Regulation impact statement: International harmonisation of ingredient names

Version 1, November 2015

22 November 2015

TGA maintains terminology for ingredients used in medicines. The approved ingredient names are used on medicine labels and in supporting documentation, such as Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information documents.

Problem

Over the years, some medicine ingredient names in Australia have become out of date with international terminology.

By using old ingredient names, the names of medicine ingredients in Australia were becoming more 'unique'. This led to potential confusion for Australian consumers and healthcare practitioners who travel overseas. It also added to ambiguity for practitioners who were trained internationally and are practicing in Australia.

The lack of synergy also leads to additional work for Australian sponsors who also market their products overseas.

Decision

Following consultation in 2013, this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) documents the decision to update the Australian approved names of ingredients used in medicines to better align with international standards.

TGA is allowing a four year transition period for medicine labels to start using the new ingredient names. This transition period is expected to start from April 2016.

For further information on what is changing, see the list of ingredient name changes.

Next steps

Changes to medicine ingredient names can cause confusion for consumers and healthcare professionals. TGA is working closely with pharmaceutical, health and medication software industry, health and consumer organisations to help inform those affected about the ingredient name changes.

RIS certification

How to access a pdf document

Further information

Contact the Project Manager at IHIN@tga.gov.au.

Executive summary

Version 1, November 2015

The problem

Ingredient names are a critical piece of information about medicines for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and patients. With a proliferation of trade names and generic medicines in the marketplace, ingredient names help doctors, nurses and pharmacists speak a common language. For patients, the ingredient name is increasingly what is used to inform their treatment regime and to access new supplies, particularly when travelling. Without consistency and surety around ingredient names, there is the risk of confusion about what treatment is being prescribed and medication error, potentially leading to serious risks and poor health outcomes.

Unfortunately, there is lack of consistency and global harmonisation for ingredient names. Aside from the confusion noted above, this also makes it difficult for health practitioners to identify emerging issues in the international medical literature and other communication channels. For example, an article appearing in an American journal about a problem with 'lidocaine' is about 'lignocaine' (in current Australian terminology).

Further, inconsistent naming in different countries creates an additional cost burden on industry stakeholders supplying in a global market. These costs extend further than just the costs of different labels for markets using different names - label requirements often differ across markets for other reasons (related to the public health decisions made by specific regulators). There is also an administrative cost involved in maintaining different sets of documents - dossiers, drug master files etc. - where the only difference is the ingredient name. Such additional costs to manufacturers and suppliers flow on to government health budgets and patients.

Objective

This Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) assesses options for the harmonisation of medicine ingredient names with international nomenclature systems, preferring the use of International Nonproprietary names (INNs) where possible. The INN system was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is maintained by a committee of member states that includes Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) proposes to update Australian ingredient names included in TGA's Business Services Ingredients Table to bring them into line with international nomenclature. Under this proposal, TGA will change a number of Australian ingredient names to their international name, with consequential effects on medicine records, labels and product information.

This will not resolve all of Australia's medicine ingredient name alignment issues. 'Paracetamol', for example, is the INN name already in use in Australia, while 'acetaminophen' is a United States Adopted Name (USAN); 'adrenaline', a name used in Australia is not the INN, which is 'epinephrine', but, as discussed herein, 'adrenaline' is so fixed in the Australian nomenclature that a change may create significant risk of medication error or risks associated with failure to administer medication (for example, an increase in prescribing and dispensing errors1). This harmonisation activity will, however, resolve many of the differences between the naming systems of Australia and other jurisdictions, while improving the current situation in a global marketing system.

Options

This RIS outlines the anticipated impacts of the following options for ingredient name harmonisation:

Option 1: Status quo - No action.

Option 2: Mandatory adoption of harmonisation with international protocols - the full proposal - Adopt all the proposed name changes (478 ingredient names changed). The old ingredient names would be removed from the Ingredients Table and applicants would only be able to use the new ingredient names.

Option 3: Mandatory adoption - a reduced proposal - Reduce the full list of name changes, based on issues raised during consultation. This option removes ingredient name changes that have not been adopted consistently in the international market:

  1. Maintain status quo for metal containing ingredients - No Latin-to-English name changes would be made to metal-containing ingredients.
  2. Maintain status quo for sunscreen ingredients - No changes would be made to ingredients that are used as actives in current TGA-regulated sunscreens.
  3. Maintain status quo for some excipient ingredients - No changes would be made to some excipients where the source reference did not apply this terminology.
  4. Maintain status quo for macrogol excipient ingredients - No changes would be made to macrogol ingredients that are only used as excipients.

Under this option, 336 ingredient names would change.

Option 4: Mandatory adoption - only those changes based on direct harmonisation of INNs or references plus changes of high clinical significance - This option proposes to further reduce the full list by only implementing name changes where the replacement name has an international reference or an INN that does not require modification, plus a number specific ingredients identified as being of high clinical significance.

Under this option, 160 ingredient names would change.

Option 5: Voluntary name changes - New ingredient name entries would be included in the Ingredients Table and sponsors could voluntarily move to using the new names or continue to use the old ingredient name. Consequently, different products could use different ingredient names on their labels when they are actually referring to the same substance. This voluntary approach can be applied either to the full proposal or to a reduced list.

Two transition period options are presented for the mandatory adoption options (Options 2, 3 and 4):

  • Transition Option (i): proposes a three year transition period for changing to the new ingredient names.
  • Transition Option (ii): proposes a four year transition period for changing to the new ingredient names.

For both transition options, medicines with ingredients identified as of 'high clinical significance' would be dual-labelled with both the old and new name for an additional three years. Following this period, sponsors could then start using the new ingredient name as the sole name. Adrenaline and noradrenaline products were considered to be an exception to this rule. Both adrenaline and noradrenaline products would be dual-labelled indefinitely, consistent with the United Kingdom approach.

Option 3(ii) is the preferred option, with a transition period of four years. This option would better align Australian ingredient names with widely accepted international terminology, while not imposing harmonisation where the regulatory costs may outweigh the benefits. The four year transition period would minimise the costs associated with name changes as this fits with the business as usual label changes identified by industry stakeholders.

This proposal will result in an estimated cost to industry of $0.13M per annum over 10 years. This net regulatory cost will be offset by other qualitative gains, such reduced risk of incorrect use of medicines, improved access to international medicines information and clarity for patients and healthcare providers. This option will also result in a small reduction in barriers to trade for individual companies, however it is not expected to have a noticeable effect on the market overall.

Due to the qualitative gains from harmonisation, this option is expected to result in an overall net benefit to consumers, healthcare professionals and industry once the name changes are embedded in Australian nomenclature.

Consultation

In May 2013, TGA consulted on a proposal to change approximately 500 ingredient names. Thirty-one submissions were received from the therapeutic goods industry, and healthcare professional and consumer organisations. TGA also conducted focus groups with some stakeholders to discuss the proposed name changes and seek feedback on implementation strategies.

Consultation responses indicated broad in-principle support for international harmonisation of ingredient names. Healthcare professional and consumer organisations stated that harmonisation would reduce ambiguity and confusion by providing international consistency. With a few exceptions, most stakeholders agreed that the proposed changes would help the pharmaceutical industry provide Australians with medicine products, by making it easier to prepare labels and other documents for the Australian market. The exceptions were based on a perceived lack of international harmonisation with some of the proposed new names (for example, using INN terminology for sunscreen active ingredients).

Stakeholders also provided feedback on implementation, including valuable suggestions for communication and education strategies.

Implementation

During the transition period, industry and TGA will work together to update ingredient names in:

  • The TGA Business Services Ingredients Table
  • Formulation details within entries on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG)
  • Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information documents
  • Medicine labels.

To minimise the effect of these changes on medicine sponsors, TGA will initiate amendments to affected ARTG entries. There is no fee associated with TGA initiated changes to ARTG entries, labels or supporting product documentation, as long as the only change made is to the ingredient name for the purposes of harmonisation.

TGA will also undertake a range of communication and education activities to minimise potential risks to consumer health and safety from ingredient name changes. TGA will work closely with consumer and healthcare professional organisations to develop and disseminate targeted information about the ingredient name changes. These organisations have expertise in consumer matters and existing resources and networks that extend beyond those currently available to TGA.


Footnotes

  1. James, H. R. 'Ephedrine/epinephrine drug label confusion', Anaesthesia, 1998, Vol 53, issue 5. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.04771.x/pdf (pdf,280kb)>

1. Introduction

Version 1, November 2015

This Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) assesses options for changing Australian ingredient names used in existing therapeutic goods to align with international nomenclature systems.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) proposes to update approved names (for both active and excipient ingredients) to bring them into line with international nomenclature as far as possible. Further associated name changes are also proposed - to improve consistency within Australian approved terminology and remove unharmonised, duplicate and out-of-date names.

In May 2013, TGA released a consultation paper2 seeking feedback on this proposal, which affects 473 ingredient names. In total, 31 submissions3 were received. As part of the consultation process, TGA also held focus groups with stakeholders to discuss the proposed name changes and seek feedback on implementation strategies. This RIS outlines options developed based on the issues raised during consultation.


Footnotes

  1. Consultation: International harmonisation of ingredient names - 13 May 2013 to 10 July 2013
  2. Submissions received

2. The problem

Version 1, November 2015

2.1 Background

Ingredients that are used in the formulation of medicines can be classified as either active (where they have a therapeutic effect) or excipient ingredients. The names of active ingredients in a medicine's formulation must be included on the medicine label4 and in the product's supporting documentation (for example pack inserts, promotional material, Product Information5 and Consumer Medicine Information documents). Only a select number of excipient ingredients are required to be included on a label or in information provided to a consumer.

Companies that supply or manufacture therapeutic goods in Australia also maintain internal supporting documentation on a product's formulation details (both active and excipient ingredients). This includes manufacturing and regulatory documentation, Drug Master Files and adverse event databases.

Approved terminology is needed to ensure that names of ingredients used in medicines are accurate and consistent. Consistency in naming helps people search for information about medicines, allows health professionals and the public to compare similar goods and avoids the risk of confusion between goods.

International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) are the global reference for medicine ingredient names. The INN system was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is maintained by member states, including Australia. The list of INNs is updated twice a year6. Since 2002, TGA has adopted INNs, where available, as its primary reference for new ingredient names. However, there are ingredient names that were added to the TGA Business Services Ingredients Table prior to 2002 that are now not consistent with international naming practices.

Reference setting agencies (such as the WHO or the British Pharmacopoeia Commission) meet regularly to discuss the creation of new ingredient names or to update old names. These updates can include changes to the spelling or structure of existing ingredient names. Sometimes, new INNs are also created for long-existing substances that had previously been known by different names internationally. These types of changes have resulted in a number of ingredients on the Ingredients Table having different names than those now accepted as international best-practice.

In some cases, a new harmonised name was created on the Ingredients Table without removing the old name. This has resulted in more than one name for a specific substance and different products using different names for the same active ingredient. However, these differences are restricted to minor spelling variations.

Generally, the use of unharmonised, out-of-date or multiple ingredient names can create significant problems for the medicines industry, consumers and healthcare professionals. These problems include barriers to supplying a medicine in Australia, risks to consumer health and possible prescribing misadventure.

2.1.1 Medicines industry

The Australian pharmaceutical industry comprises bio-medical research, biotechnology firms, originator and generic medicines companies and service-related segments including wholesaling and distribution. In 2012-13, the Australian pharmaceutical industry reported a turnover of $23.4 billion7. With exports of $3.9 billion, pharmaceuticals were one of Australia's major manufactured exports that year8.

The medicines industry also includes companies that manufacture and supply complementary medicines, such as vitamins or minerals. In 2012, the complementary medicine industry revenue was estimated as $3.5 billion and expected to grow9.

Use of a unique Australian ingredient name creates an additional barrier to international trade for the Australian export industry. For example, the sponsor of a medicine in Australia may wish to also market that medicine internationally. Due to the lack of international harmonisation, the sponsor would need to perform additional steps to confirm that two ingredient names refer to the same substance. Although label and marketing materials are different for different countries, using a unique ingredient name results in additional labour time and complexity in developing this documentation. As raw materials may be sourced from multiple countries, manufacturing documentation may also need to be changed to align with Australian approved terminology. There would also be additional costs incurred in training staff to understand that both ingredient names refer to the same substance, and to maintain that training. These steps contribute to the barriers for Australian companies wishing to market products internationally.

Conversely, the need to use an out-of-date ingredient name in Australian medicine applications also imposes an additional burden on multinational companies wishing to market products in Australia. For example, a sponsor must ensure that the Drug Master File and product information documents submitted to the TGA as part of a medicine application use Australian approved terminology. If the ingredient name is different to the one used internationally, this imposes additional production costs on both the active ingredient manufacturer and the sponsor of the finished goods, which are then passed onto the Australian consumer.

2.1.2 Consumers and healthcare professionals

The use of out-of-date names means that Australian consumers and healthcare professionals may be unfamiliar with international medicine ingredient names. This not only restricts the ability of consumers to access important medicine information internationally, but can also make it more difficult for doctors and nurses to keep up with international updates on medicine safety, adverse event information and emerging issues.

Out-of-date ingredient nomenclature can result in significant legal or health problems for Australians travelling overseas. This includes situations where some countries have restrictions on certain medications being brought in by travellers or where Australian travellers may have allergies to certain ingredients. For example, visitors travelling to the UK are required to check whether the medicines they are travelling with are licenced for use in the UK; must carry medicines in a correctly labelled container and bring a letter from their doctor in case the medicine is queried by customs officers or additional supplies are required10. Consequently, using a unique or out-of-date Australian ingredient name increases the risks:

  • of confusion for customs officers when travellers are entering or leaving a country, leading to delays and possible confiscation of medicines; and
  • that additional supplies of a medicine may not be found while overseas.

