Amid shortages, rules force hospitals to trash scarce drugs

Officials at at least one U.S. hospital admit they've discarded the scarce cancer drug doxorubicin in order to comply with strict regulations for storage and sterility.

Mounting shortages of crucial drugs are creating a new dilemma for the nation’s hospital pharmacists, who say they find themselves caught between breaking government rules for storage and safety -- or throwing away vital and lifesaving medications.

At one hospital in Florida, officials acknowledge they’ve discarded the scarce cancer drug doxorubicin, even as patients nationwide clamor for treatment.

“I’d never want to take a chance with not following the rules,” said Alan K. Knudsen, director of pharmacy legal services for Shands HealthCare at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “I wish I didn't have to throw it out."

Others, however, admit they’re bucking regulations imposed by federal agencies, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in the interest of patient care, as long as they have strong scientific evidence that the drugs are still safe.

"With the medications in very high need, we are using it," said Thomas Burnakis, coordinator of pharmacy clinical services at Baptist Medical Center in Jacksonville, Fla. It would gall him, for instance, to toss midazolam, a widely-used anesthetic known as Versed that has been in short supply for months, simply because it exceeded arbitrary storage limits.

“I am not throwing out the rest of that Versed,” he said.

And in the eyes of some patient care experts, he shouldn’t have to.

Organizations such as the Institute for Safe Medication Practices and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists are raising questions about federal rules they believe exacerbate a crisis that saw 267 drugs in shortage last year, up from 211 the year before, the most in U.S. history.

“It’s really a major issue,” said ISMP president Michael R. Cohen. “It’s a waste of money and it’s a waste of drugs in short supply.”

 Most drugs, including those in shortage, have specific requirements for handling that limit how long and in what manner they are stored or how quickly they must be used after they're opened, industry experts say. Some must be refrigerated; others must be used within 24 hours after opening, or even immediately.

Those requirements should be listed in the official prescribing information package inserts that are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration when a drug is cleared. But the directions may be incomplete or outdated. It can be costly and time-consuming to seek new FDA label approval, so updated science often doesn't make it into the inserts.

ISMP officials contend that pharmacists are hamstrung by Medicare regulations that require them to follow only the manufacturers’ package instructions for storage and use of medication, even when it's not current -- and even when there’s valid new scientific information available.

For instance, take the widely-used neuro-muscular blocker succinylcholine, which has been in shortage off and on for more than a year.

"The manufacturer says it's good for two weeks outside the refrigerator, but the literature says it would be good for three weeks or  a month," said Allen Vaida, executive vice president for the ISMP. "That period makes a big difference when you're talking about a drug shortage."

According to CMS interpretive guidelines for the agency's standard 482.25, “drugs and biologicals are stored in accordance with manufacturers’ directions and State and Federal Requirements.”

But a recent analysis conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles confirmed that directions for many of the drugs in shortage are flawed or lacking. Of 50 random drugs on the national shortage list, a third lacked basic information about compatibility with diluents and half lacked information about stability, storage and expiration dates after dilution, according to an ISMP report.

When pharmacists ask the manufacturers directly, the answers still may remain unclear, ISMP officials said. In that case, pharmacists often turn to recent studies or other accepted industry documents for guidance -- or they face trashing drugs based on falsely cautious parameters.

It's not clear what volume of drugs in shortage is being discarded. Officials with federal agencies including CMS and the Environmental Protection Agency say they don't keep those figures. Individual hospitals say they have no incentive to track them.

ISMP officials have launched a survey of the agency's members to determine the extent of the problem and to decide whether the group should petition CMS to relax the rule. Results are expected this month.

Dr. Patrick Conway, chief medical officer for CMS, says that the agency is willing to talk to ISMP about alternatives.

“The concern is that we don’t currently have another standard to apply,” Conway said. “The manufacturers’ label is a Food and Drug Administration-approved label.”

Hospitals found to violate storage and stability rules could face CMS fines or other sanctions.

Even when there are trusted regulations, such as the pharmaceutical compounding directions issued by the U.S. Pharmacopeia -- known as USP 797 -- being forced to toss limited drugs can put pharmacists in a quandary, said Bona Benjamin, ASHP’s director of medication-use quality improvement.

“In these situations, clinicians are likely to question whether there’s greater benefit or risk to the patient if medications that are scarce must be discarded,” she said, adding that ASHP officials support 797's science-based rules.

Other experts say they know some pharmacists are side-stepping requirements from the USP, the nonprofit organization that sets standards for drug safety and sterility, in order to conserve medications already in short supply.

“If I know I’ve got 10 single-dose vials to last me through the week, and 30 procedures, I have to make those 10 vials last,” said Gigi Davidson, a veterinary pharmacist at North Carolina State University who heads pharmacy compounding for the USP council of experts. “I am clearly stepping away from the standard when I make those choices.”

