o.vogel, post #61: Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so. Go to post
I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.
Sourcing · Regulatory · continued
Research-use-only labelling: what it means and what it does not posts 91–111
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #89 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reading back through the research-use-only labelling threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
2 likes 6mo
A label change is a regulatory event with a date and a document. Citing the document is what makes a claim about labelling checkable.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
29 likes 6mo
e.dalgleish, post #74: Adding the measurement that post #72 says would settle it. Two sentences on research-use-only labelling and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine. What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #93 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of research-use-only labelling yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Confirming post #93 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption. The label does not establish whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or toxic.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
5 likes 6mo
l.vukovic, post #11: An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence. The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep. Go to post
The reason research-use-only labelling keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Everything in post #97 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use anywhere. That is a statement about the material's regulatory category rather than about its quality.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
3 likes 6mo
f.fenwick, post #66: The most useful thing anyone has posted about research-use-only labelling in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again. Go to post
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
v.nascimento, post #34: Generic or biosimilar entry depends on patent and exclusivity positions that are jurisdiction-specific and are frequently misreported. This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it. Go to post
The reason research-use-only labelling is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
l.vukovic, post #11: An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence. The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep. Go to post
Research-use-only labelling has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.
0 likes 5mo
Where a claim about legality is made here, the useful follow-up is which instrument it rests on. Most such claims turn out to rest on a forum post.
18 likes 5mo
b.teixeira, post #46: The most useful reply I ever got about research-use-only labelling was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice. Go to post
Practical experience of research-use-only labelling, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
c.nyberg, post #23: Narrowing post #22, because the general version has more than one answer. My understanding of research-use-only labelling is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it. Go to post
Labelling and intended use: a compound sold as "research-use-only" does not change its pharmacology if ingested. It changes the legal status of the sale. The labelling tells you the intended use, not the actual use people make of it.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
Post #105 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Nothing in this subcategory is legal advice, and the members who work in regulated environments are the most careful to say so.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
0 likes 5mo
Worth separating two things that post #105 runs together.
Off-label use and medical practice: clinicians can prescribe approved medications off-label under some circumstances. That is different from research-use-only compounds, which are not approved for any human use.
11 likes 5mo
Research-use-only labelling was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
3 likes 5mo
The strongest argument against my own position on research-use-only labelling, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
0 likes 5mo
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pharmaceutical compounding rules, summarised from primary sources
Pharmaceutical compounding rules, summarised from primary sources — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking what a regulator's document actually says, since the summaries of…
|
+135 | 163 | 46k | 17mo |
|
Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Prescription requirements and telehealth…
|
+87 | 94 | 1.1k | 21d |
|
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold?
Enforcement priorities versus written rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Asking what a regulator's document actually says,…
|
+36 | 40 | 37k | 11mo |
|
Reading a regulatory notice rather than an article about it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading a regulatory notice rather than an article about it Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on reading a regulatory notice. It is…
|
2 | 2.9k | 5mo | |
|
Revisiting: Why a compound being unapproved is not the same as being illegal to possess
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Why a compound being unapproved is not the same as being illegal to possess Working notes rather than a conclusion. I would like to know what people here actually do…
|
+76 | 82 | 52k | 11mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags compounding, research use only, EMA
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+13 | 17 | 1.8k | 16mo |
|
Coming back to: Cost per delivered dose, which is the number that matters
On the subject in the title: Cost per delivered dose, which is the number that matters Working notes rather than a conclusion. Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in this category…
|
+6 | 10 | 2.5k | 19mo |
|
Second pass at: Why chargeback is not the safety net people assume
Second pass at: Why chargeback is not the safety net people assume Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about the record rather than the transfer. Every…
|
2 | 25k | 3mo | |
|
Official shortage notices and what they authorise
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Official shortage notices and what they authorise Everything below is what sits behind that. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on official shortage…
|
+106 | 119 | 18k | 1mo |
|
US compounding rules and how they changed
US compounding rules and how they changed — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reporting a regional experience with the date and the jurisdiction attached, because an undated…
|
+62 | 68 | 1.4k | 20mo |