Regulatory news list Vol. 9 · 2026-08-17

Global Regulatory Monitor
Regulatory News, Week 3 · 2026/8

Period 2026-08-10 ~ 2026-08-17 Published 2026-08-17 Collected 73 · 24 cards Evidence A 21 · B 3 · C 0

12 cards in this issue cover Korean regulator documents. Company and institution names, and quoted source text, are shown in Korean exactly as they appear on the official record.

This week's key points
  • MFDS suspends all manufacturing for three months and seven days after quality control records were falsified and required test equipment was missing
  • MHRA issues a GMP non-compliance statement to NORGINE LIMITED over critical PQS and QP batch release deficiencies, suspending human medicine certificates in part and IMP certificates in full
  • FDA issues five Form 483 observations at Alvotech's biologics site covering complaint handling, aseptic process validation and environmental monitoring
About AI-generated content

Summaries, translations, implications, check items, and in-depth analysis are written by generative AI; figures, quotations, links, and machine-extracted tables are provided as in the source. This is reference material — check the official source before making decisions.

Read in full ↓
24 cards

Global 8 cards

💊 Small molecule
[UK GMP non-compliance · MHRA]NORGINE LIMITED — Critical PQS and QP batch release failures
Evidence AMHRASignal High · T3💊 Small moleculeGMP non-compliance

MHRA issued a GMP non-compliance statement for the UK site of NORGINE LIMITED on the basis of an inspection carried out in May 2026. The GMP certificate covering human medicinal products was suspended in part.

Published2026-08-03
Document no.Insp GMP/GDP/IMP 322/14798-0032[H]
Site / companyNORGINE LIMITED (UNITED KINGDOM)
Issuing authorityMHRA (영국)
Product typeHuman Medicinal Products

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text and translation
①An inspection of the site was conducted from 05 to 08 May 2026.
②Two critical deficiencies and three major deficiencies from GMP were raised.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Inspection: the site was inspected from 05 to 08 May 2026
  • Deficiencies: two critical and three major
  • Findings: failure to implement and operate a pharmaceutical quality system including GMP and quality risk management, insufficient reliability of batch control procedures, and failure by the Qualified Person to confirm that each batch conformed to the marketing authorisation and to GMP
  • Action: GMP certificates suspended in part, with only batches of critical products able to be supplied to the UK market while the non-compliance statement stands
Insight · Editorial insight

MHRA bundled the reliability of individual batch release decisions into a failure of the design and operation of the pharmaceutical quality system as a whole and graded it critical. Sites supplying finished product to the UK, or relying on a UK Qualified Person for release, should confirm that batch record review and the basis for each release decision can be reconstructed from documents.

Check points
  • Level of documentation behind each Qualified Person batch release decision
  • Records verifying the reliability of batch control procedures
  • How quality risk management is operated within the pharmaceutical quality system
Non-compliance detail · From the source · MHRA
Issuing authority · MHRAHuman Medicinal Products
Non-compliant operations
Original · MHRA
  • 1.2] Non-sterile products; [
  • 1.2.1] Non-Sterile Products (processing operations for the following dosage forms); [
  • 1.2.1.1] Capsules, hard shell; [
  • 1.2.1.8] Other solid dosage forms All other solid dosage forms not otherwise specified; [
  • 1.2.1.13] Tablets; [
  • 1.2.2] Batch certification; [
  • 1.5] Packaging; [
  • 1.5.1] Primary packaging; [
  • 1.5.1.1] Capsules, hard shell; [
  • 1.5.1.8] Other solid dosage forms All other solid dosage forms not otherwise specified; [
  • 1.5.1.13] Tablets; [
  • 1.5.1.17] Other non-sterile medicinal products Including powders and labelling of primary containers; [
  • 1.5.2] Secondary packing; [
  • 1.6] Quality control testing; [
  • 1.6.3] Chemical/Physical
Nature of non-compliance
Original · MHRA

An inspection of the site was conducted from 05 to 08 May 2026. Two critical deficiencies and three major deficiencies from GMP were raised. The critical deficiencies concerned the failure to implement a comprehensively designed and correctly implemented PQS incorporating GMP and QRM, evidenced by the failure to ensure that robust and reliable batch control procedures were in place, as well as the failure of the Qualified Persons to ensure that each individual batch had been manufactured and checked in compliance the requirements of the MA and GMP. This Statement of Non Compliance does not include the manufacture of critical products. Such products should be agreed in writing with individual National Competent Authorities.

Action taken/proposed
Original · MHRA

Action taken/proposed: suspension In part Withdrawal of current valid GMP certificates: UK MIA 322 INSP GMP 322/14798-0030[H] Prohibition of supply: Only batches of critical products can be supplied to UK markets while this statement of non-compliance remains in force.

See all 1 finding in this document
[UK GMP non-compliance · MHRA]NORGINE LIMITED — IMP GMP certificate suspended in full
Evidence AMHRASignal High · T3💊 Small moleculeGMP non-compliance

MHRA also issued a GMP non-compliance statement covering the human investigational medicinal products scope of NORGINE LIMITED, on the basis of the same May 2026 inspection. The MIA(IMP) certificate was suspended in full.