Out-of-date nomenclature also affects residents returning, and tourists travelling, to Australia. For example, phenobarbital (INN) is known as phenobarbitone in Australia. There are restrictions on the importation of barbituates into Australia, where illegal importation may attract criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and/or fines up to $825,00011. Using out-of-date nomenclature requires Australian Customs officers to be aware of numerous names for an ingredient, increasing the risk of confusion and potentially resulting in avoidable border control problems.

TGA receives thousands of queries every year from travellers wishing to bring medicines for personal use into Australia. In 2013 the personal importation of medicines was the second most common query to the TGA Public Contact Team. In some of these queries, travellers have experienced border control problems, as they have been unaware of restrictions placed on their medicines, even though they have searched for information based on a specific ingredient name.

Healthcare professional representative groups have raised concerns that the use of more than one name for an ingredient can cause confusion in prescribing, increasing the risks of mis-dosing. For example, double-dosing can occur where a patient takes a product that uses one name for an ingredient as well another product containing the same ingredient under a different name. These risks of double-dosing are especially high for patients who visit more than one medical practitioner. There is limited evidence to show that these types of errors have occurred in Australia as a result of the current availability of more than one name for an ingredient; however, the consequences of such an error are severe and preventable. For example, 'lignocaine' is an ingredient used as an anaesthetic. 'Lignocaine' is an old British Pharmacopoeia (BP) name and is the approved name in Australia, however its INN (which has since been adopted by the BP) is 'lidocaine'. If not prescribed or administered correctly, this substance can have a severe effect on a patient's health12.

The importance of clear and consistent ingredient naming was demonstrated in May 2013 when the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) adopted new medicine terminology for prescribing and dispensing systems. The update included a change to the order of active ingredients in multi-ingredient products on dispensing software. This resulted in the order of ingredients for some products within the software not aligning with the order of ingredients on the relevant product labels. Pharmacists reported numerous dispensing errors in the three days following the data release13, prompting a reversal of the data update.

2.2 Why is action needed?

2.2.1 Requirement to use approved ingredient names

TGA is responsible for regulating a range of therapeutic goods, including medicines and medical devices. Therapeutic goods must be entered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) before they can be lawfully supplied in or exported from Australia, unless exempt from or otherwise authorised by TGA. The ARTG is an electronic system that relies on consistent ingredient terminology; consequently, TGA maintains approved terminology for use in therapeutic goods.

Regulation 2 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 199014 (the Regulations) defines the list of approved ingredient names maintained by TGA. This list of ingredient names includes those for chemical substances (Australian Approved Names [AANs] and Australian Biological Names [ABNs]) as well as names for herbal substances.

Approved ingredient names are published in the Ingredients Table on the TGA Business Services website15. These approved ingredient names are then used:

  • when applications for registration and listing (including for export) of medicines are made to TGA
  • in records of medicine formulations included in the ARTG
  • on labels for medicines16
  • in Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information17 documents and
  • other product documentation (such as advertising) where use of approved terminology is required.

If an ingredient name has been changed internationally, affected sponsors contact TGA to request its inclusion in the Ingredients Table as an approved name. Until this occurs, the international name cannot be used in Australian medicine labels or product information.

Although each country has specific labelling requirements, by changing ingredient names to INNs and updated pharmacopoeia names, Australian companies can benefit by more easily creating marketing and product information materials.

2.2.2 Improving information access and exchange

International harmonisation of ingredient names can help Australians who wish to find out more information on their medicines. The Internet is an increasingly common source of health-related information for consumers. Aligning Australian ingredient names with their international names will reduce confusion and help Australians more easily access international medicines information.

Australian consumers and healthcare professionals who travel internationally are also expected to benefit from harmonisation. Increasing consumers' familiarity with international ingredient names can reduce the risk of confusion when seeking medical advice/assistance in other countries, when explaining allergies to specific substances and when seeking legal advice on bringing personal medicines into a country. The harmonisation of active ingredient names could reduce the risk of adverse health or legal consequences for Australian travellers.

2.2.3 Clear ingredient naming

Australian terminology policy requires that the name used for an ingredient provides enough information to uniquely identify the substance. This can include information such as the substance's hydration state, the specific salt, or its stereochemistry (physical properties like stereoisomers, chiral states, etc.). By ensuring that only one name is used to specify an ingredient, the TGA supports the National Medicines Policy's objective for Quality Use of Medicines18 by reducing confusion when selecting, prescribing or using medicines.

Quality use of medicines means that consumers and healthcare professionals select health management options wisely; choose suitable medicines if a medicine is considered necessary; and use that medicine safely and effectively. Using one name for an active ingredient reduces the risk of consumers accidentally double-dosing (taking a product that uses one name as well as a product with the same substance under a different name). Healthcare professionals would also not have to remember multiple names, reducing the risk of prescribing errors and severe health effects.

More specific names can also assist in the efficient evaluation and registration of new medicines. For example, an application for a product containing 10 mg/mL of apomorphine hydrochloride19 under the current TGA naming approach refers to 10 mg/mL of apomorphine hydrochloride hemihydrate (which would contain more water, which is not therapeutically relevant, and less of the active component). However, as international conventions assume a substance is anhydrous (dry) if it does not include a hydration state, the sponsor may have intended to apply for 10 mg/mL of apomorphine hydrochloride anhydrous. This ambiguity then leads to the need for additional questioning and clarification from the sponsor.

2.2.4 Improving functionality of the Ingredients Table and the ARTG

Some ingredients require the inclusion of a hyphen to accurately describe the structure of the substance (for example dl-alpha-tocopherol). Within the Ingredients Table, removal of hyphens from words previously inverted for searchability purposes (e.g. 'insulin — bovine'), will assist in reducing confusion with names that include hyphens necessary for their chemical structure. Removing multiple names for the same substance will also help in TGA's reporting activities, by making sure that the reports capture all products containing a specific substance.

The use of more than one name for an ingredient causes flow on problems to both TGA and external databases. The National e-Health Transition Authority (NeHTA), the Australian Government and state and territory governments are electronically connecting the points of care so that health information can be shared securely. NeHTA uses ARTG data to develop the Australian Medicines Terminology, a naming convention for describing medicines on prescribing, dispensing and ordering software across Australia. Due in part to inconsistencies on the ARTG, NeHTA systems have had to develop their own consistent naming which may be different from ingredient names on medicine labels. However, improving consistency within the ARTG will flow onto NeHTA systems and help reduce the potential for serious prescribing and administration errors.

2.3 What is proposed to change?

2.3.1 Summary of proposal released for consultation

The TGA compiled a list of active and excipient ingredient names that may need changing to harmonise with a more appropriate international reference and/or to align with TGA naming policies20. This review also included errors identified for correction (such as duplications and typographical errors). Table 1 summarises the types of changes proposed.

Table 1. Type of change
Change type Source of change

Direct harmonisation with an INN.

This includes the harmonisation of both the parent substance name as well as any derivatives.

INN
Changing a non-pharmacopoeia reference to a pharmacopoeia reference or INN. International harmonisation
Inclusion of hydration state where appropriate. For example, inclusion of 'monohydrate' ('anhydrous' is the default, and does not need to be stated). International Non-proprietary Names Modified (INNM)21, Section IV, Paragraph 14, page 8.

Where appropriate, using 'f' instead of 'ph', 't' instead of 'th' and 'e' instead of 'ae' or 'oe', 'i' instead of 'y', and avoiding the use of 'h' and 'k', e.g.:

mesylate to mesilate

oestrogen to estrogen

cholecalciferol to colecalciferol

Guidelines on the Use of INNs for Pharmaceutical Substances, Annex 2, Paragraph 7.

(INNM, Section II, Paragraph 7 gives examples)

Use of 'macrogol' terminology for synthetic polymers (rather than 'PEG') INNM, Section IX, Paragraph 27, page 13.
Avoiding the use of isolated numbers, letters or hyphens (unless required for chemical structure). Guidelines on the Use of INNs for Pharmaceutical Substances, Annex 2, Paragraph 6.
Using one name to refer to one substance and avoiding names that are in 'common' use (e.g. no use of brand names; a separate entry is required for each hydration state). Guidelines on the Use of INNs for Pharmaceutical Substances, Annex 2, Paragraph 1.
Correct word order for salts and other derivatives INNM

Use of common name for metals instead of Latin (e.g. use of 'iron' rather than 'ferrous').

Addition of oxidation state for a metal in a metallic compound where more than one oxidation state is possible but only a single oxidation state is present (e.g. iron (II) aspartate).

TGA naming policy22 - the use of common names is more readily understood by consumers.

The addition of the oxidation state better identifies the ingredient.

Dual-labelling

TGA noted that some of the identified ingredients were of high clinical significance and a change to their name would be associated with additional risks23. Dual-labelling was proposed for these ingredients to help transition to the new name and minimise the risk of the wrong medicine being used. Dual-labelling would require both the old name and the new name to be included on the label. Including two names on a label for the same ingredient is not uncommon for some medicines; the labels of many complementary and over-the-counter medicines include the approved ingredient name as well as its synonym (usually a more 'common' name) in brackets.

Forty ingredient name changes are proposed for dual-labelling due to their higher clinical risk. Dual-labelling would be mandated for a period of time, after which a sponsor could start using the new name as the sole ingredient name.

2.3.2 Post consultation considerations

A summary of the issues raised during consultation is under Section 6 - Consultation. Among other feedback, stakeholders identified some discrepancies in the list of ingredients and requested that the order of dual-labelling be changed (new name first, followed by the old name). As a result, a number of additional entries were added24 to the harmonisation list and some proposed changes to ingredient names removed or amended.

Adrenaline

The review of stakeholder comments identified that the substance 'adrenaline' (proposed to be changed to 'epinephrine' following a period of dual-labelling) is known by both names in some countries. For example, the BP name for adrenaline is now 'adrenaline (epinephrine)'. Therefore, in the United Kingdom, adrenaline products are labelled as 'adrenaline (epinephrine)' with no intent to change to 'epinephrine' as the sole name.

Stakeholders also identified significant risks associated with changing the name 'adrenaline' to 'epinephrine', especially around its potential to be mistaken for 'ephedrine'. For example, following a shortage of adrenaline syringe labels in an operating theatre in the UK, epinephrine labels were ordered. Twice in one day, anaesthetists who used ephedrine for treating hypotension labelled their syringes 'epinephrine'25.

The revised proposal for adrenaline is to include both the old and new name with no end date, to best align with international practice. This proposal also extends to adrenaline derivatives:

  • 'adrenaline (epinephrine) acid tartrate'
  • 'adrenaline (epinephrine) hydrochloride'
  • 'noradrenaline (norepinephrine)'
  • 'noradrenaline (norepinephrine) acid tartrate monohydrate'
Final list for harmonisation

Following consideration of stakeholder comments, a final full list of 478 ingredient names is proposed for harmonisation. This list includes 269 active ingredients and 263 excipient ingredients26. The list also includes the 40 ingredients proposed for dual-labelling.


Footnotes

  1. In accordance with the Therapeutic Goods Order No. 69 (TGO69) - General requirements for labels for medicines
  2. Section 7D of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
  3. WHO | What's in a name?
  4. Australian Pharmaceuticals Industry Data Card 2014 (pdf,461kb)
  5. Pharmaceuticals Industry Profile
  6. Understanding Complementary Medicine
  7. Visit Britain - Medical and health information
  8. Importing Barbituates (pdf,141kb)
  9. For example, lignocaine is used to treat life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and if not administered correctly can result in patient death - see lignocaine HCl approved product information documentation <http://www.ebs.tga.gov.au>
  10. Confidential industry report - August 2013
  11. Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990
  12. TGA Business Services
  13. Unless exempt, medicines are required to comply with the Therapeutic Goods Order No. 69 (TGO69) - General requirements for labels for medicines. Inclusion of excipient ingredients on a label depends on the type of product (i.e. for injection, for ophthalmic use).
  14. PI/CMI search facility
  15. Quality Use of Medicines
  16. Used to treat Parkinson's disease
  17. Outlined in the TGA approved terminology for medicines
  18. <http://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/publication/en/>
  19. Metal ingredients either use Latin names (such as 'cuprous' or 'cupric' for copper and 'ferrous' or 'ferric' for iron) or English common names. There is also no specific INN guidance on how to name metallic substances, and both common and Latin names for metals appear in INNs.
  20. This risk was calculated based on the combination of the prescription only status of the medicine and the degree of change in the ingredient name (i.e. prescription only medicines that only changed one letter in their ingredient name were not considered to be of 'high clinical risk').
  21. The ingredients that were added to the list were either duplicate or parent entries of those already identified in the consultation paper. For example, 'Lignocaine hydrochloride' was included in the list for consultation, however, the parent ingredient entry 'lignocaine' was accidentally omitted.
  22. James, H. R. 'Ephedrine/epinephrine drug label confusion', Anaesthesia, 1998, Vol 53, issue 5. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.04771.x/pdf (pdf,280kb)>
  23. 54 of the 263 excipient ingredients are also present as active ingredients in some products.

3. Objectives

Version 1, November 2015

The first objective of this harmonisation activity is to maintain clarity and consistency in ingredient naming (as far as possible) to support quality use of medicines. Unambiguous and internationally consistent ingredient names help health professionals and the public to compare similar therapeutic goods and avoid confusion between goods. Consistency in naming also supports the quality use of medicines by:

  • minimising the risk of prescribing, dispensing and self-selection errors
  • enhancing consumer safety (through easier international information sharing) and
  • avoiding consumer confusion and the inappropriate use of medicines.

The second objective is to minimise administrative costs for industry, thereby supporting the commercial viability of supplying medicines to Australian consumers and internationally. The use of internationally harmonised ingredient names in Australia can assist industry by reducing costs associated with preparing marketing and product information materials. Internal consistency within the Ingredients Table can also benefit industry as it assists TGA in more efficiently assessing applications for new medicines or variations to existing products.

4. Options to achieve objectives

Version 1, November 2015

This RIS considers the following options for the list of 478 active and excipient ingredient names proposed for harmonisation:

Option 1: Status quo - No changes would be made to ingredient names.

