Home | Consumers | Health Professionals | Regulatory | Other | Hot Topics | Search
Present
Dr S Jessamine (Chair)
Ms F Hughes
Dr T Bevin
Dr G Wardrope
Mr B McKone
Ms A Shirtcliffe
Mrs C Smith ( Secretary)
In attendance
Dr B Priestly (Australian National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee)
Dr N Rafter, Medsafe
The meeting opened at 9:35am
1 |
WELCOMEDr Jessamine welcomed to the meeting Dr Brian Priestley from the Australian National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee (NDPSC). He also welcomed Ms Frances Hughes, new Ministry of Health member and Ms Andrea Shirtcliffe, new member nominated by the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand. Each attendee spoke briefly about his or her background and experience by way of introduction. |
||||||||||
2 |
APOLOGIESThere were no apologies |
||||||||||
3 |
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETINGThe minutes of the twenty-third meeting were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting and were signed by the Chairman. The Chairman explained for the benefit of new members that minutes of meetings had been published on the Medsafe website over the past year. He told the Committee that, in the interest of transparency, other ministerial advisory committees serviced by Medsafe were also moving towards publishing on the website. Medsafe had also requested that, from this current meeting, companies making submissions for reclassification should submit their material in both paper and electronic form. Companies had been agreeable to this and company submissions were now published on the website together with Medsafe reports as part of the consultation process. The availability of this information would enable those wishing to comment on submissions to understand the view expressed in the submission and also the view taken by Medsafe. This approach was seen as providing for all interested parties a clearer understanding of the issues to be addressed and allowing a maximum degree of transparency for the classification process. |
||||||||||
4 |
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSThe Chairman briefly outlined the new Ministry of Health Conflict of Interest Protocol for Statutory Bodies and other Committees. Members had been provided with this document as part of the revised Members’ Handbook. There was some brief discussion. Dr Jessamine pointed out that, in the case of technical advisory committees, it was often those with the most expertise who were likely to have a conflict of interest. While he was not aware of a case where a member of one of the advisory committees serviced by Medsafe had been excluded from discussion due to a conflict of interest, he thought there could be occasions when it was inappropriate for a member to vote. He concluded that a declared conflict of interest could be regarded as being of value rather than as a disadvantage. No member was aware of a conflict of interest which could be considered prejudicial to any of the recommendations to be made at the twenty-fourth meeting.
|
||||||||||
5 |
MATTERS ARISING |
||||||||||
5.1 |
Objections to recommendations made at the 23rd meeting |
||||||||||
5.1.1 |
NicotineObjections to the recommendation to reclassify nicotine in chewing gum and transdermal patches to general sale medicine had been received from Pro-Health Products Ltd, sponsor for Nicobrevin and, jointly, from the Pharmaceutical Society and the Pharmacy Guild. The objections had not met the criterion for objections in that they had not been based on new safety data not available to the Committee at the time the recommendation was made. Copies of the letters of objection and the replies were provided for the Committee but it was not considered necessary to reconsider the recommendation made at the previous meeting. It was noted that the Health Funding Authority initiative to fund certain smoking cessation products was a separate issue from the level of access afforded by reclassification. |
||||||||||
5.1.2 |
PhenazopyridineDouglas Pharmaceuticals had requested that the reclassification of phenazopyridine from pharmacy-only to prescription medicine be postponed until the Committee had studied relevant safety data. The recommendation to harmonise with Australia at a more restrictive classification was based on there being no products containing phenazopyridine registered in either country. However, the company reported that it was in the process of preparing a product for the New Zealand over-the-counter (OTC) market. Under these circumstances, Medsafe thought it was fair for the Committee to consider whether or not the more restrictive classification was appropriate and the company was asked to supply safety data. The Committee felt that this medicine was not particularly effective in the treatment of urinary tract infection and was not sure that it fitted the criteria for OTC sale. However, it was agreed that, in order to gain consent to market, the company would need to demonstrate both safety and efficacy. Members thought that a recommendation on the classification of phenazopyridine should be deferred until the Committee was able to consider the safety data supplied by the company with its application for consent to market. The company had provided data comparing phenazopyridine with flavoxate. As flavoxate was classified as a restricted medicine in both Australia and New Zealand, the Committee agreed that this should be taken into consideration at the time a final recommendation was made. As there were no products containing phenazopyridine on the Australian market, any application for consent to market would be regarded as a new chemical entity and would enter the Australian market initially as a prescription medicine. Only after this could a request be made for rescheduling. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
5.2 |
Other matters arising |
||||||||||
5.2.1 |
AlclometasoneA recommendation had been deferred from the last meeting on whether or not a 0.05% alclometasone dipropionate cream or ointment in 30 gram packs should be reclassified from prescription medicine to restricted medicine pending further information from the company and the Dermatological Society. The NDPSC had already recommended in favour of the change. A response had been received from the Dermatological Society. The company had provided only a table of the comparative potency of alclometasone as listed in Martindale1 in further support of its submission. As alclometasone dipropionate 0.05% and clobetasone butyrate 0.05% were considered to be of comparable potency, members agreed that the two should be considered together. For further discussion see agenda item 6.b. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
5.2.2 |