Published2026-08-03
Document no.Insp GMP/GDP/IMP 322/14798-0032[I]
Site / companyNORGINE LIMITED (UNITED KINGDOM)
Issuing authorityMHRA (영국)
Product typeHuman Investigational Medicinal Products

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text and translation
①An inspection of the site was conducted from 05 to 08 May 2026.
②Two critical deficiencies and three major deficiencies from GMP were raised.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Scope: human investigational medicinal products, including batch certification of sterile products and batch certification on importation
  • Inspection: 05 to 08 May 2026, two critical and three major deficiencies
  • Findings: an inadequate pharmaceutical quality system and quality risk management, and failure by the Qualified Person to confirm GMP conformity batch by batch
  • Action: UK MIA(IMP) 322 INSP IMP 322/14798-0031[I] suspended in full
Insight · Editorial insight

The same pharmaceutical quality system defect suspended the investigational medicinal product scope in full, showing that expectations for batch release control are not relaxed because the product is investigational. Firms manufacturing or importing investigational products under contract should map the batch certification route and their alternatives for continuity of supply together.

Check points
  • Confirm the batch certification route for investigational medicinal products
  • Alternative supply plan if investigational product supply is interrupted
  • Routine monitoring of the GMP status of contract manufacturing sites
Non-compliance detail · From the source · MHRA
Issuing authority · MHRAHuman Investigational Medicinal Products
Non-compliant operations
Original · MHRA
  • 1.1] Sterile Products; [
  • 1.1.3] Batch certification; [
  • 1.2] Non-sterile products; [
  • 1.2.1] Non-Sterile Products (processing operations for the following dosage forms); [
  • 1.2.1.1] Capsules, hard shell; [
  • 1.2.1.5] Liquids for external use; [
  • 1.2.1.6] Liquids for internal use; [
  • 1.2.1.8] Other solid dosage forms All other solid dosage forms not otherwise specified; [
  • 1.2.1.12] Suppositories; [
  • 1.5] Packaging; [
  • 1.5.1] Primary packaging; [
  • 1.5.1.1] Capsules, hard shell; [
  • 1.5.1.2] Capsules, soft shell; [
  • 1.5.1.5] Liquids for external use; [
  • 1.5.1.6] Liquids for internal use; [
  • 1.5.1.8] Other solid dosage forms All other solid dosage forms not otherwise specified; [
  • 1.5.1.11] Semi-solids; [
  • 1.5.1.13] Tablets; [
  • 1.5.1.17] Other non-sterile medicinal products Pessaries, Powders; [
  • 1.5.2] Secondary packing; [
  • 1.6] Quality control testing; [
  • 1.6.3] Chemical/Physical; 2. IMPORTATION OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS; [
  • 2.1] Quality control testing of imported medicinal products; [
  • 2.1.3] Chemical/Physical; [
  • 2.2] Batch certification of imported medicinal products; [
  • 2.2.1] Sterile Products; [
  • 2.2.1.1] Aseptically prepared; [
  • 2.2.1.2] Terminally sterilised; [
  • 2.2.2] Non-sterile products; [
  • 2.2.4] Other Importation Activities; [
  • 2.2.4.6] Other Importation of QP-certified IMPs from country on approved list
Nature of non-compliance
Original · MHRA

An inspection of the site was conducted from 05 to 08 May 2026. Two critical deficiencies and three major deficiencies from GMP were raised. The critical deficiencies concerned the failure to implement a comprehensively designed and correctly implemented PQS incorporating GMP and QRM, evidenced by the failure to ensure that robust and reliable batch control procedures were in place, as well as the failure of the Qualified Persons to ensure that each individual batch had been manufactured and checked in compliance the requirements of GMP.

Action taken/proposed
Original · MHRA

Action taken/proposed: suspension in full Withdrawal of current valid GMP certificates: UK MIA(IMP) 322 INSP IMP 322/14798-0031[I]

See all 1 finding in this document
🧬 Biologics
[FDA 483 observation · FDA]Alvotech Hf — Complaints and aseptic process, five items
Evidence BFDASignal High · T3🧬 Biologics483

FDA inspected the biological drug substance and drug product site of Alvotech Hf in Iceland from 29 April to 8 May 2026 and issued five Form 483 observations. Complaint handling, aseptic process validation, deviation investigation and quality unit oversight were cited together.

Published2026-07-22
Document no.fda483-193549
Site / companyAlvotech Hf · FEI 3013702557
Site · typeBiological Drug Substance/Product Manufacturer · 483
Inspection date05/08/2026
Key facts · Basis: official index plus supporting sources
  • Observation 1: procedures for handling complaints were deficiently written or followed - around 845 complaints related to batches distributed in the US since 2024, with root causes not identified and corrections not implemented
  • Observation 2: airflow visualisation on the aseptic filling line showed a void above the stopper bag during the stopper charging intervention
  • Observation 4: investigations of bioburden and objectionable organism excursions above the action limit did not extend the risk assessment to batches made in the same period
  • Observation 5: environmental monitoring trend reports were not generated, reviewed or approved
Insight · Editorial insight

FDA read a surge in complaints, airflow behaviour in the aseptic process and environmental monitoring trending as one failure of quality management rather than three separate items. Sites handling biological drug substance and drug product should check whether complaint root cause investigation reaches the information held by contract packagers, and whether an excursion above an action limit widens the risk assessment to other batches from the same period.

