Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drug compounding for veterinary patients

  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drugs have been compounded for veterinary practice for many years because it has been necessary in the course of routine practice. However, regulations and compliance policy guidelines (CPGs) should be recognized. A new CPG issued in July 2003 listed the current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limitations on compounding for veterinary medicine. To summarize the guideline: drugs must not be compounded from bulk substances, and the compounding must not constitute, manufacture of a new animal drug. Drug compounding on a case-by-case basis is allowed under the CPG. However, veterinarians and pharmacists must be aware of potential incompatibilities and practices that may interfere with the drug's stability, purity, and/or potency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Good compounding practices. In:The United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary, USP 28, NF 23. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc; 2005:2620–2457.

    Google Scholar 

  2. FDA-CVM. FDA/CVM's Compliance policy guide on compounding of drugs.J. Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996;209:2025–2029.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Symposium on Compounding in Veterinary Medicine.J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993;205:189–303.

    Google Scholar 

  4. FDA-CVM. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Compounding of Drugs for Use in Animals. Compliance Policy Guide: Compliance Policy Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry. Ch 6, sub ch 600, §608.400. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/compound.htm. Accessed July 2003.

  5. JAVMA. Animal drugs seized.J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999;214:21.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis J. Compounding for creatures: what works.Int J Pharm Comp. 1999;3:182–187.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Graham JP, Lipman AH, Newell SM, Roberts GD. Esophageal transit of capsules in clinically normal cats.Am J Vet Res. 2000;61:655–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Westfall DS, Twedt DC, Steyn PF., Oberhauser EB, VanCleave JW. Evaluation of esophageal transit of tablets and capsules in 30 cats.J Vet Intern Med. 2001;15:467–470.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlborg B, Densert O. Esophageal lesions caused by orally administered drugs: an experimental study in the cat.Eur Surg Res. 1980;12:270–282.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Carlborg B, Densert O, Lindqvist C. Tetracycline induced esophagcal ulcers: a clinical and experimental study.Laryngoscope. 1983;93:184–187.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Stability considerations in dispensing practice. In:The United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary, USP 28, NF 23. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc; 2005:2727–2730.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nieto JE, Spier S, Pipers FS, et al., Comparison of paste and suspension formulations of omeprazole in the healing of gastric ulcers in racehorses in active training.J Am Vet Med Assoc, 2002;221:1139–1143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grass GM, Sinko PJ. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic simulation modelling.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54:433–451.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Martinez M, Amidon G, Clarke L, Jones WW, Mitra A, Riviere J. Applying the biopharmaceutics classification system to veterinary pharmaceutical products. Part II. Physiological considerations.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54:825–850.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Martinez M, Augsburger L, Johnston T, Jones WW. Applying the biopharmaceutics classification system to veterinary pharmaceutical products. Part I. Biopharmaceutics and formulation considerations.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002:54:805–824.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Amidon GL, Lennernas H, Shah VP, Crison JR. A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutics drug classification: the correlation ofin vitro drug product dissolution andin vivo bioavailability.Pharm Res. 1995;12:413–420.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kararli TT. Comparison of the gastrointestinal anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of humans and commonly used laboratory animals.Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1995;16:351–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dressman JB. Comparison of canine and human gastrointestinal physiology.Pharm Res. 1986;3:123–131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin JH. Species similarities and differences in pharmacokinetics.Drug Metab Dispos. 1995;23:1008–1021.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chiou WL, Jeong HY, Chung SM, Wu TC. Evaluation of using dog as an animal model to study the fraction of oral dose absorbed of 43 drugs in humans.Pharm Res. 2000;17:135–140.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sabnis S. Factors influencing the bioavailability of peroral formulations of drugs for dogs.Vet Res Commun. 1999;23:425–447.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee DD, Papich MG, Hardie EM. Comparison of pharmacokinetics of fentanyl after intravenous and transdermal administration in cats.Am J Vet Res. 2000;61:672–677.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kyles AE, Papich MG, Hardie EM. Disposition of transdermally administered fentanyl in dogs.Am J Vet Res. 1996;57:715–719.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kyles AE, Hardie EM, Hansen BD, Papich MG Comparison of transdermal fentanyl and intramuscular oxymorphone on post-operative behaviour after ovariohysterectomy in dogs.Res Vet Sci. 1998;65:245–251.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Riviere JE, Papich MG. Potential, and problems of developing transdermal patches for veterinary applications.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;50:175–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nolan TR, Davidson G, Webster K, Pharmacokinetics of transdermal diltiazem in cats [abstract 25]. Paper presented at: North Carolina State Research Forum; May 2002; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hoffman SB, Yoder AR, Trepanier LA. Bioavailability of transdermal methimazole in a pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO) in healthy cats.J Vet Pharmacol Therap. 2002;25:189–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bennett N, Papich MG, Hoenig M, Fettman MJ, Lappin MR. Evaluation of transdermal application of glipizide in a pluronic lecithin gel to healthy cats.Am J Vet Res. 2005;66:581–588.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ciribassi J, Luescher A, Pasloske KS, Robertson-Plouch C, Zimmerman A, Kaloostian-Whittymore L. Comparative bioavailability of fluoxetine after transdermal and oral administration to healthy cats.Am J Vet Res. 2003;64:994–998.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Trepanier LA. Transdermal formulations: which ones are effective? ACVIM Annual Forum Proceedings; June 2002; American College of Veterinary Medicine. 463–464.

  31. Sartor LL, Trepanier LA, Kroll MM, Rodan I, Challoner L. Efficacy and safety of transdermal methimazole in the treatment of cats with hyperthyroidism.J Vet Intern Med. 2004.18(5):651–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoffman G, Marks SL, Taboada J, et al. Topical methimazole treatment of cats with hyperthyroidism.J Vet Intern Med. 2001;15:299.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mealey KL, Peck KE, Bennett BS, et al. Systemic absorption of amitriptyline and buspirone after oral and transdermal administration to healthy cats.J Vet Intern Med. 2004; 18(1):43–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Willis-Goulet HS, Schmidt BA, Nicklin CF, et al. Comparison of serum dexamethasone concentrations in cats after oral or transdermal administration using pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO): a pilot study.Vet Dermatol. 2003;14:83–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Pharmaceutical compounding. In: The United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary, USP 28, NF 23. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention Inc; 2005:<795>, <797>,<1075>.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diplomate American College of Veterinary Clinical Pharmacology, North Corolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, 4700 Hillsborough Street, 27606, Raleigh, NC

    Mark G. Papich

Authors
  1. Mark G. Papich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark G. Papich.

Additional information

Published: September 22, 2005.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Papich, M.G. Drug compounding for veterinary patients. AAPS J 7, 29 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj070229

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj070229

Keywords

Search

Navigation