Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 275 posts

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#11

Post by burkaman »

harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

From the study:

> Twelve of the 14 drug compounds tested (86%) were present in concentrations at least 90% of the labeled amounts, the generally recognized minimum acceptable potency. Three of these compounds were present at greater than 110% of the labeled content. Two compounds (aspirin and amphetamine) were present in amounts of less than 90% of labeled content. One compound (phenacetin) was present at greater than 90% of labeled amounts from 1 medication tested, but less than 90% in another medication that contained that drug.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...

Sounds like maybe concentrations are allowed to vary a bit from the label at manufacturing time? Not sure, maybe someone who knows more can comment.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#12

Post by jws »

djrogers wrote: post #3

It seems that a law simply allowing private testing of drugs for efficacy, the same way the federal government is allowed to, would go a long way to saving money here. Hospital systems and HMOs are large enough to save millions for a bit of testing, and once enough data is gathered they can easily and safely adjust their retention policies.

Hospital systems and HMOs turn their inventory fast enough that inventory control can probably handle their problem.

Small hospitals and pharmacies probably suffer more from expirations.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#13

Post by dopamean »

harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter. Also, what does it mean to be less potent? It's still the same drug right? So does that just mean the pill contains less of it somehow?

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#14

Post by schrodinger »

bcook wrote: post #8

I always assumed that the expiration date was partly legal, in the way that you only have 1 year within which you can legally have the drug in your system. I mean, if I am prescribed oxycontin, can I legally have the drug in my system for the rest of my life?

I'm pretty sure it's never illegal to have a drug in your system (besides something secondary like a DUI). It's only possession that's illegal.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#15

Post by phinnaeus »

dopamean wrote: post #13
harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter. Also, what does it mean to be less potent? It's still the same drug right? So does that just mean the pill contains less of it somehow?

Chemical reactions between air, mostly, and to a lesser extend between the drug and the pill substrate itself, I would imagine. I'm sure on such small size and long time scales the pill does simply ablate some of it's material.

Disclaimer: this is conjecture.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#16

Post by noonespecial »

The cynic in me suspects that if this gains too much traction, drug manufacturers will simply start adding self destruct compounds to all of their formulations "for our safety".

In fact, some of them have track records of such "ethical" behavior, it wouldn't even surprise me if they turned them poisonous vs simply inactivating them.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#17

Post by Zigurd »

dopamean wrote: post #13
harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter. Also, what does it mean to be less potent? It's still the same drug right? So does that just mean the pill contains less of it somehow?

You can get a rough idea of the required precision by checking if the dose is weight dependent. If it isn't, 2% won't matter.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#18

Post by theandrewbailey »

harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

It appears that potent is properly used in this article:

producing powerful physical or chemical effects. ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/potent )

chemically or medicinally effective ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potent )

exerting or capable of exerting strong physiological or chemical effects ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Potent )

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#19

Post by klipt »

dopamean wrote: post #13
harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter. Also, what does it mean to be less potent? It's still the same drug right? So does that just mean the pill contains less of it somehow?

IANAD but it probably means some of the drug molecules have been rendered chemically inactive.

For many drugs a 2% difference is probably unnoticeable. Why are Ibuprofen pills 200mg? Because it's a nice round number that happens to work for many people. If I have a headache I often break the 200mg pill and only take half of it. It still does the job fine for me with fewer side effects.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#20

Post by qq66 »

dopamean wrote: post #13
harshreality wrote: post #4

> The findings surprised both researchers: A dozen of the 14 compounds were still as potent as they were when they were manufactured, some at almost 100 percent of their labeled concentrations. What kind of reporting is this? Anything less than 100% is not "as potent as when manufactured", and the sentence implies some of those dozen weren't close to 100%. > The idea that drugs expire on specified dates goes back at…

I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter. Also, what does it mean to be less potent? It's still the same drug right? So does that just mean the pill contains less of it somehow?

No drug where a 2% difference matters can be administered outside of a monitored hospital setting. There are too many variables that affect the drug uptake far more than 2%, such as body weight (100 pound person will have 3x the drug dosage of a 300 pound person), drug absorption (based on body chemistry, other food eaten, etc.) and the actual intake dosage itself (Eye drops, for example, can have a 500-fold variance in how much actually gets administered). That's why over-the-counter drugs have to have very high therapeutic index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index
Post reply on HN