How shortages have affected compounding permissions I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.
I would like to know what people here actually do about shortages, as distinct from what is usually recommended. Those have diverged in every other subject I have looked at closely.
Mine is below, with the reasoning, including the parts I am not confident about.
The opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Careful with the language on shortages. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Shortage-driven price movement is real and is a separate question from availability.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Post #5 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Shortage status determines what compounding is permitted in some jurisdictions, which links two questions that otherwise seem unrelated.
Posting my shortages numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The claim about a named supplier was not accompanied by a batch, a date, a method or a document, which R6 requires.
I have been on both sides of the shortages argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Where an alternative within the class is available, the comparison is a clinical one and the doses are not equivalent.
That is all I can say without guessing.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
The reason shortages 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.
I read post #12 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The published shortage register maintained by the national regulator is the authoritative source here, and it is updated far more often than any thread.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
Post #14 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Anyone reporting availability should say the region and the date, because both determine whether the report is usable.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Shortage predictions: regulators and suppliers issue shortage alerts before they become acute. Checking the regulatory website for shortages gives you advance notice.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Shortages 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.
Stockpiling in response to a shortage worsens it, which is true and is a poor argument to make to somebody who has run out.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Shortages end and the notices are updated. Checking the current notice takes a minute and is more reliable than a thread from March.
Compounding during shortages: some jurisdictions allow pharmacy compounding when a marketed product is in shortage. That permission is jurisdiction-specific and time-limited (usually for the duration of the shortage).
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Worth separating two things that post #21 runs together.
Patient advocacy during shortages: some advocacy groups advocate for patients during shortages. Knowing who they are and following their communication is useful.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
The number people quote for shortages is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.