Option 2: Mandatory adoption of harmonisation with international protocols - the full proposal - Adopt all the proposed name changes (478 ingredient names changed). The old ingredient names would be removed from the Ingredients Table and sponsors would only be able to use the new ingredient names.

Option 3: Mandatory adoption - a reduced proposal - This option proposes to reduce the full list of name changes, based on issues raised during consultation. This option focusses on removing ingredient name changes that have not been adopted consistently in the international market:

  1. Maintain status quo for metal containing ingredients - No Latin-to-English name changes would be made to metal-containing ingredients.
  2. Maintain status quo for sunscreen ingredients - No changes would be made to names that are used for active ingredients in current TGA-regulated sunscreens.
  3. Maintain status quo for some excipient ingredients - No changes would be made to some excipients where the source reference did not apply this terminology.
  4. Maintain status quo for macrogol excipient ingredients - No changes would be made to macrogol ingredients only used as excipients.

Under this option, 336 ingredient names would change.

Option 4: Mandatory adoption - only those changes based on direct harmonisation of INNs or references plus changes of high clinical significance - This option proposes to further reduce the full list by only implementing name changes where the replacement name has an international reference or an INN which has not been modified, plus a number specific ingredients identified as being of high clinical significance.

Under this option, 160 ingredient names would change.

Option 5: Voluntary name changes - New ingredient name entries would be created on the Ingredients Table and sponsors could voluntarily move to using the new names or continue to use the old ingredient name. Consequently, different products could use different ingredient names on their labels when they are actually referring to the same substance. This voluntary approach can be applied either to the full proposal (478 names) or to a reduced list.

A transition period would be needed for Options 2, 3 and 4. Two transition options are presented:

  • Transition Option (i): proposes a three year transition period for changing ingredient names.
  • Transition Option (ii): proposes a four year transition period for changing ingredient names.

For both transition options, medicines with ingredients identified as of ‘high clinical significance’ would be dual-labelled with both the old and new name for an additional three years. Following this period, sponsors could then start using the new ingredient name as the sole name.

5. Impact analysis

Version 1, November 2015

There are assumptions and limitations underpinning the impact analysis and the conclusions of the analysis must be regarded as indicative rather than as definitive.

Industry compliance costs have been outlined below and quantified wherever possible. TGA has made assumptions based on general information, ARTG data on existing products, stakeholder feedback from the IHIN and medicine labelling consultations.

In accordance with Office of Best Practice Regulation requirements, the costs below have been costed over a 10 year period and presented as an average annual impact.

Table 1. Summary of Regulatory Burden and Cost Offset Estimates for all options
Average annual regulatory costs (from business as usual) ($million)
Change in costs
($ million)
Business Community Organisations Individuals Total change in cost
Option 1 (status quo) 0 0 0 0
Mandatory adoption
Option 2(i)
(3 year transition)
$0.91 0 0 $0.91
Option 2(ii)
(4 year transition)
$0.23 0 0 $0.23
Option 3(i)
(3 year transition)
$0.73 0 0 $0.73
Option 3(ii)
(4 year transition)
$0.13 0 0 $0.13
Option 4(i)
(3 year transition)
$0.51 0 0 $0.51
Option 4(ii)
(4 year transition)
$0.12 0 0 $0.12
Voluntary adoption
Option 5 0 0 0 0
Cost offset
($million)
Business Community Organisations Individuals Total by Source
$0.91 0 0 $0.91
Are all new costs offset? Yes, costs are offset by the savings that were identified by the Low Value Turnover Exemption Scheme RIS
Total (Change in costs - Cost offset) ($million) $0

5.1 Option 1 - Status quo

Option 1 proposes that no changes occur to ingredient names under the harmonisation activity (status quo). Under this option, industry would continue to use the ingredient names that have previously been approved for use in medicines. The current inconsistencies in the TGA Ingredients Table would remain and these non-harmonised medicine ingredient names would continue to be used in Australia. The problems associated with this lack of harmonisation would continue (as outlined in Section 2 - The problem).

Under Option 1 there are no direct compliance costs for industry. However, to establish a baseline, TGA analysed the information it holds on medicine label and product information changes (see Appendix A).

5.2 Option 2 - Mandatory adoption - the full proposal

Option 2 proposes to change the names of 478 ingredients. These new names would be the only Australian approved names for those substances and the old names would be removed from use.

This option affects 18,758 ARTG medicine entries (approximately 54% prescription, 12% OTC, 35% Listed) and 1,029 sponsors. In some ARTG entries more than one ingredient name would be changed.

5.2.1 Impact on the medicines industry

Appendix A outlines the expected costs to industry for Option 2. Depending on the transition timeframe, Option 2 is expected to cost industry $0.91M (3 year transition) or $0.23M (4 year transition) per annum over 10 years.

Companies would be affected differently depending on what type of product they sponsor. Table 2 outlines the type of impact expected for each type of product. These impacts only apply to changes to active ingredient names and a small number of excipient ingredients (25% of the proposed changes).

Table 2. The type of product affected and the type of impact (for changes to active ingredients and a small number of excipients only)
Type of product Type of impact
Prescription medicine Update to PI/CMIs
Update to product label (where applicable)
Over the counter medicine (including some sunscreens) Update to PI/CMIs, where applicable (restricted medicines, pharmacist-only medicines)
Update to product label, pack inserts, promotional material (where applicable)
Complementary medicine (both registered and listed)

Update to PI/CMIs, where applicable (restricted medicines, pharmacist-only medicines)

Update to product label, pack inserts, promotional material (where applicable)

Export Only medicine Negligible impact27

Product labels and supporting documentation will be affected differently, depending on how the name of the active ingredient has changed. Most of the ingredient name changes involve the change of one letter, the addition/removal of a hydration state, removal of hyphen or a change in word order. It has been assumed that the proposed ingredient name changes would therefore not require redesign of the label.

Some medicines use the active ingredient name as part of the product's trade name (also known as product name or proprietary name). This proposal will harmonise the names of ingredients contained within medicines, not the trade names of the medicines themselves. However, to avoid confusion, the sponsor of such a product may wish to change the trade name to match the harmonised name. The decision to change a trade name as a consequence of an ingredient name change would be a voluntary commercial decision for the sponsor.

Following a one-off cost, Option 2 is expected to provide an ongoing saving to sponsors. This arises from the reduction of costs associated with developing and varying recurring documentation between Australia and other markets (e.g. advertising and marketing materials, supporting documentation). This option will therefore result in a small reduction in barriers to trade for individual companies, however it is not expected to have a noticeable effect on the market overall.

A longer transition period would allow sponsor companies to more easily incorporate these ingredient name changes into business-as-usual (BAU) practices. For example, it is assumed that approximately 50 per cent of affected products would change their label within a three year period as part of BAU. The remaining 50 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). Appendix A outlines the costs of name changes to sponsors under both a three and four-year transition period.

5.2.2 Impact on consumers and healthcare professionals

During consultation, most stakeholders agreed that international harmonisation of ingredient names would generally benefit consumers. Once consumers are familiar with the new ingredient names, benefits include improved access to information and reduced risk of confusion with medicines when travelling overseas. Similarly, ingredient name harmonisation is also expected to assist healthcare professionals in the long term. This activity will help Australian practitioners who are not aware of international naming by improving their access to information. However, due to the complexity of how consumers and healthcare professionals interact with medicines and ingredient names, it is not possible to isolate and quantify the benefits of the proposed harmonisation activity.

Improving consistency within TGA databases can also improve the consistency of names used in prescribing and dispensing software and potentially reduce the costs associated with maintaining these systems. The NeHTA e-Health program includes the development of medicines terminology derived from the ARTG and other TGA databases. Using one name for an ingredient and improving TGA database consistency allows easier alignment for the NeHTA databases. For example, using only one name for an ingredient would reduce the risk of the ingredient name on a label differing from the name on the prescribing software. These benefits then flow onto the users of prescribing, dispensing and ordering software reliant on NeHTA terminology.

During the transition period, consumers and healthcare professionals will gradually start to see changes to ingredient names on the labels of affected products, in Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information documents, as well as in prescribing and dispensing software28. Most of the proposed name changes are to excipient ingredients (75%), which will have minimal impact as this information is not often included on labels and is not visible in the public view of the ARTG. Where changes are made to active ingredients, many involve limited label changes (such as changing from amoxycillin to amoxicillin or the removal of a hyphen within the ingredient name).

Stakeholders raised safety concerns about the transition periods for ingredient name changes, especially where:

  • one sponsor has changed their labels at the beginning of the transition period, and
  • another sponsor of a medicine with the same active ingredient chooses to delay the change until the end of the transition period.

There are products currently available in Australia that use different names for the same substance (e.g. amoxycillin versus amoxicillin). As described earlier, there is limited evidence to show that medication errors have occurred in Australia as a result of the current availability of more than one name for these ingredients. However, TGA acknowledges that increasing the number of substances that have multiple ingredient names also increases the likelihood of prescribing errors. Dual-labelling has also been proposed for substances of high clinical significance to help reduce the risk of confusion.

Industry, healthcare professional and consumer stakeholders all noted that communication and education activities are required to reduce the likelihood of such errors. Section 8 - Implementation and review provides further information on proposed communication strategies. Due to these proposed activities, there appears to be little difference in risk to consumers between a three and four-year transition period.

There are significant benefits to industry, healthcare professionals and consumers from Option 2. However, during consultation, stakeholders noted that some of the proposed ingredient name changes may result in a lack of harmonisation between Australian nomenclature and the most widely used international terminology. Therefore, the net outcomes would be significantly improved by removing from the proposal those ingredient names that have not been adopted consistently in the international market.

5.3 Option 3 - Mandatory adoption - a reduced proposal

Option 3 proposes to reduce the full list of name changes, based on the issues raised during consultation. This option removes ingredient name changes that have not been adopted consistently in the international market. Option 3 comprises four sub-options (a-d) which are described below.

5.3.1 Option 3a - Maintain status quo for metal-containing ingredients

TGA naming policy requires new metal ingredients to use common English names (rather than Latin names) and include oxidation states - for example, 'copper(I)' and 'iron(II)' rather than 'cuprous' and 'ferrous'. This approach is applied as common English names are more easily understood by consumers.

Overall, INN policy prefers the use of English names for substances. However, there is no specific INN policy for metal names. Some existing INNs for metal-containing ingredients include English names and some use Latin names. The TGA Ingredients Table also currently includes some metal ingredients in English and some in Latin; however, since 2006, new ingredients are provided with English names.

Option 3a would remove from the full proposal changes where a Latin metal name was amended to its English name. Option 3a would also remove any changes where an oxidation state was included for a metal-ingredient (a flow-on effect from the Latin to English name change).

Due to existing TGA labelling requirements, many preparations containing trace elements as mineral supplements are already labelled with the quantity of the element in each dose. For example, a product containing 'ferrous fumarate' could be labelled as 'iron 5mg (as ferrous fumarate)'. As this option does not affect labelling requirements, under Option 3a, labels would still need to show how much iron, copper or manganese (using their English names) is in each dose of a product.

5.3.2 Option 3b - Maintain status quo for active ingredients used in TGA-regulated sunscreen products

In Australia, most sunscreen products are regulated as therapeutic goods with the majority of these being primary sunscreens with a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) rating of 4 and entered on the ARTG as listed medicines29. Secondary sunscreens that are excluded from regulation under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 are regulated as cosmetics by NICNAS.

However sunscreens are regulated by most countries as cosmetics, not therapeutic goods. In these countries, sunscreen products use European International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) names for the active ingredients. Similarly, for sunscreens regulated by NICNAS, the names of the ingredients on the label must be either their English names or their INCI names30.

TGA applies the INN naming policy to all ingredients, if an INN exists. This approach is also used for sunscreen ingredients because these ingredients can be included in other therapeutic goods (for example, arthritis creams).

Option 3b would reduce the full proposal by removing proposed changes from an INCI or USAN name to an INN for ingredients that are solely used as actives in sunscreens (i.e. not used in any other type of therapeutic good). Sunscreen active ingredients that are present as actives in arthritis creams would still change their name to an INN name; and sunscreen ingredients where the INCI reference name was updated by the reference-setting organisation would change to the new updated name.

Importantly, some sunscreen active ingredients may be associated with adverse reactions31. Although the TGA proposes a comprehensive communication strategy for ingredient name changes, there is still a risk of consumer confusion because ingredients in cosmetic sunscreen products would continue to use INCI names on labels. By reducing changes to existing sunscreen ingredient names, Option 3b would significantly reduce the impact on consumers otherwise resulting from proceeding with Option 2.

5.3.3 Option 3c - Maintain status quo for some excipient ingredients

TGA seeks to apply INN naming policies to both new active and new excipient ingredients. These naming policies include the application of INN spelling conventions (using 'f' instead of 'ph','t' instead of 'th', 'e' instead of 'ae' etc). However, many excipient ingredients do not have INN names and in these instances other international naming references are used (e.g. BP, United States Pharmacopeia (USP)).

Several of the proposed changes applied INN spelling conventions to ingredient names from other references (such as pharmacopoeias). For example, the USP name cyclomethicone (an excipient also used in cosmetics) was proposed to be changed to cyclometicone to align with the spelling for other silicone-based polymers (such as dimeticone and simeticone, which have INNs). As there is no INN or BP entry for cyclometicone, the new name would pre-empt international changes.

Option 3c would remove from the full proposal excipient ingredients that have had INN spelling conventions applied to non-INN reference names. For example, many international references continue to use 'cyclomethicone' (instead of 'cyclometicone') or 'lauryl' (instead of 'lauril'). These name changes have been removed under Option 3c. However, the new spelling of 'dimeticone' and 'simeticone' has been widely accepted by INN and several non-INN references. Under Option 3c, the removal of the 'h' in 'dimethicone' would still occur.