DesloratadineThis was a new chemical entity for which a classification had been deferred pending information from the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC) about its safety in comparison with that of loratadine. The MAAC had not found any significant problems with desloratadine. It was metabolised differently from loratadine and there were fewer potential problems for interactions with other medicines. Members were happy that the safety profile was satisfactory for OTC sale but questioned whether there were precedents for classifying a new chemical entity as a pharmacy-only medicine without a preliminary period as a prescription medicine. It was noted that fexofenadine, a metabolite of terfenadine, had been given immediate pharmacy-only status. The Committee agreed to make a similar recommendation for desloratadine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
5.2.3 |
Salbutamol and terbutalineThe Committee was informed that although the intention had been that it should consider the possible reclassification of these substances at the current meeting, Medsafe had not had sufficient resources at its disposal to conduct the required consultation process within the time available and discussion of this agenda item had had to be postponed. It was agreed that the discussion should not be delayed further. The need for wide and comprehensive consultation was recognised. Members also recognised that there might be a need to take into account epidemiological issues which were particular to New Zealand. The Committee was informed that the matter had been controversial in Australia and was due for discussion again in the near future but that Australia would wait until New Zealand had considered the matter before taking further action. |
||||||||||
5.2.4 |
Theophylline and aminophyllineAs the oral liquid forms of these medicines were less restrictively classified in New Zealand than in Australia, it was agreed that an independent review should be undertaken by a third party in order to determine a safe level of availability at which to harmonise. It was noted that the review covered theophylline only. The review commissioned by Medsafe had been completed and copies had been forwarded to the NDPSC for consideration at its November meeting. Members considered the material presented in the expert report which suggested that theophylline was not suitable for OTC sale. It was noted, however, that the report did not address the possibility of sale as restricted medicine. Nor did it differentiate between theophylline in higher doses for the treatment of asthma and low-dose preparations as bronchodilators in cough medicines. Some members questioned whether the scope of the paper was sufficiently broad to address the public health and safety issues required for classification recommendations. The Committee acknowledged the narrow therapeutic window of theophylline and the potential for adverse effects but doubted that there was sufficient evidence to justify removing products from the OTC market. Pharmacists agreed that products containing theophylline were sold in large volumes in winter months. There was discussion around whether or not products were effective at the levels contained in cough preparations, and whether adverse effects could be expected at these levels. While the expert report stated that adverse reactions including, cardiac arrhythmias, could occur within the therapeutic range, it also stated that these were not likely to be life-threatening with standard doses. The report also pointed out that theophylline had been available OTC for several decades which presumed that it had not been recognised as an important cause of adverse effects. However, the Committee recognised the difficulty obtaining reliable adverse reaction data about OTC products. Overall, members felt that the information contained in the report did not justify the removal of cough products containing liquid theophylline from the OTC market. Because of the narrow therapeutic index, the potential safety concerns and the need for advice on the safe and effective use of the medicine, the Committee agreed that a restricted medicine classification would be appropriate. Members were inclined towards their earlier recommendation of a cut-off point of 2% for low-dose cough preparations and a prescription classification for higher concentrations for the treatment of asthma. New Zealand would then harmonise with Australia for cough preparations. Members felt that Australia should be asked to consider classifying liquid theophylline as a prescription medicine when indicated for the treatment of asthma. Liquid aminophylline should be regarded in the same way. It was noted that no company responses had been received during the consultation process. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
6 |
SUBMISSIONS FOR RECLASSIFICATION |
||||||||||
6.1 |
Beclomethasone (Beconase Hayfever, GlaxoWellcome)A recommendation on this company submission had been deferred from the 21st meeting pending further information about a suitable minimum age limit for its use. The current submission was for reclassification from restricted medicine to pharmacy-only medicine for seasonal allergic rhinitis including hayfever for adults 18 years and over. The Committee agreed that there were two aspects to this submission, firstly, whether or not the medicine should move from restricted medicine to pharmacy-only medicine and, secondly, whether the minimum age restriction of 18 years on the sale of the product was appropriate and justifiable. The level of access was discussed first. Members felt that the medicine was safe for sale as a pharmacy-only medicine if its use was over a short duration and it was the only steroid to be taken. They noted that there was no package information about use with other steroids. However, there was considerable concern about long-term and even year-round use of products. Pharmacists observed high sales volumes, particularly in the hay-fever season and not always for adults. While tablets still appeared to be the preferred option for consumers, nasal sprays were gaining in popularity and were likely to become a first-line treatment. Dramatic price reductions of nasal corticosteroids in recent times had made OTC purchase cheaper than obtaining products on prescription and had therefore removed a further element of control and initiated a change in behavioural patterns. The Committee also considered the age restriction of 18 years which the company had proposed for the pharmacy-only product. Members immediately saw an anomaly in that a product could be sold as a restricted medicine to children over twelve years but that an identical product could be sold without pharmacist intervention only to consumers over 18 years of age if it were labelled as a pharmacy-only medicine. Pharmacists saw this as being difficult to monitor and preferred not to have to use an age limit as a means of determining who could purchase a product at a certain level of classification, particularly if the age restriction was different from the 12-year minimum age limit specified in the currently approved data sheet. Members did not feel that the Committee could justify the use of an age limit other than that specified in the approved data sheet as a tool for a change in the level of classification. Consideration was