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 5 ... 9

Here is my professional opinion as a healthcare employee for over 20 years. i truly believe after what i have seen and how far we have come that there is a drug to help cancer patients. now here is the scary part. -the pharmaceutical companies do not want a cure drug they want a drug that just prolongs life but is profitable for them! they have the government in their back pocket with all the lobbying they do and donations towards our congress. this is why we have not found a cure. (so they say).they dont want us to. there is a cure trust me! but a cure doesnt make money and keeps the population growing. the government and pharmaceutical companies do not want this!

  • 3 votes
Reply#44 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:21 AM EST

If there was the threat of me dying, and the drug that could potentially save my life had been discarded, I would gladly sign a waiver and demand that the doctor or pharmacist dig it back up out of the garbage can!

Some hope is better than none at all.

Could this possibly be a ruse to unbalance the supply/demand ratio?

As we all know short supply coupled with high demand equals higher prices charged for the product!

  • 1 vote
Reply#45 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:23 AM EST

Nothing new here...when my partner died of cancer six years ago, I had unopened and unused over $2,000 in drugs in the refrigerator. I contacted the dispensing pharmacist who advised me to bring them in so they could be disposed of! I am sure someone somewhere could have used them.

  • 2 votes
Reply#46 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:26 AM EST

You bet they are not taking chances with these meds. Obama and Eric Holder would be all over their butts for dispensing something out of date, even though it is still perfectly safe.

  • 1 vote
Reply#47 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:26 AM EST

If "outdated" drugs could be returned to the manufacturer for free replacement, the manufacturers would quickly start reviewing the shelf life and storage requirements for their drugs. Until they have a financial reason to do so , the shorter the product's shelf life, the more they sell.

  • 3 votes
Reply#48 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:28 AM EST

The shelf life data is submitted in a New Drug Approval. It takes years to get drugs approved.

    #48.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:00 PM EST
    Reply

    I know it's extremely fashionable to blame government regulation for drug shortages. But maybe some drugs wouldn't be in short supply if their manufacturers weren't too busy making boner pills and hair restoration compounds...

    • 1 vote
    Reply#49 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:33 AM EST

    As if there was some universal drug machine that could make anything you want.

      #49.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:01 PM EST
      Reply

      another money racket

      • 1 vote
      Reply#50 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:33 AM EST

      I've always been pretty skeptical about drug expiration dates; it seems like they are designed to get you to throw them out so you have to buy more. Medical professionals used to be able to use their own judgment, but with all the ambulance-chasing lawyers out there, common sense has gone out the window. Suppose a dr. gives someone some outdated medicine, and the patient dies of something totally unrelated to the medicine. Well, if the right (or wrong) lawyer gets a hold of the information about the outdated drug, then you can bet there will be a malpractice suit filed, even if the drug did not contribute to the death. This is what our sue-happy society has brought down upon us.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#51 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:35 AM EST

      Looks like WallStreet and the drug companies going to make a killing (no pun intended) heh heh. Good for the stock holders LOL, the 1%'ers. Sure glad my health is good for being retired heh heh.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#52 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:40 AM EST
      LORETTA-Deleted

      And btw guys, I'm sure there are some of these drugs that are stockpiled and locked away somewhere for those of you who can afford them heh heh. Money talks, right LOL

      Have a nice day America :)

      • 3 votes
      Reply#54 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:47 AM EST

      Throw out life-saving medications just to follow government rules? Sounds like Obama's Death Panels are already hard at work taking care of us. Raw stupidity!!

      • 1 vote
      Reply#55 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:51 AM EST

      They follow government rules so they don't get fined. Glaxo recently was fined $750,000,000 for "procedural deficiencies" that harmed nobody. The whistle blower got $96M. It is serious business, as it should be.

      The death panels are not about getting rid of drugs. The law says that there will be "end of life consulars" for persons who are of the age where the cost of treatment can't be justified. In the 60's, that would have been 30, but since those same people are now around 60, it must be for the 70 somethings that don't have government benefits.

      • 2 votes
      #55.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:02 AM EST

      Bill, you are a fool! Please stop parroting the voices from the radio or TV. Try to use what's left of that mush you call a brain.

