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

161–170 of 275 posts

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#161

Post by Kalium »

techthroway443 wrote: post #155
t0mbstone wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the real solution here be to put real expiration dates on things that can harm you, and real expiration dates on things that haven't actually expired? Like a "dangerous to use after 01/01/2019" label on things that actually are dangerous. Other items could have labels like, "Safe for use until 01/01/2025 - Effectiveness may be degraded after 09/05/2019"

Seems simple enough, just extend the expiration dates on the meds that don't turn toxic and that still work. The issue here though is that it's not in the drug manufacturers interest to have super long dates. Putting labels that expire sooner means they can push higher volume.

There's also the not-irrelevant issue that testing is slow and potentially other than free. How do you find out when a drug expires? You have a bunch of it sit around and test it periodically, right?

I assume that would be done after bringing a drug to market, otherwise drugs could easily be delayed 10+ years if they're shelf-stable.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#162

Post by pdevr »

vkou wrote: post #143
gumby wrote: post #77

(former pharmaceutical developer here). This article makes it sound like there's a big conspiracy, which there isn't. A very few drugs (like erythromycin) become toxic so should be discarded. Some drugs become less efficacious over time, but nobody really knows the shape of the curve as they are simply tested to see if they have the same efficacy on day E as they did on day 0. Well of course all drugs will become wor…

> And of course US egg producers take steps that reduce the storage time of eggs, which can be months old when you get them -- and then "expire" a week after getting home. I've yet to have a US carton of eggs go bad, and they often spend a few weeks in my fridge.

Refrigerated, store-bought eggs may be alright for 6-7 months according to this experiment[1].

(Note: This is the only practical experiment on this subject that I am aware of. If anyone knows of a better study, please share the link.)

[1] http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/how-to-store-fresh-...

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#163

Post by parshimers »

civilitty wrote: post #41
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?

In the United States, you can be prosecuted in some states for drug possession if your prescription has expired and you still have the drugs [1]. This has not been sufficiently tested with the Supreme Court so you could eventually win on appeal but not before spending lots of money and time behind bars. [1] https://edfolsomlaw.com/2013/01/illegal-possession-of-your-o...

> This assistant district attorney operates on the theory that if your prescription was expired on the date of the alleged conduct, you no longer “possessed a valid prescription” at that time and therefore cannot avail yourself of the affirmative defense.

Christ. That is insane. What are people supposed to do for medicines that are used only in the case of an emergency? I really wonder what goes through some of these prosecutor's heads sometimes.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#164

Post by code_duck »

ars wrote: post #154
vkou wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And of course US egg producers take steps that reduce the storage time of eggs, which can be months old when you get them -- and then "expire" a week after getting home. I've yet to have a US carton of eggs go bad, and they often spend a few weeks in my fridge.

I've stored eggs for 2 months out of the fridge and they did not go bad. As far as I know eggs will not go bad at all - they will just slowly dry out.

One time I accidentally opened an egg that an absentee roommate-landlord had left at a girlfriend's house. They had expired 14 months before, and inside the one I cracked was a very foul smelling blue moldy glump.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#165

Post by lovemenot »

Due to complexity it doesn't seem realistic to try to save money by using legacy drugs.

On the other hand, the economics of pharma industry are such that manufacturing cost is usually a very small proportion of price.

Therefore a better solution would be to introduce a mandatory new-for-old trade-in policy. So they wouldn't lose money on the deal, pharma companies would be rewarded at mfg cost. I.e. sans profit, marketing or research cost.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#166

Post by valuearb »

mandevil wrote: post #118
valuearb wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove patent protection for any drugs that are in shortage.

Do you honestly think that baking soda is in shortage because of patent restrictions? The US drug system is messed up, but not that messed up. They are in shortage because it takes a long time (six-ish months) to certify a factory as producing something safe for consumption[1], and in the normal course of things, there is very little point in setting up a second line to produce medical grade sodium bicarb- no company…

This article isn't just about baking soda. If society freely allows you the massive competitive barrier of a patent to ensure your riches, you should also have some obligations to society as part of the contract.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#167

Post by valuearb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #107
valuearb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure for almost all drugs 20% doesn't matter. Think about it. I've never gotten an over the counter or prescription drug that was adjusted for my weight. The closest thing I can think of is painkillers (tylenol, etc) giving different dosages for children. So if a 110lb wife gets the same dosage as a 200lb husband, how on earth would even a 20% difference in dosage amount make a big difference? 2% can only…

> I've never gotten an over the counter or prescription drug that was adjusted for my weight. How do you know that your doctor didn't take your weight into consideration when selecting the dose for a prescription medicine? OTC drugs are often generally provided at a dose that should be safe for most adults, but may be significantly different in effectiveness based on weight.

Because my dosage has never varied, while my weight has and by more than 20%.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#168

Post by valuearb »

refurb wrote: post #109
valuearb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic would be fine if manufacturers were required to replace expired pills with new ones. But they aren't, so early expiry dates impose enormous economic costs on consumers of drugs, while manufacturers get the massive benefits of selling drugs twice to same consumer.

A lot of manufacturers accept expired drug. And even if they don't, distributors often do as well. And expired drugs comes down to inventory management. Don't buy more product than you can sell.

If lots of manufacturers were all manufacturers, this article wouldn't have been written. In truth, the vast majority of expensive drugs aren't being replaced by distributors or manufacturers, or the Shelf Life Extension program for the government would not be saving $2B a year.

And don't blame the victims, which is what your sentence on inventory management does. If a hospital over-estimates patients usage of a drug and gets stuck with expired drugs due to excessively shortened expiry dates, that's on the maker. The maker knows the real expiry dates, usage can never be anything but an estimate.

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#169

Post by PixelB »

lovemenot wrote: post #165

Due to complexity it doesn't seem realistic to try to save money by using legacy drugs. On the other hand, the economics of pharma industry are such that manufacturing cost is usually a very small proportion of price. Therefore a better solution would be to introduce a mandatory new-for-old trade-in policy. So they wouldn't lose money on the deal, pharma companies would be rewarded at mfg cost. I.e. sans profit, mark…

Great idea, never going to happen.

Why would they sign up for that when they can just as easily charge full price for those replacement drugs (as they do now)? The only people out there who can change this are making huge profits from the system currently in place, so why would they?

Re: The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates

#170

Post by emmelaich »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #147
dragonwriter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most medicines are sold in blister packs these days. Won't that prevent a fair bit of the environmental stress from affecting them? Well, it keeps out humidity, and might prevent air-exposure effects. It won't prevent heat effects and some other environmental effects. Also, quite a lot are sold in bottles of pills or other non-blister-pack forms.

I live in France and cannot remember the last time I saw pills not in a blister pack. I remember vaguely having seen pills in bottles maybe 20 or 30 years ago. Again this is for France, I know that e.g. in the US one gets refills. Which by the way I find great because the waste of pills is tremendous. It would have been much better to get the specific number prescribed.

Yeah, I think USA is atypical for bottles. I was surprised to see bottles of 1000 Tylenol* tablets at the CVS chain.

In Australia the only thing in bottles are vitamins and similar, though it is possible to get small bottles.

* acetaminophen / paracetamol

Post reply on HN