One Life USA 11/9/2005 (Kim Puffenbarger, Jana Brabec, Palm Beach, FL)
Three Doctors Plead Guilty in Applied Pharmacy Services Steroid Conspiracy Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 Three more doctors, Kenneth Olds, Kelly Tucker and Pamela Pyle, pleaded guilty in a steroid conspiracy involving the compounding pharmacy Applied Pharmacy Services (APS) (”3 more docs admit guilt in steroids case,” April 30).
Drs. Kenneth M. Olds and Kelly W. Tucker of Greeley, Colo., agreed to plead guilty in Mobile to dispensing anabolic steroids outside the course of professional practice. Greeley is also home to another who in January pleaded guiltyto withholding information about illegal steroids prescriptions.
Dr. Pamela Pyle, a Myrtle Beach, S.C., osteopath, also admitted to the withholding offense, known as misprision of a felony.
The indictments were expected after Assistant U.S. Attorney Donna Dobbins requested a postponement in the sentencing of their APS co-conspirator Scott Corliss last week. Olds and Tucker had previously been named in court documents as co-conspirators in the APS steroid scandal. We have not previously seen a link to Dr. Pamela Pyle.
MESO-Rx expects all four doctors who have pleaded guilty in the steroid conspiracy will cooperate with federal prosecutors in their pursuit of Applied Pharmacy Services Inc. and their owners Samuel Kelley and Jason Kelley.
Prosecutors allege that Applied Pharmacy Services was party to a conspiracy involving the distribution of anabolic steroids to individuals without a legitimate medical need.
“Working in concert for their mutual profit, these doctors, pharmacy owners, pharmacists and sales representatives removed the word controlled from ‘controlled substances,’” U.S. Attorney Deborah Rhodes said in a written statement. “They made sure that anabolic steroids were readily available to any person willing to pay for them, regardless of any legitimate medical need.”
Practices that have troubled prosecutors include the distribution of trenbolone acetate which has no accepted medical application in humans and the dispensing of steroids to patients as young as 19 years old.
Applied Pharmacy no longer offers pharmaceutical quality anabolic steroid and hormone preparations; they have stopped production of all anabolic steroids as a result of DEA pressure and the ongoing federal steroid investigation.
Federal Steroid Distribution Indictments for Applied Pharmacy Services Sunday, April 27th, 2008 MESO-Rx learned in January 2008 that the federal government is mounting a case against Applied Pharmacy Services (APS) on charges of conspiracy to illegally distribute anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. The alleged conspiracy includes APS’ major shareholders Samuel Kelley and Jason Kelley; Brett Branch, an APS sales rep and owner of Infinite Health in Eaton, Colorado; and Colorado physicians Kenneth Olds, M.D., Kelly Tucker, M.D. and Scott Corliss, M.D. Scott Corliss is the only co-conspirator who has been indicted to date.
According to the Mobile Press-Register, physician Scott Corliss pleaded guilty for his role in the steroid scandal and agreed to cooperate with federal investigators in its case against Applied Pharmacy Services. Corliss was scheduled to be sentenced last week, but Assistant U.S Attorney Donna Dobbins from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Mobile requested a postponement to pursue additional indictments in the APS investigation.
Chief U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade agreed Thursday to postpone the sentencing hearing for a Colorado doctor who pleaded guilty to a steroids-related charge earlier this year. As part of his plea bargain, Dr. Scott A. Corliss agreed to assist the investigation…
“This multi-jurisdictional investigation is ongoing and the United States expects that charges will be filed against other co-conspirators in the near future,” the motion stated.
APS was raided in December 2006 under the direction of the Office of Albany District Attorney David Soares. However, the federal investigation and alleged conspiracy charges are separate from the New York state investigation.
Druggist suspected in illegal steroids [and HGH] found dead
7:45 AM EST, January 29, 2008
AP NEWS/ DAILYNEWS.COM
NEW YORK - A Brooklyn pharmacist who was under investigation for selling millions of dollars in steroids was found shot to death Monday evening in an office above his pharmacy, in what police said appears to be a suicide.
A suicide note and gun were found next to the body of John Rossi, 56, who was shot in the head, police said.
Rossi's store, Lowen's Pharmacy, in Bay Ridge, is an old-fashioned neighborhood drugstore that investigators said had expanded into selling steroids and growth hormone locally and abroad.
