Packaging and Labeling of Pharmaceutical Products Obtained from the Internet
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: For patients, the prescription container label may be the only source of instructions on how to take their medicines. In the United States, the legal requirements for a prescription label are set by federal law and state statutes. The container should be comparable to that which manufacturers use to package drug products and should preserve a product's identity, strength, quality, and purity and prevent contamination. Safety features such as a child-resistant closure should be provided. Pharmaceutical products purchased from international online pharmacies are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and may not meet US guidelines for labeling and packaging. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine whether commonly purchased pharmaceutical products obtained from international online pharmacies are comparable to products dispensed in the United States with regard to labeling and packaging. METHODS: During March 2006 through January 2007, 41 pharmaceutical oral dosage form samples were obtained from international Internet pharmacy websites for evaluation: 18 generic simvastatin samples, 18 generic amlodipine samples, and 5 generic sildenafil samples. Contents for each package were observed and recorded and comparison of the prescription labeling and packaging of these products was made with prescription labeling and packaging requirements in the United States. RESULTS: Of the 41 drug products obtained from online pharmacies from 12 different countries, only 1 product (from Canada) would meet both labeling and packaging guidelines for products dispensed in the United States. Of those not meeting the requirements, 7 were dispensed in paper envelopes with label affixed that was either handwritten or typed and contained missing information such as name and address of dispenser, name of prescriber, name of patient, and directions for use. Another 3 products did not have a label affixed to the drug product, but information was printed on a paper document enclosed in the shipping package, while 28 products did not have labels affixed to the drug product. In all, 39 of the 41 drug products' packaging would not meet the US guidelines. Aside from the Canadian product, only 1 product from Mexico was dispensed in a container that would meet guidelines established in the United States. In total, 35 products were not dispensed in plastic vials but were dispensed in unit dose packages, paper envelopes with loose dosage forms, blister packs of drugs held together with rubber bands, or a combination of these packaging forms. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that labeling and packaging standards for international generic drug products are not equivalent to labeling and packaging standards in the United States. This suggests dissimilar and substandard distribution processes compared with those in the United States, which in turn presents a challenge to patient comprehension and health literacy and may affect patient adherence to drug treatment regimens. These findings have strong implications for drug product quality, patient outcomes, therapeutic effectiveness, and safety.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».