Where the pharmaceutical compounding rules reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
0 likes 17mo
Sourcing · Regulatory · continued
Pharmaceutical compounding rules, summarised from primary sources posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #28 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Primary documents matter: regulatory positions are published in official documents. Reading the regulatory agency's website directly is more reliable than reading a forum summary of it.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
3 likes 17mo
e.tamm, post #20: If you can confirm or contradict a position for your own region, please date the answer. An undated regional claim is the least useful thing in this category. Go to post
Pharmaceutical compounding rules has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about pharmaceutical compounding rules in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
31 likes 17mo
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
1 like 17mo
m.yildiz, post #18: Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Nobody has said the unglamorous part of pharmaceutical compounding rules yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check. Go to post
The arithmetic in post #34 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Read the primary regulatory document rather than a summary of it. Summaries in this area lag by a year routinely and by longer occasionally.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
v.milanovi, post #27: The reason pharmaceutical compounding rules is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent. Go to post
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
Confirming post #37 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Pharmaceutical compounding rules sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
32 likes 17mo
I read post #37 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where a claim about legality is made here, the useful follow-up is which instrument it rests on. Most such claims turn out to rest on a forum post.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
12 likes 17mo
Post #41 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Taking pharmaceutical compounding rules seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
4 likes 17mo
n.chowdhury, post #30: Post #27 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Generic or biosimilar entry depends on patent and exclusivity positions that are jurisdiction-specific and are frequently misreported. Anyone with a larger sample, please post it. Go to post
If someone has run pharmaceutical compounding rules properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
If you can confirm or contradict a position for your own region, please date the answer. An undated regional claim is the least useful thing in this category.
0 likes 17mo
Narrowing post #44, because the general version has more than one answer.
Primary documents matter: regulatory positions are published in official documents. Reading the regulatory agency's website directly is more reliable than reading a forum summary of it.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
1 like 17mo
s.lundgren, post #28: If you can confirm or contradict a position for your own region, please date the answer. An undated regional claim is the least useful thing in this category. The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working. Go to post
Post #46 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
The version of pharmaceutical compounding rules that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Two people in this thread mean different things by pharmaceutical compounding rules and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
25 likes 17mo
e.nilsen, post #40: An update on my earlier pharmaceutical compounding rules post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain. Go to post
On pharmaceutical compounding rules: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
0 likes 17mo
On post #50 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Import rules for personal quantities differ from commercial import rules and both differ by country. Establishing your own position is not something a forum can do for you.
4 likes 17mo
Adding a null result on pharmaceutical compounding rules. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
27 likes 17mo
r.marsden, post #11: I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of pharmaceutical compounding rules and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops. Go to post
This follows post #56 rather than contradicting it.
The strongest argument against my own position on pharmaceutical compounding rules, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
Worth separating two things that post #54 runs together.
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
2 likes 17mo
The useful distinction on pharmaceutical compounding rules is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
8 likes 17mo