A multistate investigation conducted by Albany County district attorney, P. David Soares, resulted in a raid of Lowen's by the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement last year. More than $100,000 in steroids was seized in May, and a larger raid in mid-October seized $7.5 million worth of human growth hormone and anabolic steroids.
It is not illegal in New York for pharmacies to dispense steroids and human growth hormone for valid medical purposes, but their activities are tightly regulated and it is a crime for a doctor to prescribe drugs without examining the patient.
After seeing Rossi earlier on Monday, employees noticed that he was missing late in the day. They found his body in the second floor office around 7 p.m.
Raid in Brooklyn nets more than $7 million in human growth hormone
A New York pharmacy linked to a widening probe of human growth hormone in sports was raided on Tuesday by state investigators who seized enough raw powder to make nearly a million HGH doses, according to the officials involved.
The raid of Lowen's Pharmacy in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, was the second in five months. In May, investigators with the New York Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement found employees mixing $200,000 worth of steroids and growth hormone in a back room. On Tuesday, they found 90 grams of raw human growth hormone, worth an estimated $7.2 million. Also found were kilogram quantities of three popular steroids: testosterone, nandrolone and stanazolol.
"This is much bigger than what we thought," said Mark Haskins, an investigator with the state's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
The investigators are the same ones who have been working with the Albany (N.Y.) District Attorney's office in its probe of Florida's Signature Pharmacy. In recent weeks, Major League Baseball officials have met with Toronto third baseman Troy Glaus and St. Louis outfielder Rick Ankiel, whose names surfaced in connection with that investigation, to discuss reports that they received growth hormone from Signature.
On Tuesday, Haskins and officers from the New York Police Department carted out boxes filled with prescriptions from many of the same "wellness clinics" that received prescriptions filled by Signature.
One of the roughly 20 boxes carted away contained prescription requests from The Health and Rejuvenation Center, a clinic in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., where the New York Daily News reported that Ankiel went to get his HGH.
"It's hard to believe that all the growth hormone we found was meant for the people of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn," Haskins said.
The records are being turned over to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office for further investigation. Twenty computers also were seized by the NYPD.
The raid began on Monday evening. By Tuesday afternoon, the investigators obtained a warrant to search an office above the pharmacy that was used by its vice president, Edward Letendre. That was where they found the hidden cache of growth hormone.
The growth hormone seized from Lowen's on Tuesday was imported from China. Although the federal Food & Drug prohibits the sale of Chinese-made HGH, it remains popular in the U.S. because of its high quality and low price. In a separate case, a federal grand jury in Rhode Island grand jury indicted China's leading manufacturer of growth hormone last month.
Letendre was taken into custody on charges of criminal diversion of prescription medicines. Efforts to contact him Tuesday were unsuccessful.
Lowen's is housed in a building owned by Julius Nasso, a pharmacist-turned-movie producer who was sentenced to prison in 2003 for conspiring with Gambino crime family members to extort money from the actor Steven Segal. His son, Julius Jr., is a part owner of Lowen's.
Throughout Tuesday, customers who tried to enter the pharmacy found the door locked. A hastily scribbled sign read: "Due to mechanical problems, we are temporarily closed."
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
Los Angeles District Pacific Region 19701 Fairchild Irvine, CA 92612-2506
Telephone: 949-608-2900 FAX: 949-608-4415
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 7, 2007
W/L 08-08
Mr. Jeffrey Barris, Owner Pacifica Pharmacy 23560 S. Madison Torrance, CA 90505
Dear Mr. Barris:
We recently reviewed your firm's website, www.pacificapharmacy.com. As explained below, your website contains false and misleading claims for your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, causing those drugs to be misbranded in violation of Section 502(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) [21 USC § 352(a)]. Additionally, your firm compounds a hormone therapy drug containing estriol, without an FDA-approved new drug application or an FDA-sanctioned investigational new drug application, in violation of Section 505 of the FDCA (21 USC § 355). Hormone therapy drugs containing estriol are also misbranded in violation of section 502(0(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(0(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for use.
A. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(a) of the FDCA
Under section 502(a) of the FDCA, a drug is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(n)] provides that, in determining whether a drug's labeling or advertising "is misleading, there shall be taken into account . . . not only representations made or suggested . . . but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising. .. fails to reveal facts mate rial in light of such representations . . . . "
Your website advises that you compound hormone therapy drugs that are available for purchase and distribution. These compounded hormone therapy drugs are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(a) of the FDCA for the following reasons :
1. Unsubstantiated Efficacy Claims
Your firm's website contains claims concerning your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, including:
• "Protection against heart disease" • "Reduced risk of breast cancer"
FDA regards these claims as false and misleading. FDA is not aware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) that supports these claims.
2. Unsubstantiated Superiority Claims
Your firm's website contains a statement suggesting the superiority of your finn's compounded hormone therapy drugs:
• "Fewer side effects versus synthetic derivatives"
This statement represents and suggests that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are superior to other hormone therapy products, including FDA-approved drugs. This claim-which is unsupported by substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations)---is false and misleading.
3. Unsubstantiated "Bio-identical" Claims
Your website claims that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are "bio-identical." This claim implies that your compounded hormone therapy drugs are natural, or identical to the hormones made by the body. FDA is unaware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) to support the claimed "bio-identical" nature of your hormone therapy drugs.
As explained above, the claims made for your hormone therapy drugs are false and misleading in that they are not supported by substantial evidence. These claims cause your hormone therapy drugs to be misbranded under section 502(a) of the FDCA.
B. Unapproved New Drug Under Section 505 of the FDCA: Estriol
Because your products are intended to treat, mitigate, and prevent disease (a conclusion supported by the claims described above), the estriol products compounded by your firm are drugs within the meaning of section 201(g) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)]. Further, as these products are not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective for their labeled uses, they are new drugs, as defined by section 201(p) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)]. No FDA-approved applications pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 355] are effective with respect to these drugs. Accordingly, their introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce violates section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)].
The FDCA establishes agency jurisdiction over "new drugs," including compounded drugs. Compounded drugs are "new drugs" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not "generally recognized, among experts . . . as safe and effective" for their labeled uses. See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 412 U.S. 609, 619, 629-30 (1973) (explaining the definition of "new drug"). There is substantial judicial authority supporting FDA's position that compounded drugs are not exempt from the new drug definition. See Prof ls & Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 593 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Although the [FDCA] does not expressly exempt 'pharmacies' or 'compounded drugs' from the new drug . . . provisions, the FDA as a matter of policy has not historically brought enforcement actions against pharmacies engaged in traditional compounding."); In the Matter of Establishment Inspection of: Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, 270 F. Supp. 2d 525, 543-44 (D.N.J. 2003), aff'd, Wedgewood Village Pharmacy v. United States, 421 F.3d 263, 269 (3d Cir. 2005) ("The FDCA contains provisions with explicit exemptions from the new drug . . . provisions. Neither pharmacies nor compounded drugs are expressly exempted."). Because they are "new drugs" under the FDCA, compounded drugs may not be introduced into interstate commerce without FDA approval.1
The drugs that pharmacists compound are not FDA-approved and thus lack an FDA finding of safety and efficacy. However, FDA has long recognized the important public health function served by traditional pharmacy compounding. FDA regards traditional compounding as the extemporaneous combining, mixing, or altering of ingredients by a pharmacist in response to a physician's prescription to create a medication tailored to the specialized needs of an individual patient. See Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357, 360-61 (2002). Traditional compounding typically is used to prepare medications that are not available commercially, such as a drug for a patient who is allergic to an ingredient in a mass-produced drug, or diluted dosages for children.
FDA's current enforcement policy with respect to the compounding of human drugs is articulated in Compliance Policy Guide section 460.200 ["Pharmacy Compounding"], issued by FDA on May 29, 2002 (see Notice of Availability, 67 Fed. Reg. 39,409 (June 7, 2002))2 The CPG identifies factors that the Agency considers in deciding whether to initiate enforcement action with respect to compounding.3 These factors include whether a firm is "[c]ompounding 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."
Your firm is compounding drugs containing estriol, which is not a component of an FDA-approved drug, without an FDA-sanctioned IND. These are unapproved new drugs and their compounding violates section 505(a) of the FDCA. Based on FDA's consideration of the circumstances he re, FDA is prepared to take enforcement action to halt your compounding of drugs containing estriol.
C. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(fl(1) of the FDCA: Estriol
The estriol drugs compounded by your firm are also misbranded under section 502(0(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(0(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for their use. Further, these drugs are not exempt from this requirement under 21 CFR § 201.115 because they are new drugs within the meaning of section 201(p) of the FDCA and they lack approved applications filed pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA.
D. Conclusion
The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist at your facility, and they may not be limited to the above-cited drug products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence and the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to assure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.
You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts.
Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct the cited violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the correction.
Your response should be sent to:
Pamela B. Schweikert, Director Compliance Branch, Los Angeles District U.S. Food & Drug Administration 19701 Fairchild Irvine, CA 92612
If you have any questions, please contact John Stamp, Compliance Officer, at (949) 608-4464.
Sincerely,
/S/
Alona E Cruse Director Los Angeles District U.S. Food and Drug Administration
1 In August 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a ruling in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales interpreting, among other things, the application of the "new drug" provisions of the FDCA to compounded drugs. See Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales, MO-04-CV130, (W.D. Tex, Aug. 30, 2006). The government has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
2 Although Section 503A of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 353a] addresses pharmacy compounding, this provision was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Western States Medical Center v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2001), that Section 503A included unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech and those restrictions could not be severed from the rest of 503A. In Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002), the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit ruling that the restrictions in question violated the First Amendment, but it did not consider whether these restrictions could be severed from the rest of section 503A. FDA shares the Ninth Circuit's view that section 503A is now void.
3 As stated in the CPG, °[t]he . . . list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive." See CPG section 460.200 ["Pharmacy Compounding"].
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
Los Angeles District Pacific Region 19701 Fairchild Irvine, CA 92612-2506
Telephone: 949-608-2900 FAX: 949-608-4415
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 7, 2008
W/L 05-08
Mr. Earl Broidy, Owner Panorama Compounding Pharmacy 6744 Balboa Boulevard Lake Balboa, CA 91406
Dear Mr. Broidy:
We recently reviewed your firm's website, www.uniquerx.com. As explained below, your website contains false and misleading claims for your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, causing those drugs to be misbranded in violation of Section 502(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) [21 USC § 352(a)]. Additionally, your firm compounds a hormone therapy drug containing estriol, without an FDA-approved new drug application or an FDA-sanctioned investigational new drug application, in violation of Section 505 of the FDCA (21 USC § 355). Hormone therapy drugs containing estriol are also misbranded in violation of section 502(f)(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for use.
A. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(a) of the FDCA
Under section 502(a) of the FDCA, a drug is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(n)] provides that, in determining whether a drug's labeling or advertising "is misleading, there shall be taken into account . . . not only representations made or suggested . . . but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising . . . fails to reveal facts material in light of such representations . . . ."
Your website advises that you compound hormone therapy drugs that are available for purchase and distribution. These compounded hormone therapy drugs are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(a) of the FDCA for the following reasons:
1. Unsubstantiated Efficacy Claims
Your firm's website contains claims concerning your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, including:
"Bio-identical estrogen replacement therapy can benefit a woman by . . . reducing the risk of heart disease, reducing the risk of Alzheimer's . . . ."
FDA regards these claims as false and misleading. FDA is not aware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) that supports these claims.
2. Unsubstantiated Superiority Claims
Your firm's web site contains a statement suggesting the superiority of your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs:
"Bio-identical hormones differ from synthetic hormones in that synthetics are not identical in either structure or function to the natural hormones they emulate. Because synthetics are not identical to the hormones in the body, they do not attach to receptor sites in the same way that bio-identicals do. Some of the possible unwanted side effects may include: breast tenderness, fluid retention, headaches, vaginal bleeding, high blood pressure, leg cramps, etc."
This statement represents and suggests that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are superior to other hormone therapy products, including FDA-approved drugs. This claim-which is unsupported by substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations)-is false and misleading.
3. Unsubstantiated "Bio-identical" Claims
Your website claims that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are "bio-identical." This claim implies that your compounded hormone therapy drugs are natural, or identical to the hormones made by the body. FDA is unaware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) to support the claimed "bio-identical" nature of your hormone therapy drugs.