Check points
  • Procedure for obtaining contractor information during complaint root cause investigation
  • Coverage of intervention movements in airflow visualisation studies
  • Frequency of preparation and approval of environmental monitoring trend reports
Observation detail · 4 observations · From the source
Observation 1

Procedures describing the handling of written and oral complaints related to drug products are deficiently written or followed.

Specifically, the quality unit failed to identify appropriate root causes and to implement corrections to reduce and adequately address the number of complaints for ©@® drug product, oa For example, Since 2024, the site received approximately 845 complaints related to9) drug product batches distributed to the US. The complaint review indicated significant number (approximately 50%) of the complaints were related toy) _ malfunction such as ae )(4) ©©® as follows

Observation 2

Procedures designed to prevent microbiological contamination of drug products purporting to be sterile did not include adequate validation of the aseptic process.

Specifically, in the video for airflow visualization studies ofthe aseptic _ filling line used to produce all drug products (VALQ - 8900 - L3-2b, performed on August 1 Sth, 2023), the qualification of the 9)4» @@ intervention to add unopened stopped bags showed that airflow from the 4, _ filling unit into the stopper loading station causes a void over the unopened stopper bags, preventing first-pass airflow from reaching the bags while the, 4» The stopper bags are not further disinfected before they are opened tO &

Observation 3

Laboratory controls do not include the establishment of scientifically sound and appropriate test procedures designed to assure drug products conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality, and purity.

Specifically, requalification for employees performing 100% visual inspection for particulates on (uy Ba is performed ome after each employee has completed inspection of O@ despite the fact that the employees will inspect up to 4)» during 4«) There has been no initial or requalification afterg, 45 ) inspection to demonstrate that the employees can perform the operation adequately 9)

Observation 5

The responsibilities and procedures applicable to the quality unit are not fully followed.

Specifically, the quality unit failed to ensure environmental monitoring trend reports are generated as required under SOP-0509, Trending of environmental monitoring data. For example,

See all 4 findings in this document
▫️ Other
[FDA 483 observation · FDA]Veterinary Pharmacy Corporation — Compounding area contamination, no endotoxin test
Evidence BFDASignal High · T3483

FDA inspected the compounding facility of Veterinary Pharmacy Corporation in the US from 9 to 19 March 2026 and issued three Form 483 observations. Contamination in the amoxicillin compounding area, poorly designed media fills and failure to meet consent decree requirements were cited.

Published2026-08-12
Document no.fda483-194143
Site / companyVeterinary Pharmacy Corporation · FEI 3002726048
Site · typeCompounding Pharmacy · 483
Inspection date03/19/2026
Key facts · Basis: official index plus supporting sources
  • Observation 1: powder dispersal in the amoxicillin compounding and storage area, damaged and blackened wall surfaces, contaminated ceiling vents, and personnel movement without gowning
  • Observation 2: media fills did not simulate the actual container size, quantity or worst-case conditions, measured against batches of 2,000 mL bags
  • Observation 3: breach of paragraph 17 of consent decree No. OO-CV-2725 - no endotoxin testing by lot on products purporting to be sterile
  • Example: five lots of Iron 20% 2000 ml were released between 4 and 11 March 2026 without endotoxin testing
Insight · Editorial insight

Missing lot-level endotoxin testing on products purporting to be sterile, found alongside poorly designed media fills, shows that aseptic process qualification is not credited where it does not simulate worst-case conditions. Sterile compounding and small volume filling lines should confirm that media fill conditions cover the actual batch scale and that release testing for products purporting to be sterile is defined at lot level.

Check points
  • Whether media fill design covers worst-case conditions and the actual batch scale
  • Whether endotoxin testing is required lot by lot for products purporting to be sterile
  • Personnel movement and gowning procedures for dedicated areas
Observation detail · 3 observations · From the source

Inspectors: Nicholas J Presto · Beatrix D Hippe

Observation 1

Contamination was observed in your production area and areas adjacent to production areas.

Specifically, A) A pallet of used compounding equipment was observed in the non-classified Amoxicillin storage room. Items on this pallet included, but were not limited to, used process <Redacted B4> which were coated with yellow residue, metal fittings, and hoses. All equipment on this pallet appeared to be coated with a layer of white powder. Your staff stated that this pallet of used equipment had been present in this location for approximately 1.5 to 2 years. This pallet is located immediately adjacent to the door leading to Amoxicillin Room <Redacted B4> where finished product compounding and packaging of Amoxicillin products takes place. B) Widespread and extensive damage was observed on the painted drywall walls in the Amoxicillin processing area. This damage included an approximately 6-inch long and 3-inch deep hole punched in a wall from the handle of an over-extended door, multiple scrapes in paint and drywall ranging from 1 to 6 inches, and broken floor ceramic molding. This damage was noted approximately 10 feet from the chute where Amoxicillin capsules were <Redacted B4> openly into <Redacted B4> container <Redacted B4> an <Redacted B4> C) Black stains were observed on

Observation 2

Failure to conduct media fills that closely simulate aseptic production operations under the worst-case, most-challenging, and stressful conditions.