        #55.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:09 AM EST
        Reply

        Once again, when the government steps in with its excessive rules and regulations, and we do need them but not in excess, crucial problems arise: banking woes to over-regulation; pharma woes due to over-regulation and poor oversight; "no child left behind" and its ridiculous benchmarks for all including special needs kids and new language speakers; etc. The sitting President sees the cure for all with more government. Since his only job more or less has been off the government payroll, one does not need to question his ability to manage and lead. So, add this shortage to his list of areas needing more government oversight.....not much good comes from government intervention when other options are on the table.

          Reply#56 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:54 AM EST

          I see this as a moot point. If a child needs this drug, you had better give it to them, or i will hunt you down and kick your butt!!! However, rules are rules for a reason. If it is out-dated, perhaps it could kill instead of cure? This is what gets me the most about drugs. Could it still be effective after expiration? Could it kill you if you try it after expireation? W.T.F.?????? I would also like to know how some idiots think this is Obamas doing????? What? Have you nothing intelligent to say, PLEASE GO AWAY!!!!

          • 2 votes
          Reply#57 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:56 AM EST

          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 summer. 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?”

          An odd statement from a member of the profession partly to blame for the situation. If she were to get an infection or otherwise have a reaction to medication that was not stored or dispensed precisely in accordance with the manufacturers label, she'd likely sue, and win.

          • 3 votes
          Reply#58 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:57 AM EST

          Kinda like prohibition when good whiskey was poured down the drain.

          • 1 vote
          #58.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:07 AM EST
          Reply

          This is the computer age. If there is scientific evidence that the current labeling is outdated or incorrect why can't this info be updated in the database to print new labels. Hell printers are cheap.

            Reply#59 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:00 AM EST

            Government regulation makes no sense to me. You can buy all the vitamins you want, some of which can do you a lot of harm, and there is no government regulation there. I don't know if there is any regulation at all as to over-the-counter drugs either. Somehow I smell a rat here - I'm sure if the price is high enough you can get these drugs.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#60 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:01 AM EST

            A bigger question is why are these drugs in short supply? I have a feeling that the shortages are caused by the manufacturers to help drive demand and keep prices high. Companies are playing with peoples lives over dollars and cents. And what incentive do the manufacturers have to not update storage and expiration dates? If you have to constantly throw things away and buy more that doesnt really make a case for them to update their packaging to help save customers money. I understand drug companies invest a lot of money to make these drugs, but I have a hard time finding the morality in profiting off of life and death. You should not be able to profit off of someones pain in life or death. Another win for capitalism.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#61 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:02 AM EST

            What is wrong with making a profit? Would you pay the government to work? I bet not!

              #61.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:06 AM EST

              Making a profit from lives is wrong (ethically). I totally agree with Big John, and I think because profit is involved they over price what should be cheap. I bet because of pricing, many people have died because they couldn't afford the meds and/or the treatment that could have saved them.

              • 1 vote
              #61.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:21 AM EST

              Making a profit while you kill people is wrong. Making a profit while abusing your workers is wrong. Making a profit while not paying people enough to survive is wrong. Making a profit while you knowingly allow people to suffer and be harmed is yeah, you got it, WRONG! Unfortunately it seems the people would rather worship the almighty dollar then be mindful of their fellow humans.

              • 1 vote
              #61.3 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:21 AM EST

              I dont think there is anything wrong with profits us taxpayer, but I do have a problem with profiting off of other's misery. There are plenty of industries where huge profits can be made with out toying with peoples lives. Life and Death. A life saving medicine shouldnt depend on your ability to afford it. There are a whole lot of religious people in this country that turn a blind eye to this type of thing. I do believe I read stories about JC healing people free of charge. Even the woman healed by touching his cloak, if you believe that. He didnt turn around and say, "Now that will be $25." He applauded her for her faith, I think. I could be wrong. It has been a while since I read those stories. We have lost all of our compassion by selling our souls to earn a buck. Nothing wrong with that legally, but morally, there may be some people who wont agree.

                #61.4 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:22 PM EST
                Reply

                Sounds like a lot of "hoopla."

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF69veyqM-4

                  Reply#62 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:02 AM EST

                  The government's control of everything is finally strangling us. We are getting what we deserve by letting politicians and bureaucrats have their way.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#63 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:04 AM EST

                  us taxpayer,,, That's your choke chain that is strangling you. Right wing electioneering rhetoric is yanking your leash!

                    #63.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:13 AM EST
                    Reply

                    Drug companies do not want to produce "generic" meds anymore because there is no money in it! This is Capitalism at its finest! LOL

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#64 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:06 AM EST
                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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.