Although cyclomethicone and sodium lauryl sulfate are present in many medicine and cosmetic products, in many cases only cosmetic products include these ingredients on the label. In rare situations where these ingredients are included on medicine labels, Option 3c would avoid ingredient name misalignment between medicine and cosmetic products.

5.3.4 Option 3d - Maintain status quo for macrogol excipient ingredients

TGA applies INN 'macrogol' terminology to synthetic polymeric substances. Synthetic polymeric substances can be:

  • active ingredients - polyethylene glycols (PEGs), used as laxatives and
  • excipients - ceteths, oleths etc, used as emulsifiers in medicines and cosmetics.

INN macrogol names consist of a stem name (macrogol, lauromacrogol) and a number that designates the substance's average molecular mass (for example, macrogol 500).

Not all synthetic polymeric substances have individual INN stem names. For example, there is an INN stem for ceteths (cetomacrogol) but not for oleths (the INN stem would likely be olomacrogol, if created). Changing all synthetic polymeric substance names to macrogol terminology would in some cases pre-empt INN action. As many of these substances are also present in cosmetic products, changes to excipient synthetic polymeric substances may result in a misalignment between medicines and cosmetic products.

Option 3d would remove from the full proposal macrogol changes to excipient ingredients only. Ingredients that are used as actives in medicines will still change to macrogol terminology, where an INN stem exists for that specific synthetic polymeric substance.

5.3.5 Impact of Option 3

Table 3 outlines the total number of ingredients removed from the full proposal under this option.

Table 3. Number of ingredients removed from the full proposal under Option 3
Option Type of change Number of ingredients removed from full proposal
Option 3(a) Status quo for metal-containing ingredients 27
Option 3(b) Status quo for sunscreen active ingredients 9
Option 3(c) Status quo for some excipient ingredients 7
Option 3(d) Status quo for macrogol excipient ingredients 100
Combined Option 3(a-d) 143

Under this option, 336 ingredient names would change. This option affects 17,886 ARTG entries (55% prescription, 11% OTC, 34% Listed) and 972 sponsors.

Appendix A outlines the costs to industry for Option 3. Depending on the transition timeframe, Option 3 is expected to cost industry $0.73M (3 year transition) or $0.13M (4 year transition) per annum over 10 years.

Compared to Option 2, the benefits to industry, healthcare professionals and consumers are increased under Option 3. By removing these ingredients from the proposal, the compliance costs to industry (e.g. updating labels) are reduced. As the removed ingredients are not consistently adopted internationally, Option 3 also minimises potential qualitative impacts on industry, consumers and healthcare professionals. The impact of the three and four-year transition period to industry, healthcare practitioners and consumers is similar to that outlined earlier, under Option 2.

Due to the qualitative gains from harmonisation, this option is expected to result in an overall net benefit to consumers, healthcare professionals and industry once the name changes are embedded in Australian nomenclature.

5.4 Option 4 - Mandatory adoption - Direct harmonisation of INN/reference and substances of high clinical significance

During consultation, stakeholders raised concerns about proposed name changes that included a 'modification' in the name. For example, a name was modified from the international reference to include the name of a salt or a hydration state.

Option 4 proposes to further reduce the full list of name changes. This option comprises only those changes where the replacement name has an international reference or an INN that does not require modification, plus those ingredients identified as being of high clinical significance.

The WHO usually creates only an INN for the active part of the molecule, to avoid multiple entries where several salts, esters or other derivatives are used32. In such cases, individual member countries modify INNs by including further information in the name (such as the salt or hydration state)33.

TGA naming policy requires that ingredients be named in a way that clearly and unambiguously identifies the substance being named. Consequently, TGA allocates individual names for each derivative of a substance. For example, where a substance is used in the form of a salt or ester, that salt or ester is included in the name. In situations where there are different hydration states for substances, separate entries are included in the Ingredients Table, with anhydrous (dry or containing no water) as the default type (i.e. if no hydration state is included in the name, the ingredient is anhydrous). The majority of modifications are due to the inclusion of this type of additional information, however some modifications also propose minor typographical changes (i.e. removing hyphens, e.g. 'sodium phosphate - monobasic' to 'sodium phosphate monobasic'.

5.4.1 Impact of Option 4

Under this option, 160 ingredient names will change. This option would affect 6,478 ARTG entries (47% prescription, 13% OTC, 29% Listed) and 350 sponsors.

Appendix A outlines the costs to industry for Option 4. Depending on the transition timeframe, Option 4 is expected to cost industry $0.51M (3 year transition) or $0.12M (4 year transition) per annum over 10 years.

If this option is adopted, some of the ambiguity in ingredient naming will remain within the TGA Ingredients Table. As the number of international pharmacopoeia references that include the degree of hydration within ingredient names increases, the risks of confusion between Australian ingredient names and those used internationally increases. For example, occasionally Australia experiences shortages of medicines. Additional medicine supplies are then sourced from other countries. For higher risk medicines, the packaging may be altered to reduce the risk of confusion for Australian consumers or healthcare professionals. Under this option, there is increased risk of confusion for those medicines where labels were not altered and a different hydration state has been used to determine the amount of active ingredient per dose.

Overall, there is little difference in the compliance costs to industry between Options 3 and 4. Due to the potential for ambiguity and confusion, the qualitative benefits have been significantly reduced under Option 4.

5.5 Option 5 - Voluntary name changes

Option 5 proposes that ingredient name changes be applied voluntarily. Therefore, sponsor companies could chose to move over to using the new ingredient name on labels and product information or continue to use the old name. The new harmonised ingredient names would be added to the TGA Ingredients Table, but the old name would only be removed if all sponsors had moved over to the new name.

Out of the full proposal to change 478 ingredients, 128 of the new names already exist on the Ingredients Table (27%) and 350 new names would be added.

5.5.1 Impact of Option 5

Under Option 5, existing inconsistencies in the TGA Ingredients Table would be magnified. Many of the new ingredients have been identified as being of high clinical significance. For example, both colaspase (the current Australian Approved Name) and asparaginase (the new name) could be used on different medicine labels, depending on the sponsor's preference. If a sponsor wished to use the new name, there would also be no dual-labelling requirement to show that asparaginase used to be known as colaspase in Australia. The old name would only be removed from use once all products using that name move to the new ingredient name. However, it is possible that both old and new names for the same substance could remain in use indefinitely.

There would be no compliance costs imposed on sponsors under this option. However, its adoption would increase the complexity of the registration and listing process for new medicines, resulting in potential increased costs to industry. This option would be especially problematic for changes where the old name is proposed to change to a new meaning. For example, 'carbidopa' is proposed to change to 'carbidopa monohydrate' (contains water). 'carbidopa anhydrous' would become just 'carbidopa' (does not contain water). Under Option 5, there is a greater risk that some products would show inaccurate amounts of the active ingredient if a structured transition process is not implemented.

Under Option 5, the risk of confusion for consumers and healthcare professionals would be significantly increased. By increasing the use of multiple names for a single substance, healthcare professionals are more likely to make prescription mistakes (where the wrong medicine is prescribed or administered) and consumers are at greater danger of accidentally double-dosing (taking two medicines containing the same substance but identified using different names). These risks are especially high in situations where the old and new ingredient names are not similar (i.e. colaspase versus asparaginase).

These risks could be significantly lowered if this option were only applied to a subset of ingredient names, for example for excipient ingredients only. As excipient ingredients are not usually included on product labels, using more than one name for an excipient would have very little effect on prescribing or taking medicines. As most compliance costs arise due to label changes, the cost to industry for this sub-option would be in effect identical to costs outlined in earlier options.

Although there are no quantified compliance costs, there is a high qualitative cost for Option 5. Due to the significant increase in confusion and the potential danger to consumer health and safety, Option 5 is associated with an overall net cost to industry, consumers and healthcare professionals.


Footnotes

  1. Some export only sponsors may wish to update 'Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product' documentation, however this does not need to be resubmitted to the TGA.
  2. The ingredient names used in prescribing and dispensing software is not regulated by TGA. However, TGA will work with these stakeholders to assist in changes, where required.
  3. Australian regulatory guidelines for sunscreens (ARGS)
  4. Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetics) Regulations 1991
  5. Many stakeholders raised concerns about the potential for adverse reactions with sunscreen ingredients. A search of the TGA Adverse Event Database revealed 15 reports of adverse events associated with sunscreens between July 2012 and June 2013. However, these results may also be due to non-sunscreen ingredients.
  6. WHO Guidance on INN
  7. WHO International Nonproprietary Names Modified (pdf,67kb)

6. Consultation

Version 1, November 2015

In May 2013, TGA consulted34 on a proposal to change 473 ingredient names. Thirty-one submissions were received35 from the therapeutic goods industry, and healthcare professional and consumer organisations (see Appendix C). The TGA also held focus groups with some stakeholders to discuss the proposed name changes and seek feedback on implementation strategies.

Overall, consultation responses supported international harmonisation of ingredient names, in principle. Healthcare professional and consumer organisations stated that harmonisation would reduce ambiguity and confusion by providing international consistency. With a few exceptions, most stakeholders agreed that the proposed changes would help the pharmaceutical industry provide Australians with medicines. Some industry stakeholders asserted that the proposed changes would enhance and improve patient safety when selecting over-the-counter medicines (with the exception of issues outlined below).

The issues raised in the submissions are grouped into two main themes:

  • the potential lack of harmonisation with international naming and
  • the implementation of ingredient name changes.

6.1 Potential lack of harmonisation

6.1.1 Unique names

Some stakeholders raised concerns that TGA was changing existing harmonised ingredient names to non-harmonised names. The consultation paper provided a table of 473 existing names and included the proposed new name and the old and new references. In 113 cases (24%), the new reference column was blank (see Table 4 for an example).

Table 4. Example of proposed ingredient name change in consultation paper
ID Current Name Current Ref Proposed Name New Ref
52796 Cholecalciferol BP colecalciferol

Some stakeholders interpreted this blank space to mean that the new ingredient name was unique and did not have an international reference. This blank space instead meant that the current reference had updated the old name and TGA was proposing to align with this update (hence a change to the current reference was not needed). In the cholecalciferol example above, the BP would remain as the ingredient name reference.

6.1.2 Hydration states and modified names

Many stakeholders raised concerns about including the hydration state in an ingredient name. Some stakeholders claimed that including a hydration state would result in unique Australian names. Option 4 has been included in this RIS in response to these concerns.

Mostly, these concerns were related to whether this hydration state would have to be included on a label, and the difficulties in fitting the extended name on the label. Some stakeholders claimed that this information would not help consumers or healthcare professionals and would instead cause confusion. The majority of current approved ingredient names include the accurate hydration status in the name. This proposal only changes those ingredients that did not have this accurate information.

Some submissions were specifically concerned about the change from 'lactose' to 'lactose monohydrate', and whether label statements like 'lactose free' would be affected. Although the ingredient 'lactose' will be changed to include its hydration state on the Ingredients Table, the word 'lactose' would still be used on a label. A product contains 'lactose' regardless of whether it contains 'lactose monohydrate' or 'lactose anhydrous'. The exact amount of lactose (as an excipient) is rarely disclosed on the label of a medicine. Therefore, a label statement of 'contains lactose' or 'lactose free' would remain the same.

6.1.3 Metal naming (English names and oxidation state)

Some industry stakeholders raised concerns that changing metal-containing ingredient names to English would create unique Australian names. Stakeholders asserted that there would be no advantage to changing metal names as the existing names did not pose a health concern and current labelling requirements ensured that the English name of the metal was included on the label. Industry and healthcare professional stakeholders also asserted that there was no benefit to the consumer or practitioner from including the metal oxidation state in the name. Option 3 has been included in this RIS in response to these concerns.

6.1.4 Use of INN terminology for sunscreen active ingredients

Industry stakeholders raised concerns that changing sunscreen active ingredient names to INN or pharmacopoeia nomenclature would result in a lack of international harmonisation with most countries. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the potential lack of consistency within Australia, as NICNAS would continue to use INCI naming for secondary sunscreen products. Stakeholders asserted that some sunscreen ingredients are associated with allergies and this inconsistency could increase risks to Australian consumer health. Option 3 has been included in this RIS in response to these concerns.

6.1.5 Use of INN terminology for excipient ingredients

Industry stakeholders raised concerns about using INN spelling conventions for excipient ingredient names. These stakeholders asserted that INNM naming guidelines should not be used for excipients where there is a more authoritative reference that can be used as the naming reference (such as a pharmacopoeia). These comments were specific to ingredients such as 'cyclomethicone', or 'sodium lauryl sulfate'. It was asserted that such pre-emptive action would result in a lack of harmonisation for no benefit.

Stakeholders also noted that excipients like cyclomethicone are present in many cosmetics and included on cosmetics labels. Stakeholders asserted that where these excipients are included in medicine labels (i.e. injections), such INN spelling changes may result in consumer confusion.

Option 3 has been included in this RIS in response to these concerns.

6.1.6 Macrogol terminology

Some industry stakeholders raised concerns that changing all synthetic polymeric substance names to macrogol terminology would pre-empt INN action in some cases. Some stakeholders noted that not all of these substances had INN stems.

One submission supported changing pure polyethylene glycols to macrogol terminology. However, this stakeholder asserted that using this naming for other synthetic polymeric derivatives (usually used as excipients) would result in a lack of harmonisation with cosmetic products. This stakeholder asserted that the active use of an ingredient should be prioritised over the excipient use, as it will appear on the label and needs to be meaningful to consumers.

Industry stakeholders also noted that there was a lack of consistency between how international standards define macrogol terminology (i.e. the average molecular mass of the polyethylene glycol portion).

Option 3 has been included in this RIS in response to these concerns. An updated numbering method has been applied for these changes.

6.1.7 Specific ingredients where INNs may not be appropriate

Adrenaline and noradrenaline

Adrenaline and noradrenaline are historic BP names. The consultation paper proposed to change these names to their INN counterparts (epinephrine and norepinephrine). The paper also proposed to dual-label adrenaline and noradrenaline products with both the new and old names for a total transition time of five years before moving to the INN as the sole name.