As explained above, the claims made for your hormone therapy drugs are false and misleading in that they are not supported by substantial evidence. These claims cause your hormone therapy drugs to be misbranded under section 502(a) of the FDCA.
B. Unapproved New Drug Under Section 505 of the FDCA: Estriol
Because your products are intended to treat, mitigate, and prevent disease (a conclusion supported by the claims described above), the estriol products compounded by your firm are drugs within the meaning of section 201(g) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)]. Further, as these products are not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective for their labeled uses, they are new drugs, as defined by section 201(p) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C.§ 321(p)]. No FDA-approved applications pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 355] are effective with respect to these drugs. Accordingly, their introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce violates section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)].
The FDCA establishes agency jurisdiction over "new drugs," including compounded drugs. Compounded drugs are "new drugs" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not "generally recognized, among experts . . . as safe and effective" for their labeled uses. See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 412 U.S. 609, 619, 629-30 (1973) (explaining the definition of "new drug"). There is substantial judicial authority supporting FDA's position that compounded drugs are not exempt from the new drug definition. See Prof'ls & Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 593 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Although the [FDCA] does not expressly exempt 'pharmacies' or 'compounded drugs' from the new drug . . . provisions, the FDA as a matter of policy has not historically brought enforcement actions against pharmacies engaged in traditional compounding."); In the Matter of Establishment Inspection of: Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, 270 F. Supp. 2d 525, 543-44 (D.N.J. 2003), aff'd, Wedgewood Village Pharmacy v. United States, 421 F.3d 263, 269 (3d Cir. 2005)("The FDCA contains provisions with explicit exemptions from the new drug . . . provisions. Neither pharmacies nor compounded drugs are expressly exempted"). Because they are "new drugs" under the FDCA, compounded drugs may not be introduced into interstate commerce without FDA approval. 1
The drugs that pharmacists compound are not FDA-approved and thus lack an FDA finding of safety and efficacy. However, FDA has long recognized the important public health function served by traditional pharmacy compounding. FDA regards traditional compounding as the extemporaneous combining, mixing, or altering of ingredients by a pharmacist in response to a physician's prescription to create a medication tailored to the specialized needs of an individual patient. See Thompson v. Western States Medical, Center, 535 U.S. 357, 360-61 (2002). Traditional compounding typically is used to prepare medications that are not available commercially, such as a drug for a patient who is allergic to an ingredient in a mass-produced drug, or diluted dosages for children.
FDA's current enforcement policy with respect to the compounding of human drugs is articulated in Compliance Policy Guide section 460.200 ["Pharmacy Compounding"], issued by FDA on May 29, 2002 (see Notice of Availability, 67 Fed. Reg. 39,409 (June 7, 2002))2 The CPG identifies factors that the Agency considers in deciding whether to initiate enforcement action with respect to compounding.3 These factors include whether a firm is "[c]ompounding 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."
Your firm is compounding drugs containing estriol, which is not a component of an FDA-approved drug, without an FDA-sanctioned IND. These are unapproved new drugs and their compounding violates section 505(a) of the FDCA. Based on FDA's consideration of the circumstances here, FDA is prepared to take enforcement action to halt your compounding of drugs containing estriol.
C. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(0(1) of the FDCA: Estriol
The estriol drugs compounded by your firm are also misbranded under section 502(0(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for their use. Further, these drugs are not exempt from this requirement under 21 CFR § 201.115 because they are new drugs within the meaning of section 201(p) of the FDCA and they lack approved applications filed pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA.
D. Conclusion
The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist at your facility, and they may not be limited to the above-cited drug products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence and the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to assure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.
You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts.
Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct the cited violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the correction.
Your response should be sent to:
Pamela B. Schweikert, Director Compliance Branch, Los Angeles District U.S. Food & Drug Administration 19701 Fairchild Irvine, CA 92612
If you have any questions, please contact John Stamp, Compliance Officer, at (949) 608-4464.
