🍪 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
ForumsCompounding & FormulationBeyond-use dating: 28 days vs 60 days — looking for input

Beyond-use dating: 28 days vs 60 days — looking for input

DoseLogDan Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 6:42 AM 35 replies 1,751 viewsPage 1 of 7
This thread is more than 13 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
DoseLogDan
Member
201
567
Feb 2025
Montana
Apr 16, 2025 at 6:42 AM#1

Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.

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.

Where I think it is weakest: the comparator does most of the work in how this gets reported, and it is not the comparator most people think they are citing.

The question I want answered is what actually distinguishes 503A from 503B, in terms of what each may make and from what starting material. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.

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.
41 19newstart_MO, mia_MS2, LeilaHI and 38 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
CarlaRPh_TPA
Senior Member
1,890
8,234
Jan 2024
Tampa, FL
Apr 16, 2025 at 7:42 AM#2
DoseLogDan said:
They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

DoseLogDan has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.

Last edited: Apr 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
42 20ricardo_MIA, BrianDallas92, labquiet_amy and 39 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PeteFamMed
Senior Member
2,012
9,234
Jan 2024
Minneapolis, MN
Apr 16, 2025 at 8:42 AM#3
DoseLogDan said:
They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.

Last edited: Apr 16, 2025 at 9:42 AM
43 21LindaRN_retired, tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul and 40 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
chris_chi24
Member
389
1,678
Sep 2024
Chicago, IL
Apr 16, 2025 at 9:42 AM#4

Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

Last edited: Apr 16, 2025 at 12:42 PM
44 22PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK, MounjBrad and 41 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
ZaraB_AL
Member
456
1,678
Jan 2025
Alabama
Apr 16, 2025 at 3:27 PM#5
CarlaRPh_TPA said:
Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

45 23JennaRN, LabKate, kate.chem and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1237

Similar Threads

503A vs 503B compounding — regulatory framework explained4 replies
Compounded semaglutide stability: accelerated degradation study results6 replies
Lyophilized vs liquid peptides — stability and bioavailability comparison18 replies
Bacteriostatic water sourcing and sterility considerations8 replies
State-by-state compounding pharmacy regulations — 2026 map8 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register