Pharmacists are repackaging drugs into smaller units, stretching the medications to serve more patients, even when the USP 797 rules warn that there's more risk of problems such as contamination and infection. The important thing is to make sure proper aseptic technique and procedures are followed, Davidson said.

“It makes me nervous, but it’s something I do with eyes wide open,” she added.

While the dilemma for the pharmacists is acute, some cancer patients believe there should be no question at all. Maggie Heim, 58, of Hermosa Beach, Calif., is a lawyer who was diagnosed in 2009 with stage 3 ovarian cancer.

She was prescribed the cancer drug Doxil, which has been in short supply since last year, particularly after a troubled contract manufacturer, Ben Venue Laboratories Inc., suspended operations last fall. She was placed on the Doxil waiting list arranged by Janssen Products LP, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that owns the drug's patent. She never received the medication, though, and had to be treated with a different protocol.

During her treatment, several other medications used to treat ovarian cancer were added to the drug shortage list.

“Give that I am fighting for my life, I would be very upset if I found out that a pharmacist was required to throw out a drug I needed that is in shortage,” said Heim, adding: “How could a pharmacist pour it down the drain when it is so needed to keep people alive?”

Some pharmacists refuse to take the risk. At Shands HealthCare, Knudsen, the pharmacy legal director, says rules are rules, even when drugs are in short supply. His hospital has been able to transfer doxorubicin patients safely to other drugs, he said.

"The Florida Board of Pharmacy and USP 797 rules were created to protect patients," Knudsen said. "Selectively choosing which rules to follow, particularly when alternatives to doxorubicin exist, seems risky."

Davidson agrees that standards should not be relaxed to accommodate the crisis of the moment.

"If it’s not drug shortages, it’s going to be something else,” she said.

At the same time, she understands the Catch-22 faced by a pharmacist who knows the drugs he discards could save someone’s life.

“Then I have to do some soul-searching,” she said. “Am I afraid of harming the patient, and that’s why I throw it away? Or am I afraid of regulatory authority?”

If it’s the latter, the pharmacist should seek guidance from the state board of pharmacy before tossing the medication, she said.

As far as experts can say, no hospital has yet faced sanctions for failing to discard drugs during the current shortages. “If someone comes in and surveys, there probably would be hell to pay,” said Burnakis, the Baptist Medical Center pharmacist.

But any sanctions, even in the case of patient harm, would have to be tempered with the reality of trying to salvage life-saving drugs in the midst of a crisis, Davidson said.

"If I were sitting on the jury and someone had to choose to stray from 797 to provide a needed drug to serve a child with cancer, I know exactly how as a juror I would vote."

What should happen to drugs that hit the manufacture's guideline for disposal? Tell us on Facebook.

 

Lingering shortage of ADHD drugs unravels lives 

Price-gougers hike costs of vital drugs during shortage

Half of hospitals buy back-door drugs, survey says

 

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 ... 9

If there is a shortage why do they sit around until the expiration date?

The socialist health care reform delivered millions of new customers to the health care / drug industry and this is a suprise? More like part of the big plan.

Just remember, when Enron was around rolling blackouts and electrical rates skyrocketed. Kinda funny when they were disolved from the picture the rolling blackouts were gone.

    Reply#23 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:38 AM EST

    Welcome to Obamacare.

      Reply#24 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:39 AM EST
      sangvoooDeleted

      If a given hospital both has and uses the facilities to verify the safety and effectiveness of a given drug that is both desperately needed and in short supply I say prudence over rides the need to follow governmental rules designed to supposedly ensure user safety.

      Especially when following those rules does nothing more than inflate the price of needed medications.

        Reply#26 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:44 AM EST

        I would say you're right, but I don't think hospitals have the resources to do those tests, and they shouldn't. They would need some pretty advanced chemistry equipment and scientists with knowledge and time to spare. It would also set a dangerous precedent that releases the drug maker from responsibility over the quality of the medication, and transfers that responsibility to a single pharmacist with a high workload who may or may not be checking his facebook page while working. So sometimes it could help, other times it would be disastrous.

        Best they can do is use verified scientific studies. If they have those, then I say it's a no-brainer. In fact, I'd say if the law wants you to do something and you know it will cause harm, you'd be violating the Hippocratic oath if you did it. But I can certainly understand the predicament pharmacists are in. There is no right answer for them.

        • 2 votes
        #26.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:33 AM EST

        mike-1125760

        I don't know about that??? Quite a few Major hospitals and clinical chains do have some pretty sharp chemist (aka pharmacist) on their staff...

        I certainly do not advocate hospitals or anyone else deciding that if they themselves are in short supply they should decide to ignore governmental regulations... I speak to the problem of a national and/or world wide shortage (not even just regional).