Specifically, Aseptic process simulations (media fills), along with the governing procedure SOP CR-02 -Aseptic Technique & Gloved Fingertip Thumb Test-are deficient in that they do not simulate the finished product container size, number of units, or worst-case conditions that may arise during compounding activities. Media fills conducted by your <Redacted B4> simulate aspetic processes utilized <Redacted B4> which contain a total of <Redacted B4> IV bags and associated equipment. <Redacted B4> is used by each sterile compounding technician as part pf their <Redacted B4> aseptic process simulation evaluation. During a review of your sterile compounding records for March 4, 2026, a lot size <Redacted B4> 2000 ml bags of Iron 20% (200 mg/ml) was noted in the compounding of Lot #V20030526 on 05MAR2026. This batch was compounded to fulfill Rx <Redacted B4> and shipped to your customer on 3/11/2026. Additional batch sizes on <Redacted B4> an <Redacted B4> 2000 mL bags were also noted in compounding records from 04MAR2026 -10MAR2026. Additionally, Form CR-37 -Periodic Cleanroom Aseptic Evaluation -which is used to <Redacted B4> qualify your sterile technicians, does not document the amou

Observation 3

Deviation from the procedural requirements of a decree of injunction.

See all 3 findings in this document
[EU GMP non-compliance · EMA]Belgica De Weerd B.V. — Stability OOS and Annex 16 breach
Evidence AEMASignal High · T3▫️ OtherGMP non-compliance

The Dutch competent authority issued a GMP non-compliance statement for Belgica De Weerd B.V. on the basis of a routine GMP inspection carried out in January and February 2026. The handling of out-of-specification results in ongoing stability testing and the Annex 16 batch certification arrangement were graded critical.

Published2026-08-11
Document no.186968
Site / companyBelgica De Weerd B.V. (Netherlands)
Issuing authority (NCA)Netherlands
Product scopeVeterinary Medicinal Products
Original text and translation
①Routine GMP inspection was performed on 29 January and 26 February 2026 .
②Two critical, four major and three other deficiencies were defined.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Inspection: routine GMP inspection performed on 29 January and 26 February 2026
  • Deficiencies: two critical, four major and three other
  • Critical deficiency: despite numerous out-of-specification results in ongoing stability testing there was insufficient basis for not recalling and not reporting to the authority, and no basis for the assay specification of 90% to 110%
  • Critical deficiency: the Qualified Person had no access to the registered dossier, so it could not be established against which specification batches were certified - non-compliance with GMP Annex 16
Insight · Editorial insight

The reasoning used to treat out-of-specification results in ongoing stability testing as unrelated to marketed batches was itself graded a critical deficiency. Sites should document the impact assessment on marketed batches and the basis for the recall decision when a stability result goes out of specification, and confirm that the person releasing batches can actually reach the specifications in the registered dossier.

Check points
  • Procedure for assessing the impact of an ongoing stability out-of-specification result on marketed batches
  • Records comparing against the registered dossier specification at the point of release
  • Control linking variation approval and release when a contract manufacturing site changes
Non-compliance detail · From the source · EudraGMDP
Issuing NCA · NetherlandsVeterinary Medicinal Products
Non-compliant operations
Original · EudraGMDP
  • 1NON-COMPLIANT MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
  • 1.2Non-sterile products
  • 1.2.2Batch certification
Nature of non-compliance
Original · EudraGMDP

Routine GMP inspection was performed on 29 January and 26 February 2026 . Two critical, four major and three other deficiencies were defined. The two critical deficiencies were regarding the following:

  • 1. The quality of the certified veterinary medicines cannot be assured concerning the results of the ongoing stability studies. A high number of out of specifications on ongoing stability were reported of which at least four exceed the internal specifications of Belgica de Weerd, the rationale to not recall these batches and inform the authorities was insufficient. The rationale for accepting the out-of-specification results on the ongoing stability batches does not account for the spectrum of action of the antibiotic, the safety, therapeutic window, the synergistic effect of the different active ingredients and the development of antimicrobial resistance. This poses a risk to animal safety and public health. Also, Belgica de Weerd uses specifications for the amount of active ingredient during on-going stability of 90%-110% of the label claim. In the rationale for these limits the spectrum of action of the antibiotic, the safety, therapeutic window, the synergistic effect and the development of antimicrobial resistance of these limits are not accounted for. These limits are set for all products without a rationale to account for the different product composition of these products. In the risk assessment for an OOS on ongoing stability it is stated that it does not apply to the batches on the market, while a stability batch is representative for batches on the market. This poses a risk to animal safety and public health in the market.
  • 2. Belgica de Weerd does not comply to GMP annex 16 and can not sufficiently assure the quality of the certified products on the market. The QP could not make clear against which specifications in the registration dossier the batches were certified since the QP had no access to the registration dossiers. This poses a critical compliance risk. The batch documentation does not comply to the release specifications in the registration dossier for several products and a variation for the change in contract manufacturing organization was not submitted to the competent authorities, while the batches produced by the new CMO were released to the market. After withdrawal of the GMP certificate of the contract manufacturer the QP continued to release the produced batches.
Action taken/proposed
Original · EudraGMDP

Withdrawal, of current valid GMP certificate No. NL/V 23/0006 The competent authority is not granting a new GMP certificate because of GMP NC which was determined by the Dutch Inspectorate during the inspection in February 2026. This decision has been sent to the company by means of an official decision on the 29th of July 2026. Following this decision, a NCS will be issued by the Dutch NCA in EudraGMDP, whereby the current GMP certificate,will be withdrawn from EudraGMDP. Recall of batches already released The concerned products are only National registrated in The Netherlands (NL) and Romania (RO). If the concerned medicinal products are potentially critical, the marketing authorization holder (MAH) must report this to the competent authorities. The competent authority may determine whether a particular VMP is critical for the market and, based on a risk assessment, can be released to the market if shortages occur. This information is not yet available for the Dutch market. If the concerned VMP’s are assessed as critical, a recall will not be initiated.