Sincerely,
/S/
Alonza E Cruse Director Los Angeles District U.S. Food and Drug Administration
cc: Jeff Farrar, DVM, PhD, MPH Branch Chief Food and Drug Branch California Department of Public Health 1500 Capitol Avenue - MS 76702 P.O. Box 997413 Sacramento, CA 95899-7413
1 In August 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Issued a ruling in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales interpreting, among other things, the application of the new drug" provisions of the FDCA to compounded drugs. See Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales, MO-04-CV130, (W.D. Tex, Aug. 30, 2006). The government has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
2 Although Section 503A of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 353a] addresses pharmacy compounding, this provision was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Western States Medical Center v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 9090 (9th Cir. 2001), that Section 503A included unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech and those restrictions could not be severed from the rest of 503A. In Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002), the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit ruling that the restrictions in question violated the First Amendment, but it did not consider whether these restrictions could be severed from the rest of section 503A. FDA shares the Ninth Circuit's view that section 503A is now void.
3 As stated in the CPG, "[t]he . . . list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive." See CPG section 460.200 "Pharmacy Compounding"].
Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration
Los Angeles District 19701 Fairchild Irvine, California 92612-2506 Telephone(949) 608-2900
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
January 7, 2008
W/L O6-08
Mr. Thomas Reed and Ms. Dana Reed-Kane, Owners Reed's Compounding Pharmacy 2729 E. Speedway Tucson, AZ 85716
Dear Mr. Reed and Ms. Reed-Kane:
We recently reviewed your firm's website, www.reedsrx.com. As explained below, your website contains false and misleading claims for your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, causing those drugs to be misbranded in violation of Section S02(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) [21 USC § 352(a)]. Additionally, your firm compounds a hormone therapy drug containing estriol, without an FDA-approved new drug application or an FDA-sanctioned investigational new drug application, in violation of Section 505 of the FDCA (21 USC§ 355). Hormone therapy drugs containing estriol are also misbranded in violation of section S02(f)(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for use.
A. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(a) of the FDCA
Under section 502(a) of the FDCA, a drug is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321{n}] provides that, in determining whether a drug's labeling or advertising "is misleading, there shall be taken into account . . . not only representations made or suggested . . . but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising . . . fails to reveal facts material in light of such representations . . . ."
Your website advises that you compound hormone therapy drugs that are available for purchase and distribution. These compounded hormone therapy drugs are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(a) of the FDCA for the following reasons:
1. Unsubstantiated Efficacy Claims
Your firm's website contains claims concerning your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs, including:
"Better maintenance of muscle mass and strength."
"Improved sleep and better mood, concentration, and memory."
"May prevent senility and Alzheimer's disease."
FDA regards these claims as false and misleading. FDA is not aware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) that supports these claims.
2. Unsubstantiated Superiority Claims
Your firm's website contains a statement suggesting the superiority of your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs:
"Many fewer unwanted side effects than with synthetic hormones."
"Because progesterone is a naturally occurring hormone, there are very few side effects of natural hormone replacement therapy of progesterone."
These statements represent and suggest that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are superior to other hormone therapy products, including FDA-approved drugs. These claims which are unsupported by substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations)-are false and misleading.
3. Unsubstantiated "Bio-identical" Claims
Your website claims that your firm's compounded hormone therapy drugs are "bio-identical." This claim implies that your compounded hormone therapy drugs are natural, or identical to the hormones made by the body. FDA is unaware of substantial evidence (consisting of adequate and well controlled clinical investigations) to support the claimed "bio-identical" nature of your hormone therapy drugs.
As explained above, the claims made for your hormone therapy drugs are false and misleading in that they are not supported by substantial evidence. These claims cause your hormone therapy drugs to be misbranded under section 502(a) of the FDCA.
B. Unapproved New Drug Under Section 505 of the FDCA: Estriol
Because your products are intended to treat, mitigate, and prevent disease (a conclusion supported by the claims described above), the estriol products compounded by your firm are drugs within the meaning of section 201(g) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)]. Further, as these products are not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective for their labeled uses, they are new drugs, as defined by section 201(p) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C.§ 321(p)]. No FDA-approved applications pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 355] are effective with respect to these drugs. Accordingly, their introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce violates section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)].