Most stakeholders (industry, government and healthcare professional) raised concerns about this proposed change. These concerns focussed on potential risks to patient safety because of the substance's high clinical significance and possible confusion between epinephrine and ephedrine. Some stakeholders stated that an intense education program and five year dual-labelling requirement would not be sufficient to mitigate these risks. Some stakeholders also noted that the current BP entries for adrenaline and noradrenaline include both the old names and the new INNs (epinephrine and norepinephrine).

In response, adrenaline and noradrenaline are proposed to be dual-labelled (dual-named) with no end date, consistent with the UK approach.

Menthol

The original proposal in the consultation paper was to change the ingredient name 'menthol' (a USP name) to 'racementhol' (INN). Stakeholders also noted that if 'racementhol' was adopted, a new entry would need to be created for 'levomenthol' since the USP definition of 'menthol' covers both physical states of the substance (racementhol and levomenthol).

Menthol is an ingredient common both to food and medicines. Stakeholders therefore raised concerns that the name change may result in consumer confusion and a lack of harmonisation between regulators. Stakeholders asserted that 'menthol' was the name used in therapeutic products internationally and there was limited benefit in knowing which menthol stereoisomer was used in a product (racementhol versus levomenthol).

In response, menthol was removed from the full proposal.

Fish oils

The consultation paper proposed to change 'docosahexaenoic acid' (DHA) (a Martindale name) to 'doconexent' (INN). The paper also proposed to change 'eicosapentaenoic acid' (EPA) (a Merck Index name) to 'icosapent' (INN). EPA and DHA are fatty acids (present as triglycerides) in fish oils and other oils derived from natural sources.

Stakeholders raised concerns that these changes would result in a lack of harmonisation as EPA and DHA terminology is commonly used in the literature internationally. Stakeholders also asserted that the proposed change would result in consumer confusion for little benefit.

Further consideration revealed that EPA and DHA are components of ingredients (fish oils), not ingredients themselves. TGA policy does not apply INN naming to components of ingredients. Therefore INN nomenclature may not be appropriate for EPA and DHA.

As EPA and DHA are technically not ingredients, they have been removed from the full proposal.

6.2 Implementation

Stakeholders provided extensive feedback on implementation strategies. Much of this feedback has been incorporated into the proposed implementation process (see Section 8 - Implementation and review). The main themes are outlined below.

6.2.1 Fee waivers

Several stakeholders noted the costs associated with label changes and requested that TGA provide fee waivers for any required updates to ingredients databases, the ARTG, PIs and CMIs.

In response, it will be clarified that changes to ARTG entries initiated by TGA are not fee based. Therefore updating the ARTG entry and the resulting updates to labels, PIs and CMIs will not incur a fee if the only change is the harmonisation of the ingredient name. Alternatively, to reduce the impact on businesses, the use of a transition period is intended to minimise the costs of ingredient name updates by allowing the incorporation of changes to the ARTG/PIs/CMIs as part of business-as-usual processes.

6.2.2 Timing

The consultation paper proposed a two year transition period for ARTG/label/CMI/PI changes. For substances proposed to be dual-labelled, an additional three years was suggested for a total dual-labelling period of five years.

Most industry stakeholders stated that a two year transition period was insufficient to update labels and supporting documentation and to allow the use of excess stock. Industry stakeholders proposed alternative transition periods ranging between three to five years. The majority of consultation responses agreed that timeframes should align with other TGA activities that are expected to affect sponsors and the community (such as the labelling review).

Some stakeholders noted that an extended transition period may increase risks to patient safety, especially if name changes are implemented on prescribing software before labels are changed (and vice versa). Risks of consumers inadvertently double-dosing may arise where multiple brand products are available for the same ingredient and some sponsors update their labels before other sponsors.

In response, two transition options have been developed (three years and four years) and a communication program is proposed to reduce the risks associated with the transition (see Section 8 - Implementation and review).

6.2.3 Dual-labelling

The consultation paper proposed that substances be dual-labelled with the old name first, followed by the new name. Most stakeholders preferred the opposite order for labelling - that the new ingredient name be listed first, followed by the old name in brackets. For example, 'lignocaine hydrochloride' would be dual-labelled as 'lidocaine (lignocaine) hydrochloride'. Stakeholders asserted that this approach would assist with consumers' and healthcare professionals' transition to the new name.

This revised order of names has been included as the preferred approach in this RIS for most dual-labelled ingredients. As discussed earlier, adrenaline and noradrenaline products will be dual-labelled in the opposite order (adrenaline (epinephrine)) to harmonise with the UK example.

Stakeholders also nominated a number of additional ingredients for dual-labelling (for example sunscreens or ingredients where the first couple of letters have changed). Currently, sponsors can include additional information on labels to clarify the active ingredient (for example including a common name for a herbal preparation). TGA can also require that specific products include both names on their labels, case by case.

6.2.4 Communication and education

Many stakeholders (industry, healthcare professional and consumer) raised concerns about the risks of changing existing medicine names. Stakeholders noted the risks of medication errors if adequate education and resources were not provided to support the changes, particularly for substances of 'high clinical significance', anaesthetics or medicines used to treat chronic diseases.

Most stakeholders proposed a targeted communication and education strategy. Focussed communication activities were proposed for the following areas:

  • Substances of high clinical significance
  • Sunscreen active ingredients
  • Common over-the-counter active ingredients
  • Ingredients associated with allergies (both cause and treatment)
  • Where an existing ingredient on the Ingredients Table has changed its meaning (i.e. 'carbidopa' to 'carbidopa monohydrate').

Stakeholders recommended that communication and education activities be implemented in close collaboration with government, industry and consumer and healthcare professional organisations. It was recommended that communication activities start before the ingredient name changes are implemented and continue throughout the transition period. See Section 8 - Implementation and review for more information on the proposed communication activities.


Footnotes

  1. Consultation: International harmonisation of ingredient names - 13 May 2013 to 10 July 2013
  2. Submissions received: international harmonisation of ingredient names

7. Conclusion

Version 1, November 2015

The main objective of the proposal is to provide clarity and consistency in naming (as far as possible) to support the quality use of medicines. The proposal also aims to minimise administrative costs for industry, thereby supporting the commercial viability of supplying medicines to Australian consumers.

This RIS outlines the following options to achieve these objectives:

  • Option 1 proposes no change (status quo).
  • Option 2 proposes to change 478 ingredient names to their harmonised nomenclature.
  • Option 3 reduces the full proposal by applying status quo to:
    • 3a - Metal-containing ingredient names
    • 3b - Sunscreen active ingredient names
    • 3c - The spelling of some excipient names
    • 3d - Macrogol excipient names
  • Option 4 proposes to further reduce name changes to only those where there is direct harmonisation with a reference, plus those considered of high clinical significance.
  • Option 5 allows a voluntary approach to the proposed name changes (or a subset thereof).

The benefits of improved global harmonisation and contribution to the quality use of medicines for Australians will not be realised under Options 1 and 5. In considering the alternative mandatory adoption proposals (Options 2, 3 and 4), the most cost effective approach is sought to minimise implementation problems that may offset these benefits.

Option 3 is the preferred option. This option would increase the alignment of Australian ingredient names with widely accepted international terminology by harmonising a large proportion of the identified inconsistencies. At the same time, harmonisation will not be imposed when the regulatory costs would potentially outweigh the benefits. The net regulatory cost of this Option will be offset by other gains, such reduced risk of incorrect use of medicines and clarity for patients and healthcare providers. This option will also result in a small reduction in barriers to trade for individual companies, however it is not expected to have a noticeable effect on the market overall.

A four year transition period for these changes is proposed. This transition period would minimise most of the costs of the ingredient name changes as it fits well with business as usual label changes identified by industry during consultation.

To mitigate the risks to consumers, medicines with ingredients identified as of 'high clinical significance' would be dual-labelled with both the old and new name for an additional three years. Following this period, sponsors could then start using the new ingredient name as the sole name.

Due to the qualitative gains from harmonisation, this option is expected to result in an overall net benefit to consumers, healthcare professionals and industry once the name changes are embedded in Australian nomenclature.

8. Implementation and review

Version 1, November 2015

During the transition period, TGA will collaborate with product sponsors to update ingredient names in:

  • Business Services Ingredients Table
  • ARTG entries
  • PIs/CMIs
  • medicine labels.

8.1 Business Services Ingredients Table

TGA proposes to update the Ingredients Table with the new names at the beginning of the transition period. TGA will include in each entry any previously used names as synonyms for the new ingredient name. Therefore searches of the Ingredients Table using an old name will retrieve the new name entry.

Where the new ingredient name already exists in the Table, the old name will be hidden on the public interface. For example, both 'colecalciferol' and 'cholecalciferol' are current entries: 'Cholecalciferol' will be hidden and 'colecalciferol' will be the only visible entry for this substance. For those ingredients that do not have a new harmonised name already available, a new entry will be created. The old name will then be hidden. Once the Ingredients Table is updated, sponsors would only be able to use the new harmonised names for entering new products onto the ARTG.

TGA will also ensure that these name changes flow onto other TGA Business Services systems (listed medicine validation rules, the Prescription Medicines Electronic Lodgement facility [PREMIER] etc.).

For dual-labelled ingredients, the name change process will be the same as for other ingredient name changes. At the end of the dual-labelling period, TGA will change the dual-labelled ingredients36 to their new name as the sole name. This will be done by changing the dual-labelled entry to its sole name in the Ingredients Table. Sponsors would be able to voluntarily change their ARTG entries to reflect the harmonised name as the sole name.

8.2 ARTG

TGA will update affected ARTG entries in collaboration with sponsors. TGA will write to individual sponsors to notify them of this activity and of the need to assess their products for any associated changes to labelling or supporting product information. This letter will also include a return TGA form to acknowledge their cooperation with the updates.

TGA will also notify affected sponsors when the dual-labelling period has expired. At this time, affected ARTG entries will be automatically updated to the sole new name. No fee is associated with this change.

8.3 PI and CMI

If the PI or CMI specifies an ingredient name that has been harmonised, this documentation will need to be updated to reflect the new name. For variations to the ARTG requested under s. 9D of the Act - including 9D(1), 9D(2) and 9D(3) - approval of a change to the PI is made under s. 25AA(4).

No fees will be charged to change a PI and CMI, as long as the only change is that to the ingredient name for the purposes of this harmonisation activity. Sponsors could apply to change the ingredient name on PI/CMI documentation at the same time as they wish to make other changes to their product details using the usual variation processes. However, these combined applications would be subject to the usual TGA fees.

For dual-labelled ingredients, both the old and new name will need to be specified in the 'active ingredient' section of the PI/CMI, as well as any other section where the old name is included. At the end of the dual-labelling period, sponsors will be able to move to using the sole name on PIs and CMIs voluntarily.

8.4 Changes to legislative instruments

Several legislative instruments will be updated to reflect the new names, specifically:

  • TGO No. 80 (Child-Resistant Packaging Requirements for Medicines) - e.g. 'frusemide' will change to 'furosemide'.
  • Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990, Schedule 2 and Schedule 4 - e.g. 'cholecalciferol' and 'alpha-tocopherol' will change to their new names.
  • Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP) - ingredients may change to their harmonised name or be included as synonyms in the index. Some of these changes have already been implemented through separate SUSMP processes.

The same regulatory requirements will continue to apply for these ingredients, regardless of which name is used in the legislative instrument.

8.5 Communication and education

A communication strategy will help raise awareness of the changes for healthcare professionals and consumers so that the correct medicine is prescribed and taken.

The UK underwent a similar ingredient name harmonisation process in 2003, at which time British Approved Names and names of ingredients in the BP were updated to reflect international naming policy. The following communication and education strategies were developed applying the lessons learnt from the UK process, as well as input from stakeholders during consultation.

In line with the TGA external communication and education framework 2013-201537, TGA will work closely with consumer and healthcare professional organisations to develop and disseminate information about the ingredient name changes. These organisations have existing resources and networks that extend beyond those currently available to TGA.

8.5.1 Targeted communication

TGA will work with the National Prescribing Service (NPS MedicineWise) and other consumer and healthcare professional organisations to develop communication and education strategies with a focus on:

  • specific areas of practice (general practitioners, nurses, pharmacists) and
  • specific types of ingredients (substances of high clinical significance, anaesthetics, ingredients used in common over-the-counter products).

A range of communication materials will be developed through different media. These will include articles in trade magazines, targeted mail-outs to sponsors and healthcare professionals, information pamphlets that healthcare professionals can pass on to consumers, and presentations at professional seminars or conferences. TGA will also investigate opportunities for updating practitioner training materials (such as reference texts - the Australian Medicines Handbook).

TGA will also create a dedicated page on the TGA website that will be a central source of information on the changes and contain a copy of useful communication and education materials. All communication materials will provide links back to this central webpage. This webpage will also include a searchable database of old and new active ingredient names. Consumers, healthcare professionals, industry and government would be able to check whether an ingredient name was changed.

8.5.2 Updating dispensing and prescribing software

TGA will work closely with NeHTA to implement ingredient name changes on prescribing and dispensing software. NeHTA currently adapts their terminology used in dispensing software from existing ARTG entries and TGA provides regular ARTG updates to ensure that their terminology is current. NeHTA moderates these changes, which can then flow onto prescribing and dispensing software that use NeHTA terminology.

The PBS has adopted the NeHTA medicines terminology. Any ingredient name changes that are taken up by NeHTA systems will be reflected in the PBS systems.

8.6 Monitoring and review

During the transition period, TGA will monitor a subset of ingredient name changes in PIs/CMIs and labels. TGA will also monitor queries from consumers, healthcare professionals and industry about the ingredient name changes. Specific monitoring attention will be given to ingredients of high clinical significance (those that have been dual-labelled).

