The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7473 p391
13 October 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

No need to restrict pseudoephedrine sales to pharmacists, Society says

It is not necessary for the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine to be made by pharmacists personally, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society decided at its October Council meeting last week.

The decision is at odds with a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recommendation that such sales should be made only by a pharmacist (PJ, 1 September 2007, p221).

The MHRA recommended restrictions on the sale and pack size of these decongestant products after consultation on its proposal to reclassify pseudoephedrine- and ephedrine- containing products as prescription-only medicines.

During the Council debate, David Pruce, director of practice and quality improvement at the Society, explained that it is normal for trained support staff to sell pseudoephedrine- or ephedrine-containing products, and the Society would not, at the moment, expect pharmacists to make these sales personally.

From discussions with other pharmacy organisations, he said, it is apparent that restricting these products to personal sale by a pharmacist seems like overkill and is not warranted. But pharmacists are expected to make all staff aware of pseudoephedrine issues, he added.

Member of Council Brian Curwain agreed, saying that restricting these products to personal sale by a pharmacist is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, particularly in pharmacies where staff may know customers better than the pharmacist locums.

However, Gerald Alexander warned that if the Council decided not to support the MHRA’s proposal, it could mean that in two years the public are disadvantaged because the products are reclassified as prescription-only medicines.

The Council decided not to support the recommendation but did agree to review its decision in six months.

Rob Darracott, chief executive of the Company Chemists’ Association, commented: “This is the right decision. We are dealing with a regulatory change here — not a clinical one. We are confident that the awareness programmes that our members are putting in place will equip pharmacy teams to sell these medicines safely.”

Colette McCreedy, director of pharmacy practice at the National Pharmacy Association, said: “I think the most important argument is that restricting a sale to pharmacist only can only be justified if there is a need for input which can only come from a pharmacist. There is no special clinical or pharmaceutical knowledge required when controlling the sales of pseudoephedrine products.

She added that the MHRA’s proposal goes against the tide of pharmacy development, where greater use is being made of pharmacy support staff under the direction and accountability of the pharmacist.

A spokeswoman for the MHRA said: “The Commission on Human Medicines’ recommendations are a tough yet proportionate set of measures to address the risk in the UK. The effectiveness of the pharmacy controls will be closely monitored and the Government is ready to act should these measures fail to contain the risk. The opportunity is clear for the pharmacy profession to show that they can deliver.”

She added that the expert working group of the CHM will be considering all the recommendations that the CHM has made, and will take into account the views of key stakeholders, including the pharmacy profession. The working group was due to meet this week.