The FDCA establishes agency jurisdiction over "new drugs," including compounded drugs. Compounded drugs are "new drugs" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not "generally recognized, among experts . . . as safe and effective" for their labeled uses. See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 412 U.S. 609, 619, 629-30 (1973) (explaining the definition of "new drug"). There is substantial judicial authority supporting FDA's position that compounded drugs are not exempt from the new drug definition. See Prof'ls & Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 593 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Although the [FDCA] does not expressly exempt 'pharmacies' or 'compounded drugs' from the new drug . . . provisions, the FDA as a matter of policy has not historically brought enforcement actions against pharmacies engaged in traditional compounding."); In the Matter of Establishment Inspection of Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, 270 F. Supp. 2d 525, 543-44 (D.N.J. 2003), affd, Wedgewood Village Pharmacy v. United States, 421 F.3d 263, 269 (3d Cir. 2005) ("The FDCA contains provisions with explicit exemptions from the new drug . . . provisions. Neither pharmacies nor compounded drugs are expressly exempted."). Because they are "new drugs" under the FDCA, compounded drugs may not be introduced into interstate commerce without FDA approval.1
The drugs that pharmacists compound are not FDA-approved and thus lack an FDA finding of safety and efficacy. However, FDA has long recognized the important public health function served by traditional pharmacy compounding. FDA regards traditional compounding as the extemporaneous combining, mixing, or altering of ingredients by a pharmacist in response to a physician's prescription to create a medication tailored to the specialized needs of an individual patient. See Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357, 360-61 (2002). Traditional compounding typically is used to prepare medications that are not available commercially, such as a drug for a patient who is allergic to an ingredient in a mass-produced drug, or diluted dosages for children.
FDA's current enforcement policy with respect to the compounding of human drugs is articulated in Compliance Policy Guide section 460.200 ["Pharmacy Compounding"], issued by FDA on May 29, 2002 (see Notice of Availability, 67 Fed. Reg. 39,409 (June 7, 2002)).2 The CPG identifies factors that the Agency considers in deciding whether to initiate enforcement action with respect to compounding.3 These factors include whether a firm is "[c]ompounding 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."
Your firm is compounding drugs containing estriol, which is not a component of an FDA-approved drug, without an FDA-sanctioned IND. These are unapproved new drugs and their compounding violates section 505(a) of the FDCA. Based on FDA's consideration of the circumstances here, FDA is prepared to take enforcement action to halt your compounding of drugs containing estriol.
C. Misbranded Drugs Under Section 502(f)(1) of the FDCA: Estriol
The estriol drugs compounded by your firm are also misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)] in that their labeling fails to bear adequate directions for their use. Further, these drugs are not exempt from this requirement under 21 CFR§ 201.115, because they are new drugs within the meaning of section 201(p) of the FDCA and they lack approved applications filed pursuant to section 505 of the FDCA.
D. Conclusion
The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist at your facility, and they may not be limited to the above-cited drug products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence and the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to assure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.
You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts.
Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct the cited violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the correction.
If you have any questions or need clarifications regarding this letter prior to your written response, you may contact John Stamp, Compliance Officer at telephone number (949) 608-4464.
Your written response should be directed to:
Pamela B. Schweikert Director, Compliance Branch U.S. Food and Drug Administration 19701 Fairchild Irvine, CA 92612
Sincerely,
/S/
Alonza E Cruse Director Los Angeles District U.S. Food and Drug Administration
1 In August 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a ruling in Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales interpreting, among other things, the application of the "new drug" provisions of the FDCA to compounded drugs. See Medical Center Pharmacy v. Gonzales, MO-04-CV130, (W.D. Tex, Aug. 30, 2006). The government has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
2 Although Section 503A of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. §353a] addresses pharmacy compounding, this provision was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Western States Medical Center v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2001), that Section 503A included unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech and those restrictions could not be severed from the rest of 503A. In Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357(2002), the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit ruling that the restrictions in question violated the First Amendment, but it did not consider whether these restrictions could be severed from the rest of section 503A. FDA shares the Ninth Circuit's view that section 503A is now void.
3 As stated in the CPG, "[t]he . . . list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive." See CPG section 460.200 ["Pharmacy Compounding"].
All content on this website is opinion. No reference is made to, nor is there any intent to make any reference to any specific entity or individual as a quack or participating in quackery. Any such inference is incidental and not the objective or intent. Any newspaper articles or other media published here is the opinion of the author of the piece being reproduced here, not the producer of this website.
Do not rely on this website for your only medical advice. Before making decisions that impact upon your health, you should consult your health care provider.
Department of Health and Human Services