        I don't see emergency driven acts of faith based on knowledge as in anyway relieving pharmaceutical companies and drug makers of their responsibilities and/or requirements to follow all established laws and regulations.

          #26.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:56 AM EST
          Reply

          Can't get the drug? The person will die without it? Use the outdated stuff. Minor ills, dump it. Major ills/death, use it.

            Reply#27 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:48 AM EST

            Until a lawyer gets hold of them and sues for use of outdated drugs.

            • 5 votes
            #27.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:54 AM EST

            And Mr. Spock hits on what accounts for a good portion of the ridiculous medical costs here in the overly-litigious USA.

            • 5 votes
            #27.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:36 AM EST
            Reply

            Mounting shortages of crucial drugs are creating a new dilemma for the nation's hospital pharmacists, who say they find themselves caught between following government rules for storage and safety -- or throwing away vital and lifesaving medications.

            At one hospital in Florida, officials acknowledge they've discarded the scarce cancer drug doxorubicin, even as patients nationwide clamor for treatment.

            Man, what the hell is going on in this country. If this is not MORE corporate greed, what is? What these people are doing is ensuring there is a shortage, to gouge sick people and insurance companies. Truly sad.

            • 3 votes
            Reply#28 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:53 AM EST

            What is going on. These are contract pharmaceutical companies. The priced is fixed by regulation so it doesn't matter whaty the demand is. Their profit/cost margin is the same.

            You were warned about this with government seizure of medical suppliers and healthcare but you thought free would mean always available.

            • 1 vote
            #28.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:08 AM EST
            Reply

            Mr. Knudsen has a voice. If he feels as deeply about this issue as he claims to the public, then he can influence Washington to lessen the burden of the law in the matter of providing access to cancer drug treatment and other necessary pharmaceuticals so that persons from these diseases will have a fair opportunity.

            The article suggests that Washington is picking and choosing who will live or die.

            That is not a principle instilled into the Constitution of the United States and is grossly unnecessary in 2012 - we have no current, life-threatening political clime that is calling for culling of life-saving drugs or triage against the security of US citizens.

              Reply#29 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:53 AM EST

              You got your Government Health Care, but you won't get the medicine that goes with it. There is your Death Panel! How much Government left hand doesn't know what the Government right hand is doing before you know they get involved and then screw everything up.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#30 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:53 AM EST

              So either way you're not breaking the law whether you trash it or you don't.

              2 sets of 'guidelines/laws', 2 ways of looking at it = either way it's a win/win???

                Reply#31 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:57 AM EST

                Look - if the CONGRESS wanted to fix the problem they could - if a manufacturer fails to supply a drug that is on patent for XX months or has shortages of a drug for XX amount of times in XX amount of months - the drup patent is LOST- Generic manufacturers can come in and supply the drug. Incentive enough to produce enough of the drug. If the company didn't think it was worthwhile to make (Translate that to PROFITABLE) they wouldn't have bothered making it. If they were wrong and spent the money on development incorrectly, WELL, according to the capitalists - TOUGH SH!T! Now I will tell you why the CONGRESS won't take any of these steps - aside from the HANDS OFF attitude of the bought politicians - the REPUBLICRATS have a darker, more sinister reason - THESE PEOPLE ARE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY AND THE COUNTRY. So, since they are no longer able to be productive slaves earning minimal salary so that the shareholders profits can be supported, they should be allowed to die. In fact the attitude of the Repbulicrats is that if you are sick or disabled - and are a drain on the economy - BE PATRIOTIC AND DIE. (That includes you old, retired people who need health care.) Don't believe me - then who are those people in the Reb. debates that say if you are sick and don't have health insurance you should just die??? I know a few of the candidates differed with that attitude, but I DIDN'T HEAR A PEEP FROM THE AUDIENCE BOOING THEM. If you arnt against them then your withem. We also need the NIH to start their own research into drugs - the government and the public should not be at the whims of the drug company in terms of vital research - (e.g. the lack of development work on new antibiotics for the resistant bacteria).

                • 3 votes
                Reply#32 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:04 AM EST

                It's just a bunch of bureaucracy and politics! It not only plays with a patients life, but it drives the price of the drug up. Our health care system is a joke and the people who oversee it are corrupt!

                • 1 vote
                Reply#33 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:04 AM EST

                Obamacare 2.0

                • 2 votes
                #33.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:09 AM EST

                I think the people in the private sector are probably more likely to be corrupt, since their main goal is maximizing profits and not concerning themselves with patient safety and care. Government exists for the public good, not for profit. While we certainly need to regulate the private sector in order to ensure public safety, we need to make sure the regulation is smart and reasonable, and not influenced by lobbyists.

