Veterinary Enterprises of Tomorrow, Inc. 08-Dec-04
Department of Health and Human Services |
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration |
Dallas District
4040 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75204-3145 |
December 8, 2004
Ref: 2005-DAL-WL-06
WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mrs. Jennifer L. Sechrist, R.Ph./President
Veterinary Enterprises of Tomorrow, Inc.
225 Main Street
Mountain View, Oklahoma 73072
Veterinary Enterprises of Tomorrow, Inc.
225 Main Street
Mountain View, Oklahoma 73072
Dear Mrs. Sechrist:
An inspection of your veterinary drug compounding facility, located at 225 Main Street, Mountain View, Oklahoma, conducted by investigators of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between the dates of July 26-30, 2004, disclosed significant violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The investigators were accompanied by Ms. Cindy Hamilton, Senior Pharmacy Inspector with the Oklahoma Board of Pharmacy.
Our inspection confirmed that your company has compounded and distributed veterinary drugs, including Nitrofurazone, Chloramphenicol Palmitate, Enrofloxacin, Omeprazole, and Dipyrone, among many others, using bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (bulk APls). The veterinary drugs you are compounding are unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) since they are not the subject of approved New Animal Drug Applications. As such, they are ad under section 501(a)(5) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)). Sections 512(a)(4) and (5) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4) and (5)) and their implementing regulations, allow some extralabel use of approved animal and human drugs, including compounding from approved animal and human drugs. These provisions, however, apply only to approved drugs and do not permit compounding from bulk APls (see Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 530.13(a)).
FDA’s policy regarding the compounding of drugs for use in animals is articulated in Compliance Policy Guide, Section 608.400, issued July 2003. As stated in this policy, FDA is greatly concerned about veterinarians and pharmacies that manufacture and distribute unapproved new animal drugs in a manner that is clearly outside the bounds of traditional pharmacy practice and that violates the Act.
One of our concerns is that you are not compounding for individual patients, but are compounding for third parties, generally veterinary clinics, who resell to individual patients. A significant number of your compounded veterinary drugs appear to be compounded outside the context of a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship for administration by an end user. Instead, there appear to be sales to veterinarians for use as office stock in their professional practice and/or for subsequent general distribution. For example, recent consignee information provided to investigators for each of the above listed drugs confirmed that these compounded drugs were shipped to veterinarians, and you reported that less than five percent of your product goes directly to the end user. In addition, your prescription drug labeling for clinic use does not identify the animals to receive treatment, provide the dosage frequency, or provide the duration of treatment.
Another concern is that you are compounding drugs for use when an approved drug, in the available dosage form and concentration, would appropriately treat the animal. For example, some of your compounded prescription veterinary drugs, such as Nitrofurazone .2% topical solution, are duplicates of FDA approved animal drug products available on the market. Others have only slightly different dosages and/or concentrations than FDA approved animal drugs, such as Enrofloxacin 136 mg capsules where Enrofloxacin 136 mg tablets are approved and available, and these differences appear to be clinically insignificant.
A third concern is that the drugs being compounded could be used in food producing animals and, therefore, could result in unsafe drug residues in edible tissues. For example, the prescriptions you receive and the labeling you generate often do not specify the target animal species. Moreover, at least three of the drugs being compounded, Nitrofurarone, Chloramphenicol, and Diethylstilbestrol, are not permitted for extralabel use in food producing animals because they present a risk to public health.
The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations by your firm. It is your responsibility to ensure that your firm’s operations and products are in compliance with the law and applicable regulations. Our findings were listed on a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, which was issued and discussed with you at the end of the inspection.
You should take prompt action to correct the noted violations, and you should establish procedures whereby such violations do not recur. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory sanctions, including, but not limited to, seizure and/or injunction.
Please notify this office within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the violations, including an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of similar violations. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days, state the reason for the delay and the time period within which the corrections will be completed. You may address your reply to Edwin Ramos, Compliance Officer, at the above address.
Sincerely,
/s/
/s/
Michael A. Chappell
Dallas District Director
Source found here
2 comments:
When huge FDA, State Boards of Pharmacy, and other regulatory bodies, send "Warning Letters" and/or "Enforcement Letters", how often is this followed up with re-inspections and civil/criminal action? Unfortunately, not that often at all.
When the regulatory agencies of the government "use their gums, rather than their teeth", corporations interested in profit don't seem to change their ways. This pharmacy was obviously acting as a manufacturer in sheep's clothing (using their pharmacy license as cover for their illegal manufacturing). Did the pharmacy owner and/or supervising pharmacist get indicted for criminal charges for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? I don't think so. Is this pharmacy still manufacturing in bulk and selling wholesale to veterinarians? I haven't looked into it, but I'll tell you that this "Enforcement Action Warning Letter" was unknown to the world and provided literally zero deterrent effect on other pharmacies doing the same thing.
Thomas Bader, R.Ph., of College Pharmacy (compounding pharmacy in Colorado Springs, CO) who actually did get convicted, sentenced to jail time, and forced to sell his ownership shares in his pharmacy (for illegally importing and then distributing Chinese HGH). That pharmacy, under new ownership, is under a 7-year probation agreement, and toes the line. Perhaps we need a more aggressive FDA, State Boards of Pharmacy, and Attorney General office (both State and Federal) to make an example of rogue pharmacies, their owners, and their supervising pharmacists.
Dr. Woliner, I couldn't agree more. These types of enforcement actions are unknown to the world unless someone gets on the internet to research this particular company. If you do a google search of this company's name, you will find this "Enforcement Action Warning Letter." I am sure not many Doctors or Veterinarians have the time to do this type of research. The company and its reps are not going to disclose it when trying to make a sale. On top of that you would have to go to each state where this company does business to see if there was additional action against this company. Maybe one suggestion beyond better access to these records is that the companies that receive these warnings are required to disclose them to anybody who they sell drugs to and if they don't and are caught they pay an extremely high fine for each time they fail to make the disclosure and/or they are shut down for a certain time period.
Post a Comment