Further comments
Original · EudraGMDP

The Dutch NCA is not intending to take measures on the manufacturer's authorization in order to allow the release of critical products. For more information about the inspection results and details please see the Supervisory Risk Assessment (SRA).

See all 1 finding in this document
[FDA 483 observation · FDA]Aurorium LLC — API facility upkeep and uninvestigated OOS
Evidence BFDASignal High · T3483

FDA inspected the active pharmaceutical ingredient site of Aurorium LLC in the US from 2 to 6 March 2026 and issued five Form 483 observations. Poor upkeep of buildings and equipment, uninvestigated endotoxin failures and a failure of quality unit oversight were cited.

Published2026-07-13
Document no.fda483-193531
Site / companyAurorium LLC · FEI 1628757
Site · type483
Inspection date03/06/2026
Key facts · Basis: official index plus supporting sources
  • Observation 1: excessive corrosion, leaks and wall damage in the production area, and storage tanks open to the environment
  • Observation 2: four out-of-specification endotoxin results between March 2024 and February 2026 were not investigated and no product impact assessment was made, the highest at 17.589 EU/mL
  • Observation 3: CAPA effectiveness was not verified and CAPAs were left open, there was no procedure for issuing and reconciling loose forms, and laboratory record documents were uncontrolled
  • Observation 4: the 2024 annual product quality review was not carried out and the related deviation report was left open
Insight · Editorial insight

This is an active ingredient site where ageing equipment and uninvestigated endotoxin failures in water ran through into a failure of document control by the quality unit. Finished-product firms buying active ingredients should look directly at out-of-specification investigation records for water testing and at whether the annual product quality review was carried out when they audit the supplier.

Check points
  • Review of out-of-specification investigation and product impact assessment records during API supplier audits
  • Whether the annual product quality review is carried out on schedule and how a failure to do so is handled as a deviation
  • Control procedure for loose forms and laboratory record documents
Observation detail · 4 observations · From the source
Observation 2

Failure to investigate all out of specification test results.

Specifically, a review of(b) (4) test results from March 2024 to February 2026 revealed four (4) instances where your firm received an out of specification test result for endotoxins. Your firm has no documentation to show that these out of specification test results were investigated nor did you perform any product impact assessment. Per MIDL-SOP-307 (b) (4) , effective January 1, 2024, the specification for endotoxin is (6) (4) EU/mL. * Sample from © system collected 05/29/2024 - test result was 0.430 EU/mL * Sample from© system collected 09/25/2024 - test result was 1.508 EU/mL * Sample from© system — QC Laboratory collected 09/25/2024 - test result was 0.439 EU/mL * Sample from© system — QC Laboratory collected 03/3 1/2025 - test result was 17.589 EU/mL * Sample from © system collected 05/27/2025 - test result was 0.418 EU/mL In addition, several of the lab reports for the testing of the (b) (4) _ indicate that the sample for endotoxin testing was received outside of the recommended temperature range. The laboratory report does not state the temperature the samples were received at nor does it state what the recommended temperature range is. There is no evaluation of this issue

Observation 3

Failure of the Quality Unit to fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

Specifically, a) CAPAs are not fully documented in accordance with your established procedure entitled Corrective and Preventative Actions (MIDL-SOP-124) effective January 1, 2024; they also are not closed out in a timely manner. For example: * CP25-014 (initiated 8/15/2025), CP25-010 (initiated 7/01/2025), CP25-019 (initiated 11/17/2025), CP24-12 (initiated 10/11/2024), and CP24-13 (initiated 9/24/204), either lack or have insufficient documentation of an effectiveness check. * CP24-12, CP24-13 and CP25-019 have not been finalized and signed off as completed or reviewed by quality. b) Your firm does not have written procedures for the issuance, use and reconciliation of loose-leaf forms used for documentation of manufacturing (e.g. batch record) and laboratory testing. Examples of these forms include: - All forms and documents that are part ofthe batch record * Form 239A Reagent/Solution Preparation Log * Form 120A Label Control Form * Form 121A Label Issuance ¢ Form 112B ©)@) Pre-Shipment Review Log ¢ Form 133D Total Unacceptable (b) (4) Count c) There is a failure to review and approve all quality-related documents. The analytical testing lab books (data collection form) used fo

Observation 4

Your firm failed to conduct an annual product quality review of your API.

During the current inspection ofyour facility we observed that you had not conducted your 2024 annual product quality review for your API (b) (4) , USP. On August 6, 2025, your firm initiated a deviation report however, no content was provided in the report explaining why the 2024 review had not been completed or when it would be finalized. The deviation is still open.