given to the evidence provided by the company to support the proposed over-18-years age restriction. Only one study had been provided on growth velocity and the company had acknowledged the weaknesses of that study. The FDA had concluded that the evidence provided in the study was poor and that there was little or no risk of a reduction in growth velocity. Recent studies in the New England Journal of Medicine were reported as having been conducted mostly with higher doses of beclomethasone than those available for OTC use and having taken place over a period of more than one year. While some decrease in growth was noted it was transient, occurring only over the first year. The Committee concluded that there were issues to be clarified regarding growth and that the whole area of growth velocity with nasal corticosteroids was still under debate. They saw the company proposal of an 18-year age restriction as a safeguard in the event of possible future problems rather than as a limit which could be established from relevant data. Most Committee members were comfortable with the current 12-year age limit as long as the product remained a restricted medicine. This would allow an element of control over the age at which the product was used and also an opportunity for advice to be provided on the duration of use and the use of the medicine with other steroids. They saw sale as restricted medicine as a better way to manage potential risks than a lower classification with a higher age restriction. It was noted that the product was equivalent to restricted medicine in Australia and that the Australians would probably be reluctant to move it to a less restrictive level of accessibility. The Committee agreed by majority vote that beclomethasone nasal spray should retain its current restricted medicine classification on the grounds that this level of classification would best manage any potential risks associated with the medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
6.2 |
Clobetasone butyrate 0.05% cream (Eumovate, GlaxoWellcome)This was a company submission for reclassification from prescription medicine to restricted medicine. As alclometasone dipropionate 0.05% and clobetasone butyrate 0.05% were considered to be of comparable potency, members agreed that the two submissions should be considered together (see agenda item 5.2.1). The Dermatological Society had responded to Medsafe’s request for advice about both medicines. It did not support OTC availability for either product. The Pharmaceutical Society supported reclassification of both medicines but no supporting material was supplied. The Pharmacy Guild indicated support for whatever advice the Dermatological Society provided on both medicines. The Committee considered the company submissions in the light of the Medsafe reports and the advice provided by the Dermatological Society. The Dermatological Society had expressed a number of concerns. It took strong issue with the Committee’s view at the previous meeting that alclometasone was sufficiently safe for OTC sale claiming a range of steroid side-effects including:
The Dermatological Society also expressed concern about the use of these steroids in inappropriate body areas and for inappropriate age groups. It stated that both children and the elderly showed more potent steroid absorption and steroid-induced side-effects. It was also of the opinion that these steroids should not be used on the face, flexural areas and groin which were prone to steroid side-effects. Such use would be beyond control if products were to become available over the counter. A third area of concern to the Dermatological Society related to the ability of pharmacists to diagnose the conditions for which these steroids were appropriate, the possible consequential masking of more serious conditions and the resultant delay in obtaining suitable treatment. The MCC had already expressed concern in these areas and was interested to note that dermatologists had observed such problems even with hydrocortisone. Members agreed that clobetasone butyrate 0.05% and alclometasone dipropionate 0.05% topical preparations were more potent than hydrocortisone 1%. They felt that consumers were already well-served by OTC access to 1% hydrocortisone products and they saw no strong grounds to make more potent products available. If a more potent preparation than 1% hydrocortisone was required then members were of the opinion that medical advice was also required. They agreed that they still had some concerns about the correct use of hydrocortisone and were reluctant to see more potent topical corticosteroids available over the counter. Possible use patterns were considered. Members agreed that there would be a tendency for more potent products to be perceived as being ‘better’ than hydrocortisone thus initiating a trend away from hydrocortisone towards more potent, though not necessarily more appropriate products. One member pointed out that market forces were currently driving the prices for topical corticosteroids down and that consumers would naturally move towards less expensive products if these were available over the counter. Sharing of OTC medicines was acknowledged as being quite common. The Committee did not see these medicines as suitable for use without prior diagnosis. The Committee was informed that the NDPSC took a conservative view towards hydrocortisone and that no application had yet been made for reclassification of clobetasone. However it was noted that the NDPSC had recently recommended that alclometasone 0.05% topical preparations should become S3 (restricted medicine) in Australia. Based on the advice provided by the Dermatological Society about side-effects and potential inappropriate use and on their own concerns about a change in use pattern and the relative potency in relation to OTC hydrocortisone, members agreed that both clobetasone and alclometasone should remain prescription medicines. They agreed that 1% hydrocortisone should be used as a benchmark for the OTC classification of topical corticosteroids for both potency and range of indications. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
7 |
NEW MEDICINES FOR CLASSIFICATION |
||||||||||
7.1 |
