDA-approved medications. This may not always be true. The expense of any given medication can be measured numerous ways. It is important that physicians know if there is a suitable FDA-approved drug available before prescribing or using a compounded (non-FDA-approved) drug. Physicians may also want to determine if a patient’s insurance company will pay for compounded medications before touting a compounded (non-FDA-approved) medication as less expensive than an FDA-approved drug and insurance carriers frequently do not reimburse the cost of compounded (non-FDA approved) medication.
Why is it illegal for drug compounding pharmacies to make a large quantity
of medication and sell it?

The manufacturing standards applied to compounding pharmacies and FDA-approved drug manufacturers are different. All FDA-approved medications are required to show quality control analyses, while compounding pharmacies are not held to the same, if any, standards. Many drug compounding pharmacies may make medications in a clean environment, there are no controls enforced regarding drug stability and sterility. It is impossible for a physician or patient to know the duration of stability for a compounded product, whereas, all FDA-approved drugs are supplied with an expiration date and lot number. An FDA-approved drug’s expiration date helps ensure that the product is used at a time when it’s known to contain the desired amount of medication. Having a lot number helps ensure the medication is always traceable if a recall was ever required. Since it is illegal for compounding pharmacies to make large (bulk) quantities of drug lot numbers are not used thus it may not be traceable. Additionally, the stability profile of compounded (non-FDA-approved) drugs is unknown.
In a document titled, The Special Risks of Pharmacy Compounding (link), the FDA provides consumers with guidance related to the use of compounded unapproved  

Medisca, Inc. and Signature Compounding Pharmacy: Overview of Criminal Case

Here is another example of a compounding pharmacy, Signature Compounding Pharmacy, charged in a criminal case.  Signature was located in Orlando, Florida but the criminal case was brought in Albany, New York.  The Florida Department of Health filed administrative complaints against the pharmacy for improper distribution of human growth hormone but never pursued the charges.  Signature closed down after the indictment.  A Plattsburgh pharmaceutical company, Medisca Inc., and its president, a Canadian citizen, both pleaded guilty to misdemeanor federal drug charges for mislabeling more than $1 million worth of human growth hormone that was imported from China and distributed to pharmacies around the country.  Signature Compounding Pharmacy was among the customers of  Medisca, Inc, which had corporate offices in St. Laurent, Quebec.  This case has led to 17 convictions. The remaining case is against Naomi Loomis; her husband, Robert "Stan" Loomis; his brother, Kenneth Michael Loomis; Kirk Calvert; and Anthony Palladino.

Soares defends steroids case
Albany prosecutor cites factual errors in federal ruling; rejects bias claim
By BRENDAN J. LYONS Senior writer
Published 05:00 a.m., Monday, September 13, 2010

ALBANY -- Prosecutors have asked an Albany judge to forge ahead with a criminal trial for five Florida pharmacy operators accused of being at the center of an alleged illegal steroids business. It's a part of a case that drew national interest in 2007, but that has since brought attacks on the Albany County district attorney's office.
The remaining criminal case, which targets the pharmacist-owners of Orlando's former Signature Compounding Pharmacy, has languished for three years following an interstate law enforcement raid in February 2007 -- spearheaded by Albany County prosecutors -- that exposed illicit steroid use by professional athletes and others.

More than 15 people, including doctors and business owners, pleaded guilty to related drug charges in a case that exposed systemic abuse of prescription drug laws. But the case against the pharmacists and their managers, who were also targets of a related federal criminal investigation, has thrust a spotlight on District Attorney David Soares' decision to indict operators of a faraway company that did a small percentage of its multi-million-dollar business in New York state and Albany County.
Two years ago an Albany County judge threw out the first indictment against the pharmacy's operators, citing prosecutorial missteps in the grand jury proceedings. A month later, the pharmacists fought back with a federal civil rights lawsuit in Florida seeking millions of dollars in damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution. They sued Soares, an assistant district attorney, the Orlando Police Department and other law enforcement officials.
But their criminal case in New York was not over. Earlier this year a state appellate court reversed a portion of the county judge's dismissal order that barred prosecutors from bringing a new indictment, which they did in June.
Last month defense attorneys for the five Signature defendants asked the same judge who dismissed the first case, County Judge Stephen W. Herrick, to do it again. This time, they claimed similar grand jury problems and also pointed repeatedly to a scathing analysis of the investigation last June by a federal judge in Florida, whose ruling has the civil rights lawsuit on course for a jury trial in Florida
"Soares not only participated in, but directed (assistant District Attorney Christopher) Baynes and others to violate plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful arrests," wrote the federal judge, Gregory A. Presnell. "Rather than wait for any documentary evidence that plaintiffs had committed a crime in New York and comply with the very limited requirements of federal and state extradition statutes, Soares decided to orchestrate Plaintiffs' arrests without valid New York warrants and, in the process, garner significant media attention."
Last week, Christopher D. Horn, special counsel to the Albany County district attorney, filed a 34-page motion that seeks to uphold the latest 33-count indictment. It also accuses the federal judge of making numerous factual errors. Horn's written statement marks the first detailed response to Presnell's searing criticism of the Albany district attorney's investigation.
Lawyers in the criminal case are subject to a gag order and were unable to comment for this report.