Observation 5

Failure to perform testing of the (b) (4) used in production and in the QC Laboratory.

See all 4 findings in this document
[Guidance · FDA]Hematology and Pathology Devices; Reclassification of In Sit… — ISH test systems reclassified
Evidence AFDASignal Med · T2Guidance

FDA published in the Federal Register a final order reclassifying in situ hybridization (ISH) test systems indicated for use with a corresponding approved oncology therapeutic product.

Published2026-08-17
Document no.2026-16727
Issuing authorityFDA
TopicHematology and Pathology Devices; Reclassification of In Situ Hybridization Test…
Original text and translation
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final order reclassifying in situ hybridization (ISH) test systems indicated for use with a corresponding approved oncology therapeutic product (product codes NYQ, MVD, OWE, and P…
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Scope: ISH test systems (product codes NYQ, MVD, OWE, PNK), all postamendments class III devices
  • Action: a reclassification final order was issued
  • Nature: an in vitro diagnostic device regulation - whether it changes drug manufacturing or quality requirements cannot be determined from it
Insight · Editorial insight

Regulatory class adjustments continue for test systems that act as companion diagnostics, so where a therapeutic and a diagnostic device are developed together the approval route may change. Since this document shows no direct contact point with drug GMP requirements, it is best handled at the level of regulatory affairs monitoring.

Check points
  • Whether the approval route changes for products linked to a companion diagnostic
  • Whether any of the listed product codes are handled
[Guidance · FDA]Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Reclassification of Diagno… — Endoscopic light sources reclassification proposed
Evidence AFDASignal Med · T2Guidance

FDA proposed reclassifying diagnostic endoscopic light source systems (product code OAY) from class III to class II with special controls, making them subject to premarket notification.

Published2026-08-17
Document no.2026-16728
Issuing authorityFDA
TopicGastroenterology-Urology Devices; Reclassification of Diagnostic Endoscopic Ligh…
Original text and translation
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to reclassify diagnostic endoscopic light source systems (product code OAY), which are postamendments class III devices, from class III (premarket approval) into class II (special controls), subject…
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Scope: diagnostic endoscopic light source systems (product code OAY), postamendments class III devices
  • Action: reclassification proposed from class III (premarket approval) to class II (special controls), subject to premarket notification
  • Nature: a medical device regulation - no content relating to drug GMP can be determined from it
Insight · Editorial insight

FDA continues to reclassify class III devices down to special controls on the basis of accumulated marketing experience. There is no direct link to drug manufacturing or quality, so it belongs at the level of trend awareness in regulatory affairs.

Check points
  • Whether the device in question is handled
  • Confirm the change to the premarket notification route if the reclassification is finalised

Korea 9 cards

[Administrative action · MFDS]알파제약(주) — Quality control records falsified
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3💊 Small moleculeAdministrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended all manufacturing and suspended manufacturing of individual products after finding failure to follow the firm's own standards, failure to carry out administrative instructions, missing test equipment needed for quality control, falsified quality control records and batch manufacturing records not written at all.

Published2026-08-12
Document no.admin-2026006188
Companies알파제약(주)
Action가. 나. 전 제조 업무정지 3개월 7일 (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2026. 11. 23.) 다. 라. 마. 해당 *품목 제조업무 정지 * ⑭아제인캡슐, ⑯치타캡슐 (제조업무 정지 5개월) (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2027. 1. 16.) * ②로젤민연질캡슐, ③브로모타제정, ④파메콘정, ⑤알파클로닉신리신정, ⑥파워씨연질캡슐, ⑧센도스연질캡슐, ⑨감마마그빅연질캡슐, ⑩알파아세트아미노펜정500밀리그람, ⑫리오루펜정400밀리그람, ⑬편해정, ⑮이튼돌플러스캡슐 (제조업무정지 6개월15일) (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2027. 3. 3.) * ①트리페린정 (제조업무 정지 7개월) (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2027. 3. 16.) * ⑦알피렌연질캡슐 (제조업무 정지 11개월15일) (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2027. 7. 31.) * ⑪아졸정 (제조업무 정지 12개월) (2026. 8. 17. ~ 2027. 8. 16.)

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
①가.
②<기준서 미준수> 나.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: failure to follow standards, failure to carry out administrative instructions, missing test equipment needed for quality control, falsified quality control records and batch manufacturing records not written
  • Action: suspension of all manufacturing for three months and seven days (17 August 2026 to 23 November 2026)
  • Action: suspension of manufacturing for the affected products from five to twelve months, starting 17 August 2026, with one tablet product at twelve months and one soft capsule product at eleven months and fifteen days
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act article 38(1) and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 48(9) and (14)
Insight · Editorial insight

Falsified quality control records found together with missing test equipment led to a suspension of all manufacturing and product suspensions of up to twelve months. Read through a data integrity lens, it shows the originality of test records and the equipment actually available to generate them being assessed as one thing.

Check points
  • Retention of original test data and control of the modification history
  • Inventory of the test equipment needed for quality control
  • Register tracking completion of administrative instructions
[Administrative action · MFDS]케이엠에스제약(주) — Bioequivalence re-evaluation data not filed
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended sales of the affected product for two months because the data required for bioequivalence re-evaluation was not submitted by the deadline.