Nicotine 1mg lozenges (Nicotinell, Novartis)This was a company submission for classification of a new dose form. The Pharmaceutical Society had supported a restricted medicine classification for this dose form. It claimed that too many child poisonings had occurred with nicotine patches and gum and it was of the opinion that even more were likely to occur with lozenges which could be mistaken for confectionery. The Committee felt that the Pharmaceutical Society should be asked to provide supporting data for such claims. Members could recall only one case of child poisoning which involved a child chewing a patch. Members discussed whether it would be more appropriate to classify nicotine lozenges as general sale medicines in the same way as nicotine gum or as restricted medicine as for the sublingual tablet. Plasma levels appeared to be fairly similar for gum, sublingual tablets and lozenges although the latter two were identified as being easier to swallow. It was generally agreed that nicotine lozenges were unlikely to be a first-line treatment for smoking cessation as subsidised products were likely to be used first. However, they were seen as a useful alternative for those who experienced difficulty using gum or patches. Overall, the Committee agreed that, as it was a new formulation, the lozenge should enter the market at the same level as the sublingual tablet. Very little marketing data was currently available. Members agreed that they would be happy to reconsider the classification at a later date in the light of marketing data. However, they recognised that such data might be slow to accumulate as subsidised products were more likely to be used. As with sublingual tablets, nicotine lozenges should be made available through smoking cessation clinics run under the auspices of appropriate registered health professionals. Members noted the point made by the company that lozenges were more environmentally friendly in that, unlike gum, there was no residue to be disposed of. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
7.2 |
New chemical entities in medicines which have not yet been granted consent to marketThe Committee considered the list of new chemical entities in products for which application had been made for consent to market. Members agreed that, should products containing any of these ingredients be granted consent to market, they should all be classified as prescription medicines. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8 |
HARMONISATION OF NZ AND AUSTRALIAN SCHEDULES |
||||||||||
8.1 |
Outstanding harmonisation issues |
||||||||||
8.1.1 |
Hydrocortisone - harmonisation of pack sizesThe Chairman told the Committee that Australia had relaxed the classification of dermal hydrocortisone products in order to harmonise with the less restrictive level of classification in New Zealand. However, pack sizes for OTC sale in Australia had been 30 grams or 30 millilitres rather than the 15 grams or 15 millilitres permitted for OTC sale in New Zealand. This meant that although the two countries now harmonised on their classification and their permitted cut-off points, they did not harmonise on pack size. He pointed out that the Committee had already addressed the matter of pack sizes available for OTC sale in New Zealand at an earlier meeting and had agreed that these should be increased. A recommendation was postponed pending harmonisation with Australia. The Committee agreed that New Zealand should harmonise with Australia on pack sizes for the sale of OTC hydrocortisone. It was thought that regulatory impact would be minimal as no product currently on the market would be forced to change classification. Companies could market larger OTC pack sizes when they chose subject to a changed medicine notification for the necessary changes to labelling. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8.1.2 |
Pseudoephedrine - harmonisation of pack sizesAlthough New Zealand and Australia had already harmonised on the classification of pseudoephedrine, Australia had recently moved to counter abuse of pseudoephedrine by imposing a pack size limit of 60 on uncompounded pseudoephedrine tablets for OTC sale. The Chairman said that New Zealand was now experiencing the same abuse problems as Australia and that New Zealand should impose the same pack size limits. This would not apply to products where pseudoephedrine was compounded with other active ingredients. It was recognised that the current schedule entry might have to be expressed differently in order to implement this. The Committee agreed that the OTC sale of uncompounded pseudoephedrine tablets or capsules should be limited to 60 dose units. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8.2 |
Recommendations made by the NDPSC to the MCC in February 2000 |
||||||||||
1 |
StaphisagriaReclassify from:
to: As there were no medicines registered in New Zealand containing staphisagria the change would have no regulatory impact. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
2 |
AmidopyrineAmend the current prescription medicine entry to read: Aminophenazone was the rINN. Therefore the New Zealand schedule entry should be changed. There were no products registered in New Zealand so the change would have no regulatory impact. As derivates were listed separately in the schedule, there was no need for the additional wording. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
3 |
Adopt the following as prescription medicines:Abrus precatorius (Jequiry) seed or root The chairman pointed out that these were all Appendix C medicines which were banned in Australia at all strengths. They would be dealt with later on the agenda under the proposal to harmonise the use of low concentration and banned medicines (see agenda item 8.4). |
||||||||||
4 |
ClioquinolAmend the prescription medicine entry to read: The amendment was considered unnecessary as any other derivatives would be specified separately in the schedule. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
5 |
CinchophenAmend the prescription medicine entry to read: The comments concerning the scheduling of derivatives were as for clioquinol. ‘For therapeutic use’ was considered unnecessary. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
6 |
Croton oilReclassify from restricted medicine to prescription medicine as croton tiglium Croton oil was already classified as a prescription medicine. There were no registered products. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
7 |
Reclassify the following from pharmacy-only to prescription medicine:Bithionol These were noted as being Appendix C medicines in Australia. None were contained in registered medicines in New Zealand. The Committee thought they should become prescription medicines in view of their toxicity. They should be dealt with in the same manner as other Appendix C medicines when the harmonisation of low concentration and banned medicines was considered (see agenda item 8.4). It was also noted that these were not included with the medicines listed in item 8.4). Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8 |
SymphytumAdopt symphytum spp (comfrey) for dermal use as a general sale
medicine This was also an Appendix C medicine but was unscheduled in New Zealand. There had been considerable response from the complementary medicines sector over this recommendation. Medsafe had agreed that a recommendation should not be made with regard to a classification status for this medicine until there had been further consultation to establish whether there was a level at which internal use of symphytum was safe for general sale. It was agreed that the matter should be returned to the agenda for the next meeting when consideration could be given to information provided by interested bodies. |
||||||||||
9 |
