Current and Future Pharmacopoeial Requirements for the Quality of Extemporaneous Medicinal Products: A Review of Regulatory Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION. The organisation of extemporaneous compounding in pharmacies is currently considered to be a priority for the national healthcare system. Extemporaneous medicinal products used by patients should meet high quality, safety, and efficacy standards. Provision of consistent and science-based requirements for the quality of medicines, particularly those compounded in pharmacies, is a key area of concern for standardisation. AIM. This study aimed to analyse international experience and determine areas for the improvement of standardisation approaches of the State Pharmacopoeia of the Russian Federation to the quality of medicinal products compounded in pharmacies. DISCUSSION. The study investigated the common and distinctive properties of extemporaneous preparations compounded in pharmacies (and not subject to registration) and medicinal products manufactured by pharmaceutical companies. The authors analysed the requirements and recommendations for compounding and quality assurance of extemporaneous medicinal products provided by the regulatory and pharmacopoeial authorities of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the USA, and Canada. The United States Pharmacopeia includes circa 150 individual monographs for non-sterile compounded drug products with particular compositions and over 20 individual monographs for sterile compounded drug products. The European Pharmacopoeia requires that extemporaneous preparation should be organised within the quality assurance framework of a pharmacy after a proper risk assessment. In the Republic of Belarus, extemporaneous medicinal products are compounded in line with the requirements of the Good Compounding Practices and the State Pharmacopoeia of the Republic of Belarus, which provide rapid testing procedures for extemporaneous medicinal products. CONCLUSIONS. The study identified the following areas for the development of requirements for the quality of medicinal products compounded in pharmacies: the determination of rapid testing approaches; the development of pharmacopoeial monographs for active pharmaceutical substances used in extemporaneous compounding, with the Identification section supplemented with an additional subsection on pharmacy-specific analytical procedures; and the development of pharmacopoeial monographs for frequently used compounding formulae.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".