TGA will review the success of the harmonisation activity by measuring the uptake of ingredient name changes and the number and type of stakeholder queries. This review will occur:

  • At the end of the four year transition period and
  • At the end of the dual-labelling period.

Footnotes

  1. Excluding adrenaline and noradrenaline entries.
  2. TGA external communication and education framework

Appendix A: Costings and assumptions

Version 1, November 2015

Option 1 - Baseline assumptions

Number of medicine products in Australia (as at January 2015):

  • There are approximately 33,000 medicine entries on the ARTG (15,000 Prescription; 3,000 OTC; 12,000 Listed; and 3,000 Export Only).
  • Low value turnover rates have been used to estimate how many ARTG entries are not associated with a product currently marketed in Australia. Approximately half of ARTG entries are reported to TGA as having a low value turn-over38, with the following breakdown:
    • Prescription - 62%
    • OTC - 36%
    • Listed - 35%
  • Some ARTG entries cover more than one medicine unit (e.g. different pack sizes). A multiplier39 is applied to ARTG entries for each of the following types of medicines:
    • Prescription - 2.3 medicines per ARTG entry
    • OTC - 2.5 medicines per ARTG entry
    • Listed -1.0 medicines per ARTG entry
  • Based on the above figures, there are 25,585 total medicine products marketed in Australia (12,889 Prescription; 4,895 OTC; and 7,800 Listed)
  • For many medicines, there is more than one label associated with a product. For example, a medicine in a blister pack is assumed to be associated with 2 labels (the backing of the blister container and the outside carton). Based on an analysis of ARTG entries, a multiplier is applied to the number of medicine products to estimate the number of associated labels:
    • Prescription - 1.89 labels per medicine product
    • OTC - 1.85 labels per medicine product
    • Listed -1.05 labels per medicine product
    • An average multiplier of 1.60 is applied for some calculations.
  • Over half (55%) of medicines are either a single product under a unique brand name or the first product in a range comprising the same brand name and active ingredient (usually differing in strength - e.g. 20mg vs. 40mg). The remaining 45% of products are the second and subsequent strengths in the brand with the same active ingredient.

Business-as-usual (BAU) variations to existing medicines:

  • There is high variability between how often sponsors change an aspect of their product (e.g. update label, PI etc.). Some sponsors vary their ARTG entry regularly (even more than once a year), whereas other sponsors will not vary their products for several years. The majority of ARTG variation applications are for prescription products. For most listed medicines, instead of varying an ARTG entry, sponsors will cancel the product and replace it with a new ARTG entry.
  • Based on a 2014 survey of companies, TGA assumes that existing products will change their labels as part of BAU, on average, every 3 years (i.e. half of all medicines will make an amendment to their label within 3 years).
  • Total costs for minor changes to labels (e.g. changing an ingredient) as part of BAU vary depending on the type of medicine. However, as outlined in the 2014 consultation for medicine labelling reforms40, the average cost for minor label changes is estimated as $2,180 per medicine.
  • These minor label change costs include pre-production costs (such as label redesign and approval, artwork and proofing) and production costs (new printing plates for conventional printing processes, changes to the digital printing process). The costs also cover any potential changes to the PI/CMI.
  • A minor label change is defined as a small change to the phrasing of text on a label that does not necessitate a change to, or rearrangement of, other label graphics.

Costs associated with a lack of harmonisation

  • Based on similarities between products registered in Australia versus the US and European Union, 75% of affected products are marketed overseas as well as in Australia by the same company.
  • There is a time-cost imposed on sponsors associated with preparing advertising/marketing materials using unharmonised ingredient names. Due to seasonal marketing, most advertising materials are assumed to be updated yearly. Many international companies are able to use marketing material from overseas. The cost of changing this ingredient name on international marketing material is estimated at 2 hours per product line41 per year, at an hourly wage of $65.45 per hour42.
  • There is a time-cost for sponsors resulting from a lack of harmonisation or inconsistencies and ambiguity within the TGA Business Services Ingredient Tables. These costs include time spent researching and selecting appropriate ingredient names, complexity during internal safety or technical complaints reporting, and/or responding to TGA requests for further information if an ingredient within a product application does not match the Australian Approved Name. This cost is estimated at 3 hours per year per affected sponsor, at an hourly wage rate of $65.45 per hour.
  • The indirect costs of imposing a barrier to international trade for Australian businesses through a lack of harmonisation could not be calculated.

Option 2 - Mandatory adoption - the full proposal

Option 2 proposes to change the names of 478 ingredients.

This option would affect 18,758 ARTG medicine entries (approximately 54% prescription, 12% OTC, 35% Listed) and 1,029 sponsors. The same baseline assumptions for BAU have been used as outlined under Option 1.

Regulatory cost assumptions

Number of medicine products affected and cost of changes
  • Based on the baseline assumptions, 16,431 medicine products currently marketed in Australia will be affected, with the following breakdown:
    • Prescription: 8,698 products
    • OTC: 3,526 products
    • Listed: 4,208 products
  • Labels will be affected if the change is to an active ingredient (25% of the changes).
  • Based on the BAU costs outlined in Option 1, the following label pre-production and production costs are assumed (total $14.89M):
    • Prescription: $8.95M
    • OTC: $3.54M
    • Listed: $2.41M
  • Most of the ingredient name changes involve the change of one letter, addition/removal of a hydration state, removal of hyphen or a change in word order. Products affected by dual labelling will require additional information on the label (as an ingredient needs to be identified with both old and new names), however this still fits the definition of a minor change. Medicines associated with 194 ARTG entries will require dual labelling at an estimated cost of $1.96M.
  • Where an ingredient is within a Proprietary Ingredient, there would be no effect on label or other documentation and no regulatory burden has been estimated. Approximately 34% of the proposed changes are to ingredients within Proprietary Ingredients.
  • The above costs of updating labels include costs associated with updating PI/CMI documentation. Some PIs will only need to update an excipient name without updating a label - estimated at 15% of prescription only product lines. Production costs for a changed PI document are estimated at $147. The PI/CMI updating cost is estimated at $0.10M.
  • The one-off labour burden for businesses that need to make the required changes on internal documents, labels and PI/CMI documents would be approximately 4 hours per product line, at a labour rate of $65.45 per hour. This includes 2 hours to assess what changes need to be made to products and 2 hours to make any changes (update names, QA, complete and return template TGA letter as part of the application to vary the ARTG).
  • The labour involved in the second and subsequent products in a product line would equate to an extra 2 hours per additional product. The total labour cost for the changes is estimated as $3.33M.
  • The total one-off cost for ingredient changes under Option 2 (prior to discounts due to BAU and transition timeframes) is estimated as $18.33M.
Benefits of harmonisation
  • In an attempt to provide an estimate of the benefits of harmonisation, TGA assumes that each individual ingredient name change will result in an equal amount of benefit to each sponsor.
  • According to the costs identified in Option 1, harmonisation of active ingredient names would provide an ongoing saving to sponsors. This arises from the reduction of costs associated with developing and varying advertising and marketing materials and supporting documentation between Australia and other markets and is estimated at $353,210 per annum over 10 years.
  • Harmonisation and resolution of Ingredients Tables inconsistencies will also save industry time spent researching and selecting appropriate ingredient names, complexity during internal safety or technical complaints reporting, and/or responding to TGA requests for further information if an ingredient within a product application does not match the Australian Approved Name. This saving is estimated at $202,044 per annum over 10 years.
  • The total benefit from Option 2 per annum over 10 years is estimated at $0.56M.
Transition options

Transition Option (i): proposes a three year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 50 per cent of affected products would have changed within the three year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 50 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a four year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (25 per cent). A 6% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 2 years earlier (15 per cent). A 12% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 2(i), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.91M per annum over 10 years.

Transition Option (ii): proposes a four year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 75 per cent of affected products would have changed within the four year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 25 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (15 per cent). A 6% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 2(ii), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.23M per annum over 10 years.

Option 3 - Mandatory adoption - a reduced proposal (PREFERED OPTION)

Under this option, 336 ingredient names will change. This option would affect 17,886 ARTG entries (55% prescription, 11% OTC, 34% Listed) and 972 sponsors.

The same baseline and transition assumptions have been used for Option 3 as for the previous options.>/

Regulatory cost assumptions

Number of medicine products affected and cost of changes
  • Based on the baseline assumptions, Option 3 will affect 15,636 medicine products currently marketed in Australia, with the following breakdown:
    • Prescription: 8,496 products
    • OTC: 3,228 products
    • Listed: 3,917 products
  • Labels will be affected if the change is to an active ingredient (22% of the changes).
  • Based on the BAU costs outlined in Option 1, the following label pre-production and production costs are assumed (total $12.82M):
    • Prescription: $7.88M
    • OTC: $2.93M
    • Listed: $2.02M
  • Where an ingredient is within a Proprietary Ingredient, there would be no effect on label or other documentation and no regulatory burden has been estimated. Approximately 18% of the proposed changes are to ingredients within Proprietary Ingredients.
  • The PI/CMI updating cost is estimated at $0.10M.
  • The one-off labour burden for businesses that need to make the required changes on internal documents, labels and PI/CMI documents would be approximately 4 hours per product line, at a labour rate of $65.45 per hour. This includes 2 hours to assess what changes need to be made to products and 2 hours to make any changes (update names, QA, complete and return template TGA letter as part of the application to vary the ARTG).
  • The labour involved in the second and subsequent products in a product line would equate to an extra 2 hours per additional product. The total labour cost for the changes is estimated as $3.17M.
  • The total one-off cost for ingredient changes under Option 3 (prior to discounts due to BAU and transition timeframes) is estimated as $16.09M.
Benefits of harmonisation
  • In an attempt to provide an estimate of the benefits of harmonisation, TGA assumes that each individual ingredient name change will result in an equal amount of benefit to each sponsor.
  • According to the costs identified in Option 1, harmonisation of active ingredient names would provide an ongoing saving to sponsors. This arises from the reduction of costs associated with developing and varying advertising and marketing materials and supporting documentation between Australia and other markets and is estimated at $303,160 per annum over 10 years.
  • Harmonisation and resolution of Ingredients Database inconsistencies will also save industry time spent researching and selecting appropriate ingredient names, complexity during internal safety or technical complaints reporting, and/or responding to TGA requests for further information if an ingredient within a product application does not match the Australian Approved Name. This saving is estimated at $190,852 per annum over 10 years.
  • The total benefit from Option 3 per annum over 10 years is estimated at $0.49M.
Transition options

Transition Option (i): proposes a three year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 50 per cent of affected products would have changed within the three year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 50 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a four year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (25 per cent). A 6% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 2 years earlier (15 per cent). A 12% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 3(i), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.73M per annum over 10 years.

Transition Option (ii): proposes a four year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 75 per cent of affected products would have changed within the four year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 25 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (15 per cent). A 6% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 3(ii), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.13M per annum over 10 years.

Option 4 - Mandatory adoption - Direct harmonisation of INN/reference and substances of high clinical significance

Under this option, 160 ingredient names will change. This option would affect 6,478 ARTG entries (47% prescription, 13% OTC, 29% Listed) and 350 sponsors.

The same baseline and transition assumptions have been used for Option 4 as for the previous options.

Regulatory cost assumptions

Number of medicine products affected and cost of changes
  • Based on the baseline assumptions, Option 4 will affect 5,142 medicine products currently marketed in Australia, with the following breakdown:
    • Prescription: 2,599 products
    • OTC: 1,330 products
    • Listed: 1,213 products
  • Labels will be affected if the change is to an active ingredient (50% of the changes).
  • Based on the BAU costs outlined in Option 1, the following label pre-production and production costs are assumed (total $9.44M):
    • Prescription: $5.37M
    • OTC: $2.68M
    • Listed: $1.39M
  • The PI/CMI updating cost is estimated at $0.01M.
  • The one-off labour burden for businesses that need to make the required changes on internal documents, labels and PI/CMI documents would be approximately 4 hours per product line, at a labour rate of $65.45 per hour. This includes 2 hours to assess what changes need to be made to products and 2 hours to make any changes (update names, QA, complete and return template TGA letter as part of the application to vary the ARTG).
  • The labour involved in the second and subsequent products in a product line would equate to an extra 2 hours per additional product. The total labour cost for the changes is estimated as $1.04M.
  • The total one-off cost for ingredient changes under Option 4 (prior to discounts due to BAU and transition timeframes) is estimated as $10.50M.
Benefits of harmonisation
  • In an attempt to provide an estimate of the benefits of harmonisation, TGA assumes that each individual ingredient name change will result in an equal amount of benefit to each sponsor.
  • According to the costs identified in Option 1, harmonisation of active ingredient names would provide an ongoing saving to sponsors. This arises from the reduction of costs associated with developing and varying advertising and marketing materials and supporting documentation between Australia and other markets and is estimated at $221,899 per annum over 10 years.
  • Harmonisation and resolution of Ingredients Database inconsistencies will also save industry time spent researching and selecting appropriate ingredient names, complexity during internal safety or technical complaints reporting, and/or responding to TGA requests for further information if an ingredient within a product application does not match the Australian Approved Name. This saving is estimated at $68,723 per annum over 10 years.
  • The total benefit from Option 4 per annum over 10 years is estimated at $0.29M.
Transition options

Transition Option (i): proposes a three year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 50 per cent of affected products would have changed within the three year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 50 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a four year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (25 per cent). A 6% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 2 years earlier (15 per cent). A 12% rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 4(i), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.51M per annum over 10 years.

Transition Option (ii): proposes a four year transition period for changing ingredient names. Substances identified as being of 'high clinical significance' would be required to be dual-labelled (with old and new names) for an additional three years. Those medicines with dual-labelling could voluntarily move to use of the new ingredient name as the sole name after this period.

