Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists. For 503B the shortage clause was the only route to these molecules, so that route shut completely. A 503A pharmacy can still argue a doorway via "component of an approved drug" — but only for the substance in the form present in the approved product, which is exactly where the base-versus-salt argument lives, and it does nothing about the copy restriction, which came back into force on resolution.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

Agreeing with Dr.ObesityMed, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Worth adding the genuine exception, because it is real and narrow: a change made for an identified patient where the prescriber determines it produces a significant clinical difference for that patient. A grid of fixed doses offered to everybody is not that, whatever the intake form says.

pete_RVA said:

My pharmacy stopped supplying with three weeks notice and a letter that explained nothing, so I went and read the statute.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition. Both exemptions forbid compounding something that is essentially a copy of a commercially available approved product. A product FDA has listed as in shortage is not treated as commercially available, so listing removed the objection that otherwise blocked compounding. It never created a permission; it withdrew a prohibition, which is why it evaporated the moment the supply fact changed.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

Compounded semaglutide formulations for compounded supply: some pharmacies add ingredients like B12, L-carnitine, or BPC-157 to their semaglutide preparations. Are these beneficial or marketing gimmicks?

My take: B12 addition has some logic (GLP-1s can deplete B12). L-carnitine evidence is weak. BPC-157 for GI protection is theoretically interesting but unproven. I prefer straight semaglutide with no additives — fewer variables, cleaner data on what's working.