Restrictions on pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone remain a hard pill to swallow

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kelli Boyden JD, Randy C. Hatton Pharm.D., FCCP, Catherine M. Lynch M.D., David B. Brushwood BSPharm, JD
{"title":"Restrictions on pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone remain a hard pill to swallow","authors":"Kelli Boyden JD,&nbsp;Randy C. Hatton Pharm.D., FCCP,&nbsp;Catherine M. Lynch M.D.,&nbsp;David B. Brushwood BSPharm, JD","doi":"10.1002/jac5.2034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This analysis explores the basis for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone for the termination of intrauterine pregnancy. Controversies surround mifepristone and its REMS. The safety and efficacy of mifepristone are briefly reviewed with respect to FDA's actions. It is difficult to justify the continued requirement for a REMS for mifepristone by applying the regulatory framework and considering mifepristone's safety record. Drugs with higher risks are on the US market without an FDA-mandated REMS. Canada removed all restrictions on the use of mifepristone for abortion, which has not resulted in patient safety concerns. All pharmacists should be permitted to dispense mifepristone. The continued requirement for a mifepristone REMS in the US appears to be based more on politics rather than evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":73966,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","volume":"7 11","pages":"1114-1121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.2034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This analysis explores the basis for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone for the termination of intrauterine pregnancy. Controversies surround mifepristone and its REMS. The safety and efficacy of mifepristone are briefly reviewed with respect to FDA's actions. It is difficult to justify the continued requirement for a REMS for mifepristone by applying the regulatory framework and considering mifepristone's safety record. Drugs with higher risks are on the US market without an FDA-mandated REMS. Canada removed all restrictions on the use of mifepristone for abortion, which has not resulted in patient safety concerns. All pharmacists should be permitted to dispense mifepristone. The continued requirement for a mifepristone REMS in the US appears to be based more on politics rather than evidence.

限制药剂师配发米非司酮仍是难以接受的事实
本分析探讨了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)要求米非司酮用于终止宫内妊娠的风险评估和缓解策略(REMS)的依据。围绕米非司酮及其 REMS 存在争议。本文就 FDA 的行动简要回顾了米非司酮的安全性和有效性。通过应用监管框架和考虑米非司酮的安全记录,很难证明继续要求米非司酮实施 REMS 是合理的。美国市场上有风险更高的药物,但没有食品与药物管理局规定的 REMS。加拿大取消了对使用米非司酮进行人工流产的所有限制,这并未导致对患者安全的担忧。应允许所有药剂师配发米非司酮。美国对米非司酮 REMS 的持续要求似乎更多是基于政治而非证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信