  • Approximately 75 per cent of affected products would have changed within the four year period as part of BAU (as per a normal skewed right distribution curve).
  • The remaining 25 per cent of products would need to bring forward any planned changes to labels and other documentation to avoid having to pay twice for changes (once for the regulatory changes, once for the business need). A 6 per cent discount rate (per annum) has been applied to products that would need to change labels earlier than would be required as part of ordinary business:
    • Those that would normally change in a five year cycle, but are being forced to change 1 year earlier (15 per cent). A 6 per cent rate has been applied to the full cost of changes for these products as part of BAU.
    • Those that would never normally change (10 per cent). The full cost of the ingredient name changes would apply for products in this category.
  • The total cost for Option 4(ii), including the benefits outlined above, is $0.12M per annum over 10 years.

Footnotes

  1. LVT Consultation
  2. Sourced from the 2104 survey of companies
  3. Consultation: Medicine labelling
  4. Only active ingredients are included in advertising material.
  5. OBPR data, includes on-cost multiplier 1.75

Appendix B: Ingredient name changes (preferred option)

Version 1, November 2015

The following ingredient names are proposed to change under the preferred option (Option 3).

Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)

1-9 A B C D E F G H I L M N O P Q R S T

1-9 - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
53999 2-hydroxymethylfuran MI furfuryl alcohol MI  
81918 3-phenyl propyl alcohol PFC phenylpropanol USAN  
51951 6-acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene PFC 7-acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene PFC  
54012 8-hydroxyquinoline MI oxyquinoline USAN  
A - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
51965 Acriflavine MAR acriflavinium chloride INN  
58903 Actinomycin D BAN dactinomycin INN YES
51982 Adrenaline BP adrenaline (epinephrine) BP  
51983 Adrenaline acid tartrate BPM adrenaline (epinephrine) acid tartrate BPM  
100580 Adrenaline acid tartrate (epinephrine acid tartrate) BPM adrenaline (epinephrine) acid tartrate BPM  
51985 Adrenaline hydrochloride BPM adrenaline (epinephrine) hydrochloride BPM  
100581 Adrenaline hydrochloride (epinephrine hydrochloride) BPM adrenaline (epinephrine) hydrochloride BPM  
93569 Alizarin cyanine green F MI acid green 25 CI  
52016 Allylamyl glycollate CAS allyl amyl glycolate TGA  
96313 Alpha tocopherol BP dl-alpha-tocopherol USPM  
96314 Alpha tocopherol acetate BP dl-alpha-tocopheryl acetate USPM  
52047 Alum BP alum dodecahydrate BPM  
52059 Aluminium hydroxide MI aluminium hydroxide hydrate BPM  
57910 Aluminium hydroxide - dried BP aluminium hydroxide BP  
52063 Aluminium nitrate MI aluminium nitrate nonahydrate BPAPM  
88051 Aluminium oxide anhydrous MI aluminium oxide MI  
71128 Aluminium sulfate BP aluminium sulfate hydrate BP  
52086 Amethocaine hydrochloride BP tetracaine hydrochloride BP YES
52090 Amiloride hydrochloride BP amiloride hydrochloride dihydrate BPM  
52091 Aminacrine hydrochloride BAN aminoacridine hydrochloride BAN  
56667 Amlodipine besylate BAN amlodipine besilate BP  
52122 Ammonium hydroxide MAR strong ammonia solution BP  
52122 Ammonium hydroxide MAR dilute ammonia solution BP  
56480 Amoxycillin BP amoxicillin INN  
60720 Amoxycillin sodium BP amoxicillin sodium BP  
52133 Amoxycillin trihydrate BP amoxicillin trihydrate BP  
52137 Amphotericin BP amphotericin B INN YES
52166 Amylobarbitone sodium BP amobarbital sodium BP YES
52206 Antimony potassium tartrate USP antimony potassium tartrate trihydrate USPM  
95337 Apomorphine hydrochloride BP apomorphine hydrochloride hemihydrate BPM  
52235 Atracurium besylate BAN atracurium besilate BP  
70757 Atropine sulfate BP atropine sulfate monohydrate BPM  
B - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
96610 Bacillus Calmette and Guerin BP Mycobacterium bovis (Bacillus Calmette and Guerin (BCG) strain) BP YES
52278 Beclomethasone Dipropionate BP beclometasone dipropionate BP  
94769 Bee AIN honey bee HPUS  
103481 Bee venom HPUS honey bee venom AIN  
52304 Benzhexol hydrochloride BP trihexyphenidyl hydrochloride BP YES
52309 Benzodihydropyrone FCC dihydrocoumarin FCC  
52320 Benztropine mesylate BP benzatropine mesilate BP  
52350 Berberine hydrochloride MAR berberine chloride BPAP  
52414 Bretylium tosylate BAN bretylium tosilate BP  
52427 Bromocriptine mesylate BP bromocriptine mesilate BP  
52448 Bupivacaine hydrochloride BP bupivacaine hydrochloride monohydrate BPM  
101754 Bupivacaine hydrochloride anhydrous BP bupivacaine hydrochloride BP  
52467 Butoxyethyl nicotinate MAR nicoboxil INN  
52473 Butyl aminobenzoate USAN butamben USP  
C - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
93476 C12-15 alkyl benzoate ICID alkyl (C12-15) benzoate USP  
52528 Calcium chloride BP Calcium chloride dihydrate BP  
97719 Calcium citrate hydrate MI calcium citrate tetrahydrate USANM  
52538 Calcium gluconate BP calcium gluconate monohydrate BPM  
52543 Calcium hydrogen phosphate BP calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate BPM  
95202 Calcium hydrogen phosphate anhydrous BP calcium hydrogen phosphate BPM  
100565 Calcium lactate anhydrous BP calcium lactate BPM  
63405 Calcium sulfate BPAP calcium sulfate dihydrate BP  
92089 Calcium sulfate anhydrous USP calcium sulfate USP  
91543 Caldiamide sodium BAN caldiamide sodium hydrate BANM  
60531 Caprylic/capric triglyceride ICID medium chain triglycerides BP  
52614 Carbidopa BP carbidopa monohydrate BPM  
87613 Carbidopa anhydrous BP carbidopa INN  
52685 Cellacephate BP cellacefate INN  
52689 Cephalexin BP cefalexin monohydrate BP  
100859 Cephalexin anhydrous BP cefalexin BP  
52691 Cephalothin sodium BP cefalotin sodium BP  
81269 Cephamandole BAN cefamandole INN  
71817 Cephazolin BAN cefazolin INN  
52695 Cephazolin sodium BAN cefazolin sodium BP  
89428 Cetyl dimethicone ICID cetyl dimeticone ICIDM  
99554 Chitosan ICID poliglusam INN  
52739 Chlorbutol BP chlorobutanol hemihydrate BPM  
100585 Chlorphenamine maleate (Chlorpheniramine maleate) BP chlorphenamine maleate BP  
52779 Chlorpheniramine maleate BP chlorphenamine maleate BP  
52793 Chlorthalidone BP chlortalidone INN  
52796 Cholecalciferol BP colecalciferol INN  
52798 Cholestyramine BAN colestyramine INN  
94798 Chromic chloride USP chromic chloride hexahydrate USPM  
95567 cis-3-Hexenyl caproate PFC cis-3-hexenyl hexanoate PFCM  
96377 Cisatracurium besylate BAN cisatracurium besilate INN  
97439 Citric acid - anhydrous BP citric acid BPM  
52917 Clomiphene citrate BP clomifene citrate BP  
73497 Coco-caprylate/caprate ICID coco-octanoate/decanoate ICIDM  
52959 Codeine phosphate BP codeine phosphate hemihydrate BP  
52966 Colaspase BAN asparaginase USAN YES
93010 Co-methylcobalamin MI mecobalamin INN YES
94811 Crystal violet CI42555 MAR methylrosanilinium chloride INN YES
94806 Cupric sulfate anhydrous MI cupric sulfate MIM  
94518 Cyanocobalamin(57Co) BP cyanocobalamin (57Co) INN  
53054 Cyclophosphamide BP cyclophosphamide monohydrate INNM  
53057 Cyclosporin BAN ciclosporin INN  
53063 Cyproheptadine hydrochloride BP cyproheptadine hydrochloride sesquihydrate BPM  
97278 Cysteamine bitartrate BAN mercaptamine bitartrate BAN YES
D - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
53073 Dantrolene sodium BAN dantrolene sodium hemiheptahydrate INNM  
105603 DEA-C8-18 perfluoroalkylethyl phosphate ICID diolamine C8-18 perfluoroalkylethyl phosphate ICIDM  
70697 DEA-cetyl phosphate ICID diolamine cetyl phosphate ICIDM  
63559 Decan-1-ol BPAP decyl alcohol BPAP  
97447 Delavirdine mesylate USAN delavirdine mesilate USAN  
53110 Desferrioxamine mesylate BP desferrioxamine mesilate BP  
81377 Dexamphetamine sulfate BP dexamfetamine sulfate BPM  
53142 Dextromethorphan hydrobromide BP dextromethorphan hydrobromide monohydrate BPM  
53146 Dextropropoxyphene napsylate BP dextropropoxyphene napsilate monohydrate BP  
68290 Diazolidinylurea ICID diazolidinyl urea ICID  
91312 Diclofenac diethylammonium BAN diclofenac diethylamine BP  
96353 Diethyl toluamide ICID diethyltoluamide INN  
53233 Dihydroergotamine mesylate BP dihydroergotamine mesilate BP  
53248 Di-iodohydroxyquinoline BAN diiodohydroxyquinoline INN  
53250 Di-isopropanolamine USP diisopropanolamine USP  
104168 Dimeglumine gadobenate BP gadobenate dimeglumine BPM  
72289 Dimeglumine gadopentetate USAN gadopentetate dimeglumine USPM  
85525 Dimethicone 10 BP dimeticone 10 BPM  
91502 Dimethicone 100 BP dimeticone 100 BPM  
58347 Dimethicone 1000 BP dimeticone 1000 BPM  
96967 Dimethicone 1510 BP dimeticone 1510 BPM  
96336 Dimethicone 20 BP dimeticone 20 BPM  
73472 Dimethicone 200 BP dimeticone 200 BPM  
104415 Dimethicone 30 BP dimeticone 30 BPM  
64435 Dimethicone 350 BP dimeticone 350 BPM  
84714 Dimethicone 450 BP dimeticone 450 BPM  
98939 Dimethicone 5 BP dimeticone 5 BPM  
80998 Dimethicone 50 BP dimeticone 50 BPM  
66689 Dimethicone copolyol ICID dimeticone copolyol ICIDM  
94065 Dimethicone copolyol phosphate ICID dimeticone copolyol phosphate ICIDM  
66554 Dimethiconol ICID dimeticonol ICIDM  
101709 Dimethiconol stearate ICID dimeticonol stearate ICIDM  
95372 Di-N propyl isocinchomeronate CAS di-n-propyl isocinchomeronate CAS  
81428 Diphemanil methylsulfate BAN diphemanil metilsulfate INN  
53315 Diphenyl ether MI diphenyl oxide MI  
102486 Disodium dimethicone copolyol sulfosuccinate ICID disodium dimeticone copolyol sulfosuccinate ICIDM  
53329 Disodium etidronate BAN etidronate disodium BP  
68222 Disodium pamidronate BAN pamidronate disodium BPM  
102195 dl-alpha tocopherol phosphate disodium CAS dl-alpha-tocopheryl phosphate disodium CAS  
93271 dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate BP dl-alpha-tocopheryl acetate USPM  
59836 DMDM Hydantoin ICID dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin ICIDM  
97007 Dolasetron mesylate BAN dolasetron mesilate monohydrate BANM  
1000587 Dosulepin hydrochloride (Dothiepin hydrochloride) BP dosulepin hydrochloride BP YES
53367 Dothiepin hydrochloride BP dosulepin hydrochloride BP YES
56553 Doxazosin mesylate BAN doxazosin mesilate BP  
53373 Doxycycline hydrochloride BP doxycycline hyclate BP YES
E - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
87433 Edetate dipotassium MI edetate dipotassium dihydrate USANM  
96966 Eformoterol BAN formoterol INN YES
97220 Eformoterol fumarate BAN formoterol fumarate BPM YES
97221 Eformoterol fumarate dihydrate BAN formoterol fumarate dihydrate BP YES
91756 Eosine MAR acid red 87 MAR  
97830 Eprosartan mesylate BAN eprosartan mesilate BAN  
53458 Ethacrynic acid BP etacrynic acid INN  
53463 Ethanolamine BP monoethanolamine INN  
81464 Ether - solvent BP ether BP  
53471 Ethinyloestradiol BP ethinylestradiol INN  
100719 Ethyl oenantate MI ethyl enantate INNM  
53547 Ethyl oenanthate MI ethyl enantate INNM  
53515 Ethylene glycol monostearate MAR ethylene glycol monopalmitostearate BP  
93304 Ethylene/VA copolymer ICID ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer ICIDM  
53539 Ethylmorphine hydrochloride BP ethylmorphine hydrochloride dihydrate BPM  
53565 Ethynodiol diacetate BP etynodiol diacetate BP  
F - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
94818 Ferric chloride anhydrous MAR ferric chloride MIM  
92469 Ferric nitrate BPAP ferric nitrate nonahydrate BPAPM  
53633 Ferrous lactate MAR ferrous lactate trihydrate MARM  
53635 Ferrous phosphate MAR ferrous phosphate octahydrate MIM  
69280 Ferrous sulfate BP ferrous sulfate heptahydrate BPM  
68856 Ferrous sulfate - dried BP ferrous sulfate BPM  
59987 Flucloxacillin magnesium BP flucloxacillin magnesium octahydrate BP  
53651 Flucloxacillin sodium BP flucloxacillin sodium monohydrate BPM  
53662 Flumethasone pivalate BAN flumetasone pivalate BP  
81511 Flupenthixol decanoate BAN flupentixol decanoate BP  
90838 Flurbiprofen sodium USP flurbiprofen sodium dihydrate USPM  
53730 Frusemide BP furosemide INN YES