Published2026-08-12
Document no.admin-2026006218
Companies케이엠에스제약(주)
Action해당품목 판매업무정지 2개월(2026. 8. 26. ~ 2026. 10. 25.): 뉴베타주2mL(디클로페낙β-디메틸아미노에탄올)

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
①의약품 동등성 재평가에 필요한 자료를 기한(’26.
②6.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: the data required for bioequivalence re-evaluation was not submitted by the deadline of 30 June 2026
  • Action: two-month suspension of sales of the affected product (26 August 2026 to 25 October 2026)
  • Product: a diclofenac beta-dimethylaminoethanol injection
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act articles 33 and 76, and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 95, Annex 8
Insight · Editorial insight

For re-evaluation the deadline itself is the standard against which action is taken, so a delay in preparing the data turns straight into a sales suspension. Firms holding products in scope for re-evaluation should be clear on who owns deadline tracking and who confirms that the dossier is complete.

Check points
  • List of products in scope for bioequivalence re-evaluation and tracking of their submission deadlines
  • Frequency of progress reviews on preparation of re-evaluation data
[Administrative action · MFDS]아주약품(주) — Protocol amendment without approval
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended the clinical trial in question for one month because an amendment to the clinical trial protocol was neither approved nor reported.

Published2026-08-10
Document no.admin-2026005675
Companies아주약품(주)
Action해당 임상시험* 업무정지 1개월(2026.8.10.~2026.9.9.), 1차 * 임상시험 제목: 안구건조증 환자를 대상으로 AJU-S56 5%의 유효성 및 안전성을 평가하기 위한 다기관, 무작위배정, 이중눈가림, 평행, 위약 대조, 우월성 제3상 임상시험

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
① 임상시험계획 변경 승인을 받지 않음 ② 임상시험계획 변경 보고를 하지 않음
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: approval was not obtained for an amendment to the clinical trial protocol, and the amendment was not reported
  • Action: one-month suspension of the clinical trial concerned (10 August 2026 to 9 September 2026), first offence
  • Subject: a Phase 3 trial of AJU-S56 5% in patients with dry eye disease
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act article 34(1) and (7), and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 24
Insight · Editorial insight

Misjudging which protocol amendments require approval and which require only a report can stop the trial itself. Firms running clinical development alongside manufacturing should tighten the procedure that decides whether an amendment needs approval, and keep the record of that decision.

Check points
  • Criteria separating protocol amendments requiring approval from those requiring a report
  • Management of submission deadlines once an amendment arises
[Administrative action · MFDS]일양바이오팜(주) — Sales suspended over unfiled re-evaluation data
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended sales of the affected product for two months because the bioequivalence re-evaluation data was not submitted by the deadline. It is recorded as a first offence.

Published2026-08-10
Document no.admin-2026006174
Companies일양바이오팜(주)
Action○ 해당 품목 판매업무정지 2개월(2026. 8. 24. ~ 2026. 10. 23.) * (대상품목) 하이록소주(히드록소코발라민)(허가번호: 제153호, 허가일자: 2006.11.24.)

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
○ 의약품 등 재평가 자료 미제출(1차 처분) -「약사법」제33조 및「의약품 재평가 실시에 관한 규정」에 따라 의약품 동등성 재평가 대상 품목에 해당하는 경우, 재평가에 필요한 자료를 기한 내(‘26.6.30.) 제출하여야 하나, - 동 업체는 재평가에 필요한 자료를 제출 기한 내 제출하지 않은 사실이 있음
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: re-evaluation data not submitted by the deadline of 30 June 2026 (first offence)
  • Action: two-month suspension of sales of the affected product (24 August 2026 to 23 October 2026)
  • Product: a hydroxocobalamin injection (approval no. 153, approved 24 November 2006)
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act article 33 and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 95, Annex 8
Insight · Editorial insight

The same missed re-evaluation deadline is producing actions at several firms, which points to the deadline management system rather than to individual slips. The older the approval, the easier it is to miss that a product is in scope, so a review of the portfolio by year of approval is worth doing.

Check points
  • Whether long-held approved products have been checked for re-evaluation scope
  • Alerting system for re-evaluation submission deadlines
[Administrative action · MFDS]명문제약(주) — Six injectable products suspended from sale
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended sales of six injectable products for two months because the data required for bioequivalence re-evaluation was not submitted by the deadline. The same ground was applied to all six products together.

Published2026-08-10
Document no.admin-2026006175
Companies명문제약(주)
Action해당품목 판매업무정지 2개월(2026. 8. 14. ~ 2026. 10. 13.): 토라렌주(디클로페낙나트륨)(수출명:토페라렌주사(Toferareninjection)), 디크놀주사(디클로페낙β-디메틸아미노에탄올), 명문메토카르바몰1그람주사, 아크리움주사(아트라쿠륨베실산염), 메조카주사(벤조산나트륨카페인), 네오콜린주250밀리그람(시티콜린)(수출명:세레보린주250밀리그람)

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
①의약품 동등성 재평가에 필요한 자료를 기한(’26.
②6.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: the data required for bioequivalence re-evaluation was not submitted by the deadline of 30 June 2026
  • Action: two-month suspension of sales of the affected products (14 August 2026 to 13 October 2026)
  • Products: six injectables, including diclofenac sodium, diclofenac beta-dimethylaminoethanol, methocarbamol, atracurium besylate and a 250 mg choline preparation
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act articles 33 and 76, and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 95, Annex 8
Insight · Editorial insight

One missed re-evaluation deadline expanded into simultaneous sales suspension of six injectable products. Because the same ground is applied across a whole set of products at once, the scale of supply disruption for products in scope for re-evaluation is worth estimating in advance.

