Slashdot Mirror
The Myth of Drug Expiration Dates (propublica.org)
schwit1 shares a report from ProPublica: Hospitals and pharmacies are required to toss expired drugs, no matter how expensive or vital. Meanwhile the FDA has long known that many remain safe and potent for years longer. The box of prescription drugs had been forgotten in a back closet of a retail pharmacy for so long that some of the pills predated the 1969 moon landing. Most were 30 to 40 years past their expiration dates -- possibly toxic, probably worthless. But to Lee Cantrell, who helps run the California Poison Control System, the cache was an opportunity to answer an enduring question about the actual shelf life of drugs: Could these drugs from the bell-bottom era still be potent?
Gerona and Cantrell, a pharmacist and toxicologist, knew that the term "expiration date" was a misnomer. The dates on drug labels are simply the point up to which the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical companies guarantee their effectiveness, typically at two or three years. But the dates don't necessarily mean they're ineffective immediately after they "expire" -- just that there's no incentive for drugmakers to study whether they could still be usable.
Tests on the decades-old drugs including antihistamines, pain relievers and stimulants. All the drugs tested were in their original sealed containers. 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. Experts say the United States might be squandering a quarter of the money spent on health care. That's an estimated $765 billion a year.
Gerona and Cantrell, a pharmacist and toxicologist, knew that the term "expiration date" was a misnomer. The dates on drug labels are simply the point up to which the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical companies guarantee their effectiveness, typically at two or three years. But the dates don't necessarily mean they're ineffective immediately after they "expire" -- just that there's no incentive for drugmakers to study whether they could still be usable.
Tests on the decades-old drugs including antihistamines, pain relievers and stimulants. All the drugs tested were in their original sealed containers. 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. Experts say the United States might be squandering a quarter of the money spent on health care. That's an estimated $765 billion a year.
The manufacturers have zero incentive to do these sorts of tests, and private individuals have no way to force the expiration dates to be changed, so this is exactly the sort of testing that the FDA should be funding.
But a more interesting question than the fact that several of the medications were at near 100% effectiveness, how many medications were actively harmful (as opposed to just less effective)?
If the expiration dates are 2-3 years from the date of manufacture, presumably pharmacies could do a little better inventory management and not have to throw any out. 2 years warning is plenty. Just keep 1 year's supply on hand. If demand drops, don't buy any more until you need to.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Most patients don't get their prescription pills in the original sealed container of hundreds of tablets or capsules that is shipped to the pharmacy, but in a non-sealed container that is subject to high humidity and large temperature variation when stored at home. So the at-home longevity is less, although still almost always at least a couple years longer than marked on the retail vial.
I'm pretty sure that this experiment didn't set out to prove the FDA is corrupt and is maliciously slapping arbitrary expiry dates on drugs so you would waste your money. The FDA's primary goal isn't drug stability over 15 years, for example, it's what is safe in a reasonable amount of time for those drugs to be consumed. Do you really want to pay the FDA to do decades long studies on all prescription drugs with the intent of seeing how many generations you can pass your prescription drugs cache down?
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
Countries more wealthy than the US and those of a similar level of wealth also tend to generate a lot less waste. There is a certain cultural element to the US being very wasteful compared to other countries.
That being said, erring on the side of caution with medicine (and thus being wasteful) is common throughout the developed world. Drug expiry dates will always remain based on pessimistic expectations and the manufacturer has no incentive to invest in studies that could show whether those expectations may be too pessimistic. It would be good if governments, hospitals and/or health insurance companies would make arrangements to reduce waste were possible. Being cautious is good, throwing away large amounts of perfectly fine medicine made using precious resources is not.
OK, I think I'm not being clear. I agree completely and that's why my original post stated "potentially disastrous results"
The study I posted said that expired Epipens are more likely to provide a reduced dose but should be used anyway if there is no other option since a reduced dose is better than no dose and the Epipen won't poison you. IE the best of the worst options.
For that, I got 2 replies (not going to count the AC) and a downmod from people who fail at reading comprehension who took the study to mean that expired Epipens are just fine, when the study said no such thing.