                Once politicians find ways to personally benefit from regulation, it ceases to be for the benefit of the public. We need to keep profits out of government.

                  #33.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:48 AM EST
                  Reply

                  Personally I do love my government. I love firemen, policemen, first responders, doctors and all others in our community that are trying to make life better for all of us. That said, I like the idea of a national clearing house to help move near or close to expired medicines, I like patient notification so I can choose to go without or go with expired, I like a closer examination of the accuracies on labeling. If we start our thoughts with a basic belief in the goodness of humanity we may save our own lives. The stress on the heart for some of the haters on here likely causes death as well.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#34 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:07 AM EST

                  I like patient notification so I can choose to go without or go with expired, I like a closer examination of the accuracies on labeling

                  I like your style!

                    #34.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:10 AM EST
                    Reply

                    I work for a healthcare system.. So, say I keep this drug past the manuf expiration date and the pt passes away. Am I liable? If I compound this med into smaller doses so that I can maximize uses and a pt receiving it gets a life threatening bacterial infection.. Am I liable? Problem is, we always have the liability issue and my license waiting in the wings. Who will back me up with my decision to use these drugs when the manufacturer/FDA tells me I cannot? It is sad that these drugs must be discarded but until the pt signs off that they will not hold the hospital or staff liable then it is tricky. My job requires my license and I require a job. We have been making do with substituting drugs within the class (per P and T approval.) But it is disheartening that pts must change their therapy...

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#35 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:08 AM EST

                    Patient approval is also tricky. How do you adequately explain the additional risks of the expired drug? I am sure those risks will change depending on how long that drug has been expired, and the sensitivity of that lot. I would think that the health care professional would still have substantial liability since nobody can realistically describe the additional risk so that the patient can make an informed decision.

                    • 1 vote
                    #35.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:36 AM EST
                    Reply

                    this just another way to control the people....this all is a well know fact for sometime.......total control is eminent.....this extends the Hitler and other controlling efforts that failed centuries ago....study the past and look at the timeline...corruption, contrlol, and greed needs to be controlled by the people ....the new minorities from the East and southwest are getting most everything free.....we have so many so called US companies doing the samething and somebody needs to start a takeover for the real Americans......

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#36 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:11 AM EST

                    We have enough drugs to keep your penis hard and to make your hair grow back, sorry you're going to die from cancer though *shakes head*

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#37 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:13 AM EST

                    But happy and relatively good looking.

                    • 1 vote
                    #37.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:37 AM EST
                    Reply

                    The Big Pharma Cos. are telling the Fed what limits to use so they can get the drugs thrown away, causing an even greater shortage so they can charge even more for it. Gotta love free enterprise! Especially with the Government and politicians in your back pocket....

                      Reply#38 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:14 AM EST

                      "We're from the government and we're here to help."

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#39 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:15 AM EST

                      Even when the IDIOTS in Washington try to help someone, they wind up KILLING them. May they all find a similar fate when they get ill and may their suffering be equal or greater.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#40 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:16 AM EST

                      They don't have to worry about getting sick because they have the best healthcare available, thanks to us, who pay for it. It's funny how many average people cannot afford the same quality of health care as they pay for the govt thugs, theives and liars to get theirs. So sorry, their suffering will be nil and any drugs in shortage will be made available to them first.

                      • 1 vote
                      #40.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:13 AM EST
                      Reply

                      Big Pharma decides on the expiration date of their drugs. You don't suppose for a minute that they list a short use by date so that they receive re-orders that much sooner, do you? Of course not, and who needs regulations for industry? After all, corporations are just people and people wouldn't screw over other people, would they? My tongue hurts its so firmly planted in my cheek.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#41 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:17 AM EST

                      The headline is very misleading. It should read "Amid shortages, inaccurate labels force hospitals to trash scarce drugs." Please update the headline.

                        Reply#42 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:18 AM EST

                        With the internet as prevalent as it is, why can't there be a massive database for doctors to exchange medication that is close to expiring? Overnight shipment is possible anywhere. This way there is no risk that the drugs are no longer safe and are put to use.

                          Reply#43 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:20 AM EST

                          It may not be safe to ship drugs after they have been opened, I don't know for sure.

                          But here is something that would work. Stamp the drug with the manufacture date, not the expiration date. In addition, have a national database of the most accurate and up-to-date expiration periods for each drug. Then, when a hospital opens or a pharmacy sells the drug, they look up the current, accurate expiration date for that medicine and write it on the label. That way, the expiration date is most accurate, and it is cheaper than the pharmaceutical company having to re-label their products when the science changes.

                          I'd trust a pharmacist or hospital to accurately label my drugs more than I would trust the pharmaceutical industry.

                          • 2 votes
                          #43.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:38 AM EST
                          Reply
                          Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 ... 9
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.