EupatoriumAdopt eupatorium cannabinum (hemp agrimony) as a prescription medicine. There had also been response from the complementary medicines sector over this recommendation. The Committee agreed that further information should be sought as for symphytum. |
||||||||||
10 |
PhenolphthaleinReclassify from pharmacy-only to prescription medicine. Although most products had been discontinued, there were still 4 pharmacy-only products on the New Zealand market which would be forced from the market if they were to become prescription medicines. Three of these appeared to be laxatives and one to be for bowel cleansing. In view of the evidence that phenolphthalein was a carcinogen, the Committee agreed to the recommended reclassification (A further recommendation was received from the NDPSC in May 2000. See 8.c.2) Recommendation
|
||||||||||
11 |
Reclassify from pharmacy-only to general sale:
|
||||||||||
12 |
Cyanocobalamin, hydroxocobalaminDelete the pharmacy-only entries from the schedule. These were currently pharmacy-only in medicines containing more than 50mcg per recommended daily dose. This level had been set to be consistent with the Dietary Supplement Regulations. These regulations were currently under revision and the Ministry Food Section had indicated support for the removal of these from the schedule. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
13 |
Acetomenaphthone, menadiol, phytomenadioneDelete the pharmacy-only entries from the schedule. These were all noted as types of Vitamin K. The Committee was informed that nutritional replacement preparations for parenteral administration were exempt from scheduling in Australia. As most of the products registered in New Zealand were for either injection or infusion, the Secretary explained that their removal from the schedule would not result in harmonisation until the matter of how New Zealand scheduled injectables had been resolved. The following course of action was agreed upon: Recommendation
|
||||||||||
14 |
Plasma volume expandersDelete the following from the schedule:
The Committee was informed that, as for parenteral nutritional replacement preparations, plasma volume expanders were also exempt from scheduling in Australia. Members agreed that Medsafe should harmonise these in the same way as for parenteral nutritional replacement preparations by removing them from the schedule and by resolving the problem related to the scheduling of injectable medicines in New Zealand. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
15 |
Acids and caustic poisonsDelete the following from the schedule:
These were all classified as pharmacy-only medicines. Sodium hydroxide had long been a problem in maintaining a higher-than-necessary classification for a wide range of medicines in which it was not an active ingredient. Medsafe foresaw no potential problems for those products in which sodium hydroxide was the active ingredient to be available as general sale medicines. New Zealand had no registered products containing formic acid, hippuric acid or trichloroacetic acid. The Pharmaceutical Society did not support the removal of trichloroacetic acid from the schedule. Although there were no approved products containing trichloroactic acid, it was thought that the raw chemical was used for therapeutic purposes such as skin peeling and the removal of tattoos. Members felt that more information was necessary and that the matter should be revisited at the next meeting. The Pharmaceutical Society should be requested to provide evidence to support it’s opinion, not only for this case but also on all future occasions. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
16 |
Topical drugs used for scalp disordersDelete jaborandi as a pharmacy-only medicine The New Zealand prescription medicine entry for pilocarpine was noted as being already harmonised. New Zealand had only eye products. None of these contained less than 0.5%. Members noted that Martindale did not refer to a topical use of pilocarpine for scalp disorders. The Committee noted that there was no reference to jaborandi in Martindale and that there were no products registered in New Zealand containing jaborandi. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
17 |
PiroctoneDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. Piroctone was noted as being a pharmacy-only medicine in products containing more than 1%. All products on the New Zealand market contained less than this. Therefore there would be no regulatory impact in deleting the entry. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
18 |
ThioxoloneDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that New Zealand had no registered products containing thioxolone. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
19 |
Isopropyl alcoholDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. Isopropyl alcohol was classified as a pharmacy-only medicine when in uncompounded medicines for external use. It was noted as being contained as an active ingredient in only 4 products all of which were general sale. There was one pending application for consent to market for an ear drop which would move from pharmacy-only to general sale if it received consent to market. The Pharmaceutical Society did not support the NDPSC recommendation on the grounds that isopropyl alcohol was used to prepare illicit controlled drugs. However, this was not a therapeutic use as defined in the medicines legislation and was therefore not within the terms of reference of the Committee. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
20 |
PhenoxyethanolDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. Phenoxyethanol was currently classified as pharmacy-only in medicines containing more than 2%. There were no products registered in New Zealand in this category. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
21 |
Broxaldine, BroxyquinolineAdd to the schedule as prescription medicines. These were both noted as having pharmacy-only entries. There were no longer any products registered in New Zealand containing these ingredients. Nor was there any reference to either in Martindale. They were not scheduled in Australia. Members saw no need for their entries to be maintained in the schedule. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
22 |
FluoresceinDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. The Committee noted that there were two eye drop solutions and a sterile impregnated eye strip which would go to general sale if the recommendation were implemented. Members were happy for these to change. However, there were also two solutions for injection into the eye which would move to general sale if the entry for injectables was moved from the schedule. This was not considered to be appropriate. Even though the injections were currently pharmacy-only, the Committee felt there should be a prescription medicine entry for fluorescein for injection. Members felt that in the interest of the harmonisation of most injectable products as prescription medicines, the NDPSC should be asked to make a similar prescription medicine entry for fluorescein. As such a recommendation would result in an outcome other than that contained in the initial proposal, it would be necessary to add the matter to the agenda of the following meeting so that the normal consultation process could be undertaken. It would also be necessary to delay the removal of the pharmacy-only entry for fluorescein until the classification of the eye injections was finalised. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
