Beyond-use date: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 61 → 62·01:52, 17 Dec 2025
Difference between revision 61 and revision 62 of Beyond-use date. 4 lines changed; the page grew by 969 bytes.
| Revision 61 — 00:42, 8 Dec 2025 TirzTaxonomist (talk) add see also 22,139 bytes ±0 | Revision 62 — 01:52, 17 Dec 2025 ApoB_Aurelio (talk) cite the trial publication rather than the press release 23,108 bytes +969 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | For reconstituted research peptides the recording problem is compounded by the labelling problem discussed at [[Vial|vial]]: a vial that carries no manufacturer label offers nowhere obvious to write, and a vial whose contents are identified only by a discarded outer package cannot be annotated meaningfully at all. Community practice of marking the closure or the ferrule with the reconstitution date is the common workaround and is recorded here as practice rather than recommended.{{r|ppbud}} | 130 | For reconstituted research peptides the recording problem is compounded by the labelling problem discussed at [[Vial|vial]]: a vial that carries no manufacturer label offers nowhere obvious to write, and a vial whose contents are identified only by a discarded outer package cannot be annotated meaningfully at all. Community practice of marking the closure or the ferrule with the reconstitution date is the common workaround and is recorded here as practice rather than recommended.{{r|ppbud}} |
| 131 | 131 | ||
| + | 132 | Terminology on labels is a further source of confusion. Manufactured products carry ''EXP'' or ''Expiry'', compounded preparations carry ''BUD'' or ''Discard after'', and the two are visually similar and semantically different. Where a compounder relabels a manufactured product — repackaging into a smaller container, for instance — the resulting label carries a beyond-use date and the original expiration date is no longer applicable, a transition that [[Repackaging|repackaging]] practice is required to make explicit.{{r|usp795,usp1191}} | |
| + | 133 | ||
| 132 | == Terminology and the conflation problem == | 134 | == Terminology and the conflation problem == |
| 133 | The two kinds of date are conflated pervasively, and the conflation is not merely pedantic to correct, because the two respond differently to the questions readers ask. | 135 | The two kinds of date are conflated pervasively, and the conflation is not merely pedantic to correct, because the two respond differently to the questions readers ask. |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ||
| 140 | 142 | ||
| 141 | The convention adopted on this wiki after a 2026 request for comment is that ''expiration date'' is used only for manufacturer dating supported by a stability programme; ''beyond-use date'' for dating assigned by a compounder, dispenser or user; and ''in-use period'' for a manufacturer-specified period after first use or reconstitution, which is a third thing again — it is manufacturer dating, supported by stability data, but applying to an opened container.{{r|ppbud}} | 143 | The convention adopted on this wiki after a 2026 request for comment is that ''expiration date'' is used only for manufacturer dating supported by a stability programme; ''beyond-use date'' for dating assigned by a compounder, dispenser or user; and ''in-use period'' for a manufacturer-specified period after first use or reconstitution, which is a third thing again — it is manufacturer dating, supported by stability data, but applying to an opened container.{{r|ppbud}} |
| + | 144 | ||
| + | 145 | That third category is where most of the residual confusion sits. The 56-day in-use period on a semaglutide pen and the 28-day default on an unpreserved reconstituted vial look superficially alike and rest on entirely different evidence: one is a labelled claim from a stability programme, the other a borrowed convention. The distinction is developed at [[Temperature excursion]] and at [[Multi-dose vial]].{{r|ppbud}} | |
| 142 | 146 | ||
| 143 | == References == | 147 | == References == |