🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsBuyer Beware⚠ Compounding pharmacies with FDA 483 observations — what worked for you?

⚠ Compounding pharmacies with FDA 483 observations — what worked for you?

LipidDoc_ATL Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 5:34 AM 29 replies 2,300 viewsPage 1 of 6
This thread is more than 19 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
LipidDoc_ATL
Senior Member
1,123
5,678
Apr 2024
Atlanta, GA
Oct 19, 2024 at 5:34 AM#1

Posting this because the summary going around does not say what the paper says, and the difference matters for how people here are using it.

The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition. Both exemptions forbid compounding something that is essentially a copy of a commercially available approved product. A product FDA has listed as in shortage is not treated as commercially available, so listing removed the objection that otherwise blocked compounding. It never created a permission; it withdrew a prohibition, which is why it evaporated the moment the supply fact changed.

Where I think it is weakest: the follow-up is short relative to how long people actually take these drugs, so durability is an assumption here rather than a finding.

The bit I cannot resolve on my own is why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission. Tell me what I have not thought of.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
34 4rachel_ABQ, traveltech_sara, AttorneyGrant and 31 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.SportsMedIN
Senior Member
1,456
6,789
Feb 2024
Indianapolis, IN
Oct 19, 2024 at 7:12 AM#2
LipidDoc_ATL said:
The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition.

Agreeing with LipidDoc_ATL, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things. A 503A pharmacy is regulated primarily by the state board, needs a patient-specific prescription, is exempt from CGMP, and may use a bulk substance that has a USP monograph, is a component of an approved drug, or appears on the 503A bulks list — three independent doorways. A 503B outsourcing facility registers with the FDA, is inspected on a risk basis, must comply with CGMP, may compound for office stock without a patient-specific prescription, and has one doorway to a permitted bulk substance: the 503B bulks list, or the drug shortage list.

33 3lisa_labSD, adam_van, Dr.SurgeonPGH and 30 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.RaviCardio
VIP Member
2,890
15,678
Jan 2024
New York, NY
Oct 19, 2024 at 8:50 AM#3
LipidDoc_ATL said:
The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition.

Pushing back on LipidDoc_ATL here. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

32 2mark_tokyo, hans_munich, jason_sac26 and 29 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
Dr.EndoIndy
Member
267
1,234
Oct 2024
Indianapolis, IN
Oct 19, 2024 at 10:28 AM#4

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists. For 503B the shortage clause was the only route to these molecules, so that route shut completely. A 503A pharmacy can still argue a doorway via "component of an approved drug" — but only for the substance in the form present in the approved product, which is exactly where the base-versus-salt argument lives, and it does nothing about the copy restriction, which came back into force on resolution.

31 1DeniseRN_TPA, SandraNC_45, Dr.EndoIndy and 28 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
NauseaFreeNow
Member
345
1,234
Aug 2024
Indiana
Oct 19, 2024 at 8:02 PM#5
Dr.SportsMedIN said:
They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Last edited: Oct 20, 2024 at 12:02 AM
30 0cory_ATX, lori_vegas, Dr.PulmRoch and 27 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1236

Similar Threads

⚠ Peptide Sciences SHUT DOWN March 6, 2026 — what happened and what to do now8 replies
⚠ Amino Asylum raided by FDA June 2025 — warehouse seized6 replies
⚠ Swiss Chems FDA warning letter December 2024 — selling unapproved drugs6 replies
⚠ 50+ FDA warning letters sent to peptide vendors in 2025 — full list4 replies
⚠ PeptideMeter exposed: some vendors scoring E grade on basic peptides4 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register