23 |
MagentaDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. There were no products registered in New Zealand containing magenta. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
24 |
Methylene blueDelete the pharmacy-only entry and make a new prescription medicine entry for methylene blue for injection. Baxter, the only supplier of an injectable form, had indicated its support for the change to prescription medicine. It was noted that two tablet presentations would move to general sale. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
25 |
Krameria, tannic acidDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. There were no products registered in New Zealand containing either of these. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
26 |
BentiromideDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. There were no products registered in New Zealand containing bentiromide. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
27 |
ThiomersalDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule as thiomersal was covered by the entries for mercury. It was noted that thiomersal was used only as a preservative. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
28 |
Propamidine, dibromopropamidineDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. Dibromopropamidine was general sale except for eye preparations. It was noted that two eye preparations and a topical cream would move to general sale. Propamidine was also contained in eye preparations. It was noted that the Pharmaceutical Society did not support the NDPSC recommendation where eye preparations were concerned on the grounds that, as these were anti-infective agents, a diagnosis was required before treatment was commenced. The Committee recalled that management of red-eye had been discussed on other occasions and members had agreed that access to professional advice was necessary. This opinion was upheld. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
29 |
IchthammolDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. The Committee noted that ichthammol was currently pharmacy-only in medicines containing more than 10%. As there were no products registered in New Zealand containing more than 10%, the change would have no regulatory impact. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
30 |
Theobromine, calcium salicylateDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. There were no products registered in New Zealand containing either of these medicines. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
31 |
Camphor, ammoniatedDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. There were no products registered in New Zealand containing ammoniated camphor and no reference to it in Martindale. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
32 |
Capsicum oleo-resinDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. This is was noted as being a pharmacy-only medicine when for external use in products containing more than 1%. There were no such products registered in New Zealand. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
33 |
Chromium oxide, Stannous chloride, Stannous oxideDelete the pharmacy-only entries from the schedule. The Committee noted that the only product containing one of these was Aci Gel vaginal gel containing stannous chloride. As this product had already been wrongly classified as a general sale medicine there would be no regulatory impact. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
34 |
LoperamideMake a new schedule entry for loperamide as a prescription medicine when for injection. Amend the pharmacy-only entry accordingly. The Committee noted that loperamide was only used orally and they saw no need for a classification for a route of administration which was not used. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
35 |
Irrigation medicinesDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. The Committee could see no safety reason to keep this generic entry. Members agreed that the ingredients of these products should ensure their appropriate classification. The recommendation had been supported by Baxter. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
36 |
MonoacetinDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
37 |
Nitrous ether spiritDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. The Pharmaceutical Society did not support the NDPSC recommendation on the grounds that the substance was used to produce homebake. However, the Committee agreed that this was not a therapeutic purpose and was therefore not relevant to its recommendation. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
38 |
OxerutinsDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained oxerutins. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
39 |
SucralfateDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that the Alsucral range of products would move to general sale. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
40 |
Hydroiodic acid, iodic acidDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained these medicines. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
41 |
ScillarinsDelete the pharmacy-only entry for scillarins. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained scillarins. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
42 |
Sodium iodideDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule as it was covered by the iodine entry. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
43 |
FelbinacAdopt a prescription medicine entry for use other than external
and amend the pharmacy-only entry to external use only. As felbinac was used only in topical preparations, the Committee saw no need for a prescription entry. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
44 |
EtofenamateAdopt a prescription medicine entry for use other than external and amend the pharmacy-only entry to external use only. Members noted that etofenemate had been used in injectable form though not in New Zealand. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
45 |
SalsalateDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that Disalcid 500mg capsules would become general sale medicines. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
46 |
Sodium salicylateDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that one shampoo product would move to general sale. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
47 |
HexamidineDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule It was noted that three products would move to general sale. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
48 |
BoronDelete the pharmacy-only entries for boric acid and sodium
perborate.
