Ever since the E.U. Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD) was passed in 2011 my European friends have touted the fact that their government mandated solution would take a “bookend” approach. The implication was always that it would be much less complex than the ePedigree approaches that were being planned by various U.S. states, and then by the U.S. federal government with the passage in 2013 of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).
My friends always liked to point out how simple Continue reading EU FMD: Aggregation Is Not Mandated, But It Will Be Necessary

According to the
Drug verification is at the heart of most pharma serialization regulations. It is the point at which someone in the supply chain or a patient uses the unique identifier on the drug package to determine that the drug is probably authentic, or definitely is not. We can tell a lot about the intent of a given serialization regulation by looking at the specific language that determines by whom and when a unique identifier must be verified.
Back in October the FDA announced the extended use of enforcement discretion to temporarily set aside the data exchange provisions of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) for dispensers until March 1, 2016 (see “
Why is there such a wide gap between the actions of the UDI face of the FDA and the DSCSA face?
As serialization mandates sweep the world you would think that drug manufacturers and repackagers would just deploy one generic “serialization application” and simply turn it on for any drugs that requires it, and turn it off for any that do not. That’s probably what the legislatures and regulators who create the requirements think. RxTrace readers know it’s not nearly that easy.
As we saw last fall, the FDA is planning to conduct at least one pilot project in 2016 to fulfill its DSCSA mandate to do so. The pilot should focus on the 2023 DSCSA technologies and processes (see “