Prosecutors and investigators have previously characterized Signature pharmacy as a prescription mill that manufactured many of its own drugs, including steroids, that were marketed to people through "wellness clinics" that did a large volume of business through the Internet. Several people convicted in the case admitted they set up the wellness clinics that funneled prescriptions to Signature, which mailed drugs to people around the country. Some of the clinic operators said they paid doctors to write prescriptions for people who were never evaluated in person, and who had no legitimate medical need for the controlled substances, including steroids and human growth hormone.
The case, especially the fallout of its exposure of illicit drug use by athletes, shook up the pro sports world. It also was cited by former Sen. George L. Mitchell in his 2007 report on illegal steroid use in Major League Baseball.
While Signature's defense team has characterized their clients as law-abiding pharmacists who were victims of a zealous prosecutor, others convicted of dealing with them have cast doubt on that assertion.
Last year in Rhode Island, Orlando businessman Victor Martin Effron pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the illegal importation of human growth hormone from China. Federal authorities said the product was being sold to Signature pharmacy, which had contracted Effron to smuggle the drug into Florida, and marketed as approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.
Orlando police, who were an integral part of the Signature case, asked Albany's prosecutors four years ago to join their investigation after building a criminal case from wiretaps, cooperating witnesses and evidence collected from trash bins outside Signature's pharmacy. They solicited the interest of Soares, according to court records, because the company dispensed prescriptions in New York, which has some of the strictest prescription drug laws in the nation.
Still, defense attorneys have countered that Soares, known from his position as district attorney for the state capital, only became involved in the case to thrust himself into a national spotlight. They said the new charges should be dismissed, or a special prosecutor appointed, because Soares' office has a conflict due to the related federal civil rights lawsuit that has gained traction in Orlando.
Horn, who also handles appeals for the office, countered last week that appointing a special prosecutor would set a precedent for criminal defendants to disqualify prosecutors from pursuing cases by suing them, then claiming there is a conflict.
"The defendants had been being prosecuted for the same criminal conduct for well over a year prior to the filing of their federal civil lawsuit," Horn wrote in the motion to Herrick. "Now the defendants argue that the filing of a fifth indictment is evidence of bias born of the 'conflict' which the defendants themselves manufactured. They are in no different position than they were before they filed their lawsuit. They were being prosecuted then and they are being prosecuted now."
The defendants, three of whom are licensed pharmacists in the state of Florida, are: Naomi Loomis, 37, her husband, Robert "Stan" Loomis, 59; Kenneth Michael Loomis, 62, who is Robert's brother; former business manager Kirk Calvert, 40; and former business manager Tony Palladino, 34.
Horn's motion also attacks key sections of the federal court order, and notes that days after Presnell ordered the civil case to proceed, the judge abruptly issued a corrective order dismissing the claim against a former state Health Department investigator, Mark Haskins, who had played a key role in the Signature investigation.

To read the remainder of this article, click here.
To read more about this case, click here, here, here, and here.


Friday, May 25, 2012

Successful Lawsuit Based on IV Compounding Error in Hospital Pharmacy; settled for 8.25 Million

Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (IL), which admitted that a pharmacy technician’s IV machine data entry error in 2010 killed a baby, settled the family’s lawsuit for $8.25 million. 

The wrongful death suit alleged an IV bag was incorrectly filled with 60 times the amount of sodium. In a statement in 2011, a hospital spokeswoman said, ""It was determined that a data entry error was made in the formulation of the IV solution. The dosage of sodium for an IV bag from an order had been incorrectly entered into the machine that mixes IV solutions."  Read about this story here.  Another article points out:

Hospitals across the country rely extensively on pharmacy compounding, for products ranging from simple oral capsules and liquids, to sterile products intended for intravenous, intramuscular and intrathecal use. Though the practice of compounding is regulated by state law, with oversight by state boards of pharmacy, the federal Food and Drug Administration has for years taken the position that while “traditional” pharmacy compounding is not of concern, certain types of compounding practices could fall within FDA’s jurisdiction.

To read this article, click here.

Pathway Pharmacy on Probation for Three Years; Pharmacist Crowley can no Longer Practice; Other Pharmacist Disciplined

Pharmacist with criminal history can no longer practice in Nevada By Krista Hostetler CREATED APR. 25, 2012 Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- A pharmacist, with a history of DUI convictions and drug abuse, can no longer practice in Nevada after nine patients became seriously ill. Dr. Kenton Lance Crowley, whose record includes dispensing the wrong medication and working while under the influence, has surrendered his license. In January, Action News Chief Investigator Darcy Spears exposed how nine people got Sepsis, a dangerous bacterial blood infection, after being injected with calcium gluconate. The Nevada State Board of Pharmacy says Crowley prepared the tainted substance while working at Pathway Pharmacy. Crowley can reapply for a Nevada license in five years. He permanently lost his California pharmacy license in 2008 after officials there determined he was a threat to public safety. The Nevada Pharmacy Board also disciplined two other pharmacists involving in the tainted calcium mixture: Tim Brown was fined $1,000 and Michelle Badten faces one year on probation. Pathway Pharmacy remains open, but will be on probation for three years.