The Committee noted that the current New Zealand cut-off point for general sale was 2% for both boric acid and sodium perborate. There was no New Zealand schedule entry for boron. It appeared that the NDPSC recommendation was for boron to become a prescription medicine except for antifungal preparations and dermal preparations containing 0.15% or less. There did not appear to be a limit set on the concentration permitted in antifungal products for general sale even though these could be dermal products for which a concentration of 0.15% seemed to apply. It was thought that the Australian recommendation was rather confusing. It could be expressed more clearly by making boron a prescription medicine and specifying any exceptions rather than by listing all inclusions. There had been strong response from the complementary health sector about this recommendation which would prevent the continued use of elemental boron in dietary supplements. The Committee thought that the information provided in the TGA review of boron was not recent and dealt with the more toxic boron salts, boric acid and borax rather than with elemental boron. On the other hand, members felt that the National Nutritional Foods Association had made a good case for use of boron as a dietary supplement by providing a draft of a UK Review of Boron conducted in 1999 by the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. The Committee agreed that no recommendation should be made to change the New Zealand schedule entries for boric acid and sodium perborate at this time. The NDPSC should be asked to review its recommendation in the light of information contained in the UK draft Review of Boron. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
49 |
Picric acidDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. The Pharmaceutical Society did not support the NDPSC recommendation because of the explosive nature of this product should it dry out. The Committee agreed that control of this aspect of a chemical should be dealt with under other legislation. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
50 |
OxiconazoleMake a new prescription medicine entry ‘except for dermal or
vaginal use’. The Committee agreed that, as there were only dermal and vaginal uses for oxiconazole, a prescription entry was unnecessary. They noted that there were no vaginal products registered in New Zealand. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
51 |
DiamthazoleReclassify from pharmacy-only to prescription medicine. As there were no products registered in either country, the change would have no regulatory impact. There was no longer a reference in Martindale as diamthazole had been superseded by safer antifungals. The Committee questioned the justification to accept a more restrictive classification and the continued need for schedule entries. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
52 |
BromelainsDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained bromelains. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
53 |
Calcium hypochloriteDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
54 |
Ribonuclease, deoxyribonuclease (for external use)Delete the pharmacy-only entries from the schedule. The prescription medicine entry for deoxyribonuclease had already been harmonised. Members noted that ribonuclease was not an active ingredient and did not need to be scheduled. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
55 |
DextranomerDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no longer any products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
56 |
SolcoscerylDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. It was noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained this medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
57 |
Vitamin DAmend the prescription medicine entry to read: in medicines for internal use containing more than 25 mcg per recommended daily dose. The Committee noted that the current entry did not specify internal use though it was implied by the use of the words ‘daily dose’. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
58 |
ColecalciferolDelete the prescription medicine entry from the schedule. It is covered by the vitamin D entry. The Committee agreed that the same argument could be applied to all the other vitamin D substances named individually in the schedule. However, it was not appropriate for some of these, such as alphacalcidiol and calcitriol to be classified as other than prescription medicines. Members thought a more logical approach would be to remove the vitamin D entry from the schedule so as not to catch those forms which are not intended for general sale at 25 micrograms or less per recommended daily dose. However, they saw this as a possible source of confusion and felt that both the colecalciferol and vitamin D entries should remain. The entry for ergocalciferol currently harmonised with that for colecalciferol and it was agreed that this should continue. Members agreed that Australia should be asked to harmonise on the New Zealand position for the classification of vitamin D substances. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
59 |
RetinolDelete the prescription medicine entry. in preparations containing more than 3000mcg retinol equivalents per recommended daily dose. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
60 |
IronDelete the current pharmacy-only entry and replace with:
Make a new prescription medicine entry for iron in preparations for injection. There had been considerable response to this recommendation from both industry and the complementary health sector. The Committee agreed that these responses supported their view that the New Zealand classification was in line with international trends regarding a maximum recommended daily dose for iron. There appeared to be no substantial safety reasons to justify limiting doses to 5 milligrams or 0.1% for general sale. A number of other countries regulated iron by using a maximum recommended daily dose as a cut-off point for general sale. The New Zealand limit fell well with the international range. Members felt that the NDPSC should be asked to harmonise with New Zealand on this matter. The Committee agreed, that, in the interest of harmonising injectable medicines, iron for injection would be more appropriately classified as a prescription medicine. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
61 |
CopperDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. The Committee noted that all products containing copper which were registered in New Zealand were general sale medicines. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
62 |
Hydrogen peroxideDelete the pharmacy-only entry from the schedule. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
63 |
IsopropamideAdopt the following pharmacy-only entry:
It was noted that there were no longer any products registered in New Zealand which contained isopropamide. It was also noted that the prescription medicine entry would need to be amended accordingly. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8.3 |
Recommendations made by the NDPSC to the MCC May 2000 |
||||||||||
1 |
Formaldehyde, paraformaldehydeAmend the current pharmacy-only entries to:
The Committee noted that there were no products registered in New Zealand which contained paraformaldehyde. Formaldehyde was only recorded as being an active ingredient in one product, a Rawleigh’s mouthwash, which would move to general sale. Most other products were excpients in injections, the classification of which was controlled by the active ingredient. The bracketed reference to derivatives was considered unnecessary as derivatives were scheduled separately in the New Zealand schedule and were not covered by the introductory statement. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
2 |
PhenolphthaleinReclassify from pharmacy-only to prescription medicine. This recommendation had been discussed earlier on the agenda (see agenda item 8.2.10) The Committee noted that the FDA had produced evidence that phenolphthalein was carcinogenic. Four products registered in New Zealand would be affected by the change. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
3 |
Macrogol 3350Adopt as a restricted medicine for oral bowel cleansing purposes. The Committee noted that macrogols was the rINN for polyethylene glycols. These were not scheduled in New Zealand. As macrogol 4000 was also used for bowel cleansing, members felt it should be included in the entry. The wording should be as for sodium phosphate. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
8.4 |
Low concentration and banned medicinesThe Committee discussed the Medsafe proposal to harmonise with Australia by allowing a general exemption from scheduling in the cover statement to the schedule for all medicines containing 10 milligrams or less per litre or per kilogram. To harmonise totally with Australia it would be necessary to include specific entries in the New Zealand schedule for all medicines that were scheduled as Appendix G medicines in Australia, that is, for all medicines for which Australia required a different cut-off point from that in the general exemption. Also in order to harmonise, members saw that it would be necessary for banned, or Appendix C medicines in Australia to be annotated in the New Zealand schedule to the effect that they were classified as prescription medicines at all strengths. The Committee agreed in principle to harmonise with Australia on a general exemption for low-concentration medicines and with the scheduling of Appendix G and C medicines but felt that Medsafe should work out the details of how this should best be implemented. Members thought that there needed to be clarity and uniformity about whether medicines derived from plants should be scheduled according to individual plant names or according to the active ingredient derived from the relevant plant or plants. A preference was expressed for use of the active ingredient. It was agreed that any Appendix G or C medicines which had been subject to comment during the consultation process should be withheld from inclusion into the schedule until further information had been obtained about safe levels for general sale use. The medicines in question were: symphytum, tussilago eupatorium cannabium, farfara, acorus calamus, borago officinalis, amygdalin, juniperus sabina, petastes, pteridium and senecio. These were all banned (Appendix C) medicines. Complementary medicines bodies should be given a specific date by which to respond with details of the maximum concentrations they wished to use for these medicines and safety data to support this. No comments had been received about Australian Appendix G medicines for which a lower concentration had been set than the normal exemption of 10 milligrams per litre or per kilogram. The Committee also agreed that it would be open to reviewing the restrictions placed on any of the Australian Appendix G or C medicines if safety data were provided to justify a change to their level of classification. Recommendation
|
||||||||||
9 |
FOR THE NEXT MEETINGAgenda items for 2001 Inhaled salbutamol and terbutaline Emergency contraceptive pill Trichloroacetic acid to determine whether there are grounds for
it to remain a pharmacy-only medicine. Fluorescein for reclassification to prescription medicine for
injection Medicines Banned in Australia but used in complementary health
products in New Zealand
Paracetamol: possible pack size reduction for general sale. |
||||||||||
10 |
GENERAL BUSINESS |
||||||||||
10.1 |
ParacetamolUK pack size reduction On several earlier occasions the Committee had discussed the effect that a reduction on pack sizes might have on paracetamol poisonings. There had been general agreement that intentional poisonings usually involved between one and two packs and that a reduction in poisonings could follow if pack sizes were reduced for general sale presentations. The Committee had been aware of a British study under way to investigate this and had decided to await the results of that study. Results had since been published in the Lancet in June 20002. The Committee agreed that the matter of whether or not New Zealand general sale pack sizes should be reduced should be opened to consultation and should be considered at the next meeting. |
||||||||||
10.2 |
Consultation paper for the Joint Agency Project with AustraliaThis paper had been provided to members of all ministerial advisory committees for their information. The Chairman gave a brief update on progress since the publication of the paper. |
||||||||||
10.3 |
Contracts for servicesThe Secretary asked that these be signed and returned as soon as possible so that members could be reimbursed for services to the Committee. |
The meeting ended at 4:10pm
References
1. Martindale The Complete Drug Reference 32nd
edition p1016
2. Reduction in the Incidence of Paracetamol Poisoning,
The Lancet, Vol 355, June 2000