102321 Frusemide sodium BP furosemide sodium BP YES
100588 Furosemide (Frusemide) BP furosemide INN YES
53743 Fusidic acid BP fusidic acid hemihydrate BPM  
G - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
94521 Gallium(67Ga) citrate BP gallium (67Ga) citrate INN  
101812 Glucosamine sulfate-potassium chloride complex TGA glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride USP  
101813 Glucosamine sulfate-sodium chloride complex TGA glucosamine sulfate sodium chloride USP  
53790 Glucose BP glucose monohydrate BPM  
58055 Glucose - anhydrous BP glucose BPM  
53795 Glutaraldehyde BP glutaral INN  
94891 Glycerol triacetate BPAP triacetin INN  
53805 Glyceryl mono-oleate MAR glyceryl monooleate USP  
53813 Glycol salicylate MAR hydroxyethyl salicylate BP  
61974 Glycol stearate ICID ethylene glycol monopalmitostearate ICID  
73454 Glycollic acid MI glycolic acid MI  
53814 Glycopyrrolate USP glycopyrronium bromide INN YES
85484 Glycyrrhetinic acid ICID enoxolone INN  
53839 Guaiphenesin BP guaifenesin INN  
H - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
93306 Haematoporphyrin MAR hematoporphyrin MI  
95160 Haematoporphyrin dihydrochloride MAR hematoporphyrin dihydrochloride MIM  
53856 Halethazole BAN haletazole INN  
93288 Heparinoid MAR heparinoids MAR  
72588 Hercolyn PFC methyl hydrogenated rosinate PFC  
53892 Hexachlorophane BP hexachlorophene INN  
53899 Hexamidine isethionate MAR hexamidine isetionate BP  
53903 Hexamine hippurate BAN methenamine hippurate INN  
53994 Hydroxyethylcellulose BP hyetellose INN  
53995 Hydroxyethylmethylcellulose BP hymetellose INN  
81585 Hydroxyethylrutosides MAR oxerutins BAN  
98418 Hydroxypropyl beta cyclodextrin USP hydroxypropylbetadex BP  
67610 Hydroxypropylcellulose BP hyprolose INN  
81590 Hydroxyquinoline sulfate MAR oxyquinoline sulfate USP  
54017 Hydroxyurea BP hydroxycarbamide INN YES
75213 Hyoscyamine sulfate BP hyoscyamine sulfate dihydrate BPM  
I - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
102968 Imatinib mesylate INNM imatinib mesilate INNM  
93243 Indium(111In) chloride USAN indium (111In) chloride USPM  
94522 Indium(111In) hydroxyquinoline BP indium (111In) hydroxyquinoline USPM  
94523 Indium(111In) pentetate BP indium (111In) pentetate BPM  
54059 Indomethacin BP indometacin INN  
56468 Indomethacin sodium USP indometacin sodium trihydrate INNM  
54067 Insulin - human BP insulin BP  
104169 Iobenguane(123I) sulfate USAN iobenguane (123I) sulfate USANM  
94069 Iodobenzylguanidine(131I) sulfate USAN iobenguane (131I) sulfate USAN  
96978 Ipratropium bromide BP ipratropium bromide monohydrate INNM  
98828 Ipratropium bromide anhydrous BP ipratropium bromide INN  
97484 Irinotecan hydrochloride USAN irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate USP  
54148 Isoascorbic acid MI erythorbic acid USP  
89431 iso-Cyclocitral PFC isocyclocitral PFC  
54200 Isopropyl adipate PFC diisopropyl adipate MAR  
95457 Isopropyl hydroxybenzoate ICID isopropyl 4-hydroxybenzoate ICID  
L - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
89823 Lactobacillus kefir IJFM Lactobacillus kefiri LPSN  
54252 Lactose BP lactose monohydrate BPM  
79271 Lactose anhydrous BP lactose BPM  
105549 Lapatinib ditosylate monohydrate USAN lapatinib ditosilate monohydrate USANM  
94229 Laureth-9 ICID lauromacrogol 400 INN  
61067 Lauryl diethanolamide CAS lauramide DEA CAS  
89539 Laurylmethicone copolyol ICID laurylmeticone copolyol ICIDM  
54310 Lignocaine BP lidocaine INN YES
54311 Lignocaine hydrochloride BP lidocaine hydrochloride monohydrate BPM YES
93311 Lignocaine hydrochloride anhydrous BP lidocaine hydrochloride BP YES
94548 Lime USP calcium oxide USP  
54327 Lincomycin hydrochloride BP lincomycin hydrochloride monohydrate BPM  
M - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
54382 Magnesium acetate BP magnesium acetate tetrahydrate BP  
54386 Magnesium aspartate MAR magnesium aspartate tetrahydrate MARM  
105258 Magnesium aspartate anhydrous MAR magnesium aspartate BPM  
54388 Magnesium carbonate USP magnesium carbonate hydrate USPM  
57943 Magnesium carbonate - heavy BP magnesium carbonate hydrate USPM  
58330 Magnesium carbonate - light BP magnesium carbonate hydrate USPM  
54389 Magnesium chloride BP magnesium chloride hexahydrate BP  
95409 Magnesium lactate MAR magnesium lactate dihydrate BP  
54398 Magnesium phosphate USP magnesium phosphate pentahydrate USPM  
92140 Magnesium phosphate - tribasic anhydrous MI magnesium phosphate tribasic MI  
68917 Magnesium sulfate BP magnesium sulfate heptahydrate BP  
89305 Maldison TGA malathion BP  
70177 Manganese aspartate ICID manganese diaspartate ICIDM  
54416 Manganese chloride USP manganese chloride tetrahydrate USPM  
68918 Manganese sulfate BP manganese sulfate tetrahydrate BPM  
54455 Meglumine diatrizoate BP diatrizoate meglumine USP  
54460 Meglumine iothalamate BP iotalamate meglumine USANM  
54461 Meglumine iotroxate BAN iotroxate meglumine USAN  
54462 Meglumine ioxaglate BAN ioxaglate meglumine USAN  
72290 Meglumine pentetate BP pentetate meglumine BPM  
54478 Menthyl acetate MI l-menthyl acetate BPM  
54495 Mercaptopurine BP mercaptopurine monohydrate BP  
81335 meta-Cresol MI metacresol BP  
61429 Methyl sulfide MI dimethyl sulfide MI  
54620 Methyldopa BP methyldopa sesquihydrate BPM  
100645 Methyldopa anhydrous BP methyldopa INN  
54707 Metoclopramide hydrochloride BP metoclopramide hydrochloride monohydate BPM  
90099 Metoclopramide hydrochloride anhydrous BP metoclopramide hydrochloride CAS  
54732 Minocycline hydrochloride BP minocycline hydrochloride dihydrate BP  
77552 Monosodium glutamate USP monosodium glutamate monohydrate USPM  
54763 Morphine hydrochloride BP morphine hydrochloride trihydrate BPM  
68482 Morphine sulfate BP morphine sulfate pentahydrate BPM  
94770 Mussel - green lipped MDF green lipped mussel MDF  
N - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
54798 Naloxone hydrochloride BP naloxone hydrochloride dihydrate BPM  
106577 Naloxone hydrochloride anhydrous BP naloxone hydrochloride BAN  
96621 Neopentyl glycol dicaprylate/dicaprate ICID neopentyl glycol dioctanoate/didecanoate ICIDM  
93223 Noradrenaline BAN noradrenaline (norepinephrine) BP  
54907 Noradrenaline acid tartrate BP noradrenaline (norepinephrine) acid tartrate monohydrate BPM  
100593 Noradrenaline acid tartrate (Norepinephrine acid tartrate) BP noradrenaline (norepinephrine) acid tartrate monohydrate BPM  
O - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
84708 Octyl triazone ICID ethylhexyl triazone ICID  
54972 Oestradiol BAN estradiol BP  
97672 Oestradiol hemihydrate BAN estradiol hemihydrate BP  
54976 Oestradiol valerate BAN estradiol valerate INN  
54977 Oestriol BAN estriol BP  
54978 Oestrogens - conjugated USP conjugated estrogens BP  
54979 Oestrone BAN estrone INN  
94246 Oestrone sulfate - sodium USAN estrone sulfate sodium USAN  
55030 Oxethazaine BP oxetacaine INN  
55037 Oxpentifylline BP pentoxifylline INN YES
P - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
57963 Paraffin - soft white BP white soft paraffin BP  
73811 Paraffin - soft yellow BP yellow soft paraffin BP  
92755 Pentaerythrityl tetraoctanoate ICID pentaerythrityl tetralaurate ICID  
55136 Pentamidine isethionate BP pentamidine isetionate BP  
55166 Pergolide mesylate BAN pergolide mesilate BP  
55170 Pericyazine BAN periciazine INN  
55214 Phenobarbitone BP phenobarbital INN YES
55215 Phenobarbitone sodium BP phenobarbital sodium INN YES
55234 Phentolamine mesylate BP phentolamine mesilate BP  
56532 Phytic acid MI fytic acid INN  
81933 Piperazine oestrone sulfate MAR estropipate BP YES
91937 Polystyrene sulfonate USP polystyrene sulfonate hydrogen USPM  
91938 polystyrene sulfonate - hydrogen USP polystyrene sulfonate hydrogen USPM  
55421 Potassium acid tartrate MAR potassium hydrogen tartrate BP  
55434 Potassium clorazepate BAN dipotassium clorazepate BP  
94109 PPG-5-laureth-5 ICID PPG-5-lauromacrogol 250 ICIDM  
99013 Pramipexole hydrochloride BAN pramipexole dihydrochloride BPM  
106783 Pramipexole hydrochloride monohydrate BAN pramipexole dihydrochloride monohydrate BP  
55500 Procaine penicillin BP procaine benzylpenicillin BP YES
55508 Prochlorperazine mesylate BP prochlorperazine mesilate BP  
104581 Propylene glycol dicaprate ICID propylene glycol didecanoate ICIDM  
73569 Propylene glycol dicaprylate/dicaprate ICID propylene glycol dioctanoate/didecanoate ICIDM  
92183 PVP/VA Copolymer ICID copovidone BP  
Q - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
77612 Quinine bisulfate BP quinine bisulfate heptahydrate BPM  
82015 Quinine sulfate BP quinine sulfate dihydrate BPM  
R - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
102239 R,S-alpha Lipoic acid CAS alpha lipoic acid USP  
68280 Retinyl acetate BP retinol acetate INNM  
63235 Retinyl palmitate BP retinol palmitate INNM  
55685 Rutin MI rutoside INN  
S - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
55696 Salcatonin BP calcitonin (salmon) INN YES
55707 Samarium MI samarium (153Sm) TGA  
96777 Saquinavir mesylate BAN saquinavir mesilate BP  
55783 Sodium calciumedetate BP sodium calcium edetate INN  
55785 Sodium carbonate anhydrous BP sodium carbonate BPM  
90041 Sodium citrate anhydrous BP sodium citrate BP  
55801 Sodium diatrizoate BP sodium amidotrizoate BP  
91696 sodium phosphate - dibasic USP dibasic sodium phosphate heptahydrate USP  
90080 Sodium phosphate - dibasic anhydrous USP dibasic sodium phosphate USP  
92544 sodium phosphate - monobasic USP monobasic sodium phosphate USPM  
103327 Sodium phosphate - monobasic anhydrous USP monobasic sodium phosphate USPM  
55889 Sodium stearyl 2-lactylate ICID sodium stearoyl lactylate ICID  
69098 Sodium sulfate BP sodium sulfate decahydrate BPM  
93372 Sodium sulfate anhydrous BP sodium sulfate BPM  
93373 Sodium sulfite anhydrous BP sodium sulfite BPM  
82070 Sodium thiosulfate BP sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate BPM  
105481 Sorafenib tosylate INN sorafenib tosilate USAN  
T - Table B.1. Ingredient name changes under the preferred option (Option 3)
ID Ingredient name Ref New ingredient name New ref Dual labelling?
74339 TEA-lauryl sulfate ICID trolamine lauril sulfate ICIDM  
56087 Testosterone enanthate BP testosterone enantate BP  
100582 Tetracaine hydrochloride (Amethocaine hydrochloride) BP tetracaine hydrochloride BP YES
56101 Tetracosactrin BP tetracosactide INN YES
56115 Tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride BAN tetryzoline hydrochloride BP  
102869 Thiamine phosphate acid ester chloride dihydrate MI monophosphothiamine dihydrate CAS  
89496 Thiamine phosphoric acid ester chloride MI monophosphothiamine INN  
56159 Thioguanine BP tioguanine INN  
56275 Triethanolamine BP trolamine INN  
74920 Triethanolamine lauryl sulfate ICID trolamine lauril sulfate ICIDM  
56279 Triethanolamine salicylate ICID trolamine salicylate ICIDM  
56288 Trimeprazine tartrate BP alimemazine tartrate BP YES

Appendix C: List of submissions received in response to 2013 public consultation

Version 1, November 2015

  • ACCORD Australasia (ACCORD)
  • AMWAY
  • Australian Self-Medication Industry Inc (ASMI)
  • Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (Baxter)
  • BioMedica Nutraceuticals (BioMedica)
  • Complementary Healthcare Council of Australia (CHC)
  • Consumers Health Forum Australia (CHF)
  • Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand (CTFA)
  • Generic Medicines Industry Association (GMiA)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  • Johnson & Johnson Pacific (J&J)
  • Key Pharmaceuticals
  • Medicines Australia
  • Medicines New Zealand
  • Mublasat, Omar – Pharmacist, Royal Prince Albert Hospital
  • Mylan NZ
  • Nestle Australia Limited (Nestle)
  • New Zealand Self-Medication Industry (NZSMI)
  • Novo Nordisk Pharm (Novo)
  • NPS MedicineWise (NPS)
  • NSW Therapeutic Advisory Group (NSW TAG)
  • Pfizer Australia (Pfizer)
  • The Pharmacy Guild Australia (The Guild)
  • SA Health
  • The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA)
  • and six anonymous submissions