The below link is about desic­ca­ted thy­roid shor­ta­ges, and I find it inte­res­ting that both Qua­li­test and Time Cap gene­rics are now discontinued.….

http://www.ashp.org/Import/PRACTICEANDPOLICY/PracticeResourceCenters/DrugShortages/GettingStarted/CurrentShortages/Bulletin.aspx?id=459

Thanks to thy­roid patient Kathryn for aler­ting me to this by pos­ting on another post below. And by the way, I wouldn’t rush to the conc­lu­sion that any of this means desic­ca­ted thy­roid is slowly being pha­sed out.   Shor­ta­ges are pro­bably more a reflec­tion of the demand for desic­ca­ted thy­roid by an ever-growing popu­la­tion fin­ding out about it and being presc­ri­bed it…thanks to a resoun­ding patient move­ment where patients found out how mise­ra­ble they’ve really been on T4.  And the gene­rics weren’t very popu­lar in the first place due to being less strong.

*See today’s first post below.


  • Want to keep track of these “fringe web­site” blog posts? ;-) Curious what’s on Janie’s mind? Use the noti­fi­ca­tion on the lower left of the links, called a News­let­ter, or an RSS Feed.
  • The extre­mely hip and sophis­ti­ca­ted STTM t-shirts are half price! Great BUMPER STICKERS, too. Spread the word – YOU may make a dif­fe­rence in someone’s life.
  • Check out the patient-to-patient book with even more detail (and which doc­tors seem to res­pect more than websites).
  • Need to unders­tand all your best options for thy­roid treat­ment? Go here.
  • Keep infor­med of each live Thy­roid Patient Com­mu­nity Call on Talkshoe by sig­ning up as a follo­wer.

4 Responses to “Thyroid Tidbit: about shortages of desiccated thyroid”

  1. Courtney said:

    Jun 01, 09 at 4:38 pm

    Why does the article state that these pro­ducts aren’t FDA appro­ved? My unders­tan­ding is that they were grand­fathe­red in because the treat­ment was already in place when the FDA star­ted their testing/approval pro­cess. Are the large phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies using the FDA to force makers of des­si­ca­ted thy­roid out of busi­ness by requi­ring appro­val of what has been a grand­fathe­red in pro­duct? It would make sense, since the cost of pro­ducts like armour tend to be less expen­sive than the synthe­tic phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals and the big phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals can’t make money on a pro­duct that they can’t patent. Their new drugs aren’t making them as much money and des­si­ca­ted thy­roid is com­pe­ti­tion, so if you can’t com­pete with des­si­ca­ted thy­roid, get it elimated?

  2. Janie said:

    Jun 01, 09 at 6:04 pm

    The follo­wing is from http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2007/ucm076574.htm:

    The grand­father clau­ses have been cons­trued very narrowly by the courts and drug pro­ducts on the mar­ket would not be entit­led to grand­father sta­tus if they dif­fe­red from the pre­vious ver­sion in some res­pect, such as for­mu­la­tion, dosage or strength, dosage form, route of admi­nis­tra­tion, indi­ca­tions, or inten­ded patient popu­la­tion. Only drugs that are, at a mini­mum, iden­ti­cal in for­mu­la­tion and con­di­tions of use as their pre­de­ces­sor pre 1938 or 1962 drugs, can be grand­fathe­red. For addi­tio­nal infor­ma­tion con­cer­ning grand­father sta­tus, please see 21 C.F.R. § 314.200(e)(2) and the appen­dix of our Com­pliance Policy Guide Mar­ke­ted Unap­pro­ved Drugs at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6911fnl.htm, lines 323 – 329.

    Further, it is FDA’s view that com­pa­nies clai­ming that their pro­ducts are grand­fathe­red bear res­pon­si­bi­lity to fully docu­ment their pro­ducts’ grand­fathe­red sta­tus. Any com­pany mar­ke­ting pro­ducts on this basis should have avai­la­ble docu­men­ta­tion to demons­trate the mar­ket pre­sence of the pro­duct prior to the enact­ment of the new drug requi­re­ments that were esta­blished in 1938 and 1962.

    From Janie: There are many artic­les on the net which refer to Armour as a grand­fathe­red drug. There are some artic­les which say the oppo­site. But wha­te­ver the ans­wer is, you can be assu­red that the makers of Armour and other desic­ca­ted thy­roid pro­ducts follow the Uni­ted Sta­tes Phar­ma­co­peia (USP)’s Good
    Manu­fac­tu­ring Prac­ti­ces for Drug Pro­ducts and Exci­pients, which ensu­res qua­lity and con­sis­tency from one bottle to the next, and “meets the label or cer­ti­fi­cate of analy­sis claims for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, strength, purity, and quality.”

  3. Monica "Teajunkie" Koziol said:

    Jun 06, 09 at 9:47 pm

    Since May 15, 2009 I had been calling for my Armour refill: 2 – 2 grain tabs plus one to two 1/2 grain tabs one to two times a day — I was given only one grain and was told to take it once a day. This was a huge mis­take made by the doc­tor who over­sees the work of the NPR and PA-C. Every other day the assis­tant to the Pa-C said she called in the correc­ted amount while clai­ming that “the phar­macy at Walgreen’s is a lower class of phar­ma­cists who pro­bably did not unders­tand her “orders” for 90 and 30″ [60mg were una­vai­la­ble, accor­ding to the phar­ma­cists]. The phar­macy telepho­ned Forest Labs and it was con­fir­med that there was a “back-log” of orders. The PA-C told me that all this meant was that “Armour is an unpo­pu­lar thy­roid medi­cine” and not as use­ful as my claims since I am at 180mg. This indi­ca­ted to me that they were una­ble to fill the many orders that were neces­sary for patients, this meant to me that more peo­ple were catching on — and of course she still did not unders­tand its bene­fits even admit­ting she did not know how to dose Armour!

    I am, finally, slowly get­ting back my life after being on Armour for almost a year, as oppo­sed to being func­tio­nally hypothy­roid with all of its insi­dious affects for many years! What is addi­tio­nally taxing to my ner­vous sys­tem is that the PA-C who was admi­nis­te­ring Armour has now clai­med that I am at my limit of 180 mg. per day. This she says is because the FDA has pla­ced limits on Armour. I said: “Come on.” And she said: “I’m not going to argue with you” giving me only enough meds for two months. Of course I knew bet­ter but telepho­ned the FDA just to hear a ratio­nal expla­na­tion and maybe that I was right. Any­way, I spoke with Larry Lim who assu­res me that this is “false infor­ma­tion” and that the FDA does not become invol­ved with limi­ting phy­si­cians’ abi­lity to treat their patients when it comes to Armour.

    My thought is that the PA-C who said last June 19, 08, she would presc­ribe Armour for me, is now fin­ding crea­tive ways to dis­cou­rage me from taking this highly valued medi­cine, bioi­den­ti­cal sup­ple­ment and/or repla­ce­ment the­rapy to which my body is just now beco­ming accustomed.

    This, in my view is against the oath of “First, Do No Harm”; and I am again loo­king for a true care prac­ti­tio­ner who unders­tands this disease and knows how to treat it, and me!

  4. gina said:

    Jun 08, 09 at 6:33 am

    Monica, you might ask your PA the follo­wing ques­tion. If the “FDA has pla­ced limits on Armour”, somehow limi­ting your dosage to “180 mg. per day”, then why is it avai­la­ble in single-tablet strengths up to 5 grains (300 mgs.)?

    [Attn Janie: Monica’s post appears twice.] (Thanks Gina.)


Leave a Reply


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!