Check points
  • Advance estimate of supply impact for products in scope for re-evaluation
  • A single review of preparation status of the submission dossier for every affected product
[Administrative action · MFDS]주식회사시디코유에스에이 — Change of site address not notified
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety suspended all manufacturing for three months because the firm moved the address of its quasi-drug manufacturing operation without filing a change notification.

Published2026-08-10
Document no.admin-2026006189
Companies주식회사시디코유에스에이
Action ○ 전 제조업무정지 3개월(처분기간: 2026. 8. 24. ~ 2026. 11. 23.)

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
○ 의약외품 제조업자는 허가받은 사항 또는 신고한 사항을 변경하려는 때에는 총리령으로 정하는 바에 따라 변경허가를 받거나 변경신고를 하여야 하나, - 위 업체는 의약외품 제조업 소재지를 기존 신고 소재지인 ‘경기도 화성시 팔탄면 시청로940번길 47 A동 2층’에서 ‘경기도 화성시 효행구 봉담읍 마당바위로 229 4층(화성공장)’으로 이전하였음에도 이에 대한 의약외품 제조업 변경신고를 하지 아니한 사실이 있음
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: the quasi-drug manufacturing site was moved from one district of Hwaseong to another without a change notification being filed
  • Action: suspension of all manufacturing for three months (24 August 2026 to 23 November 2026)
  • Law applied: Pharmaceutical Affairs Act article 31(9) and Rules on the Safety of Drugs article 8(1)(1)
Insight · Editorial insight

Missing an administrative change to a licensed or notified particular is on its own enough to stop all manufacturing. Where a physical change such as a site move or an expansion occurs, the timing of the change notification and the timing of the start of production have to be managed together.

Check points
  • Procedure and timing for filing a change notification when a site address changes
  • Operation of the register tracking changes to licensed and notified particulars
[GMP inspection · MFDS](주)휴비스트제약 — Storage temperature and cleaning validation
Evidence AMFDSSignal Med · T2💊 Small moleculeGMP inspection

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety published the result of a post-approval GMP inspection of a finished product site. Deficiencies were raised in the facilities and equipment, manufacturing and laboratory areas, and the remediation plan was accepted as adequate.

Published2026-08-11
Document no.gmpinspect-1P-j3DfJpj_
Site(주)휴비스트제약
Inspection period2026-01-22~2026-01-23
Original text
평가 결과: 지적(보완)사항(Deficiencies) 분야1) 근거 법령 지적(보완)사항 요약3) 비고 시설장비 [별표 1] 2.1 보관소 온도분포시험을 타당하게 검증할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 [별표 1] 2.1 보관 중인 의약품의 온도 관리를 철저히 할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 제조 [별표 1] 4.3 제조공정 중 이물이 혼입되지 않도록 적절한 절차를 마련할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 [별표 1] 6.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Inspection: post-approval, finished product (single), inspected 22 to 23 January 2026
  • Deficiency: validate the temperature distribution study for the storage area properly, and control the temperature of drugs held in storage (Annex 1, clause 2.1)
  • Deficiency: establish a procedure to prevent foreign matter entering during manufacturing (Annex 1, clause 4.3), and verify cleaning effectiveness for campaign production (Annex 1, clause 6.4)
  • Outcome: the remediation plan for the deficiencies was accepted as adequate
Insight · Editorial insight

Items whose validation evidence tends to blur during routine operation, such as storage temperature distribution and cleaning effectiveness in campaign production, are what the post-approval inspection picked up. Finished product sites should confirm the requalification cycle for warehouse temperature mapping and the cleaning validation data covering campaign changeover.

Check points
  • Requalification cycle for the storage area temperature distribution study
  • Cleaning effectiveness data at campaign production changeover
  • Procedure preventing foreign matter entering during manufacturing
Findings detail · a record the regulator published in KoreanRead it in the Korean edition
[GMP inspection · MFDS]삼성산소(주) — Incoming testing and supplier audit findings
Evidence AMFDSSignal Med · T2GMP inspection

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety published the result of a post-approval GMP inspection of a finished product site. The remediation plan was accepted as adequate for deficiencies in the manufacturing, laboratory and materials areas.

Published2026-08-11
Document no.gmpinspect-1P-j3DfJpwb
Site삼성산소(주)
Inspection period2026-03-09~2026-03-10
Original text
평가 결과: 지적(보완)사항(Deficiencies) 분야1) 근거 법령 지적(보완)사항 요약3) 비고 제조 [별표 1] 4.3 제품표준서에 허가(신고)사항 변경일을 포함하여 관리할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 시험실 [별표 1] 7.1 입고 원료에 대하여 주기적으로 전수검사를 실시할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 [별표 1] 7.3 제품품질평가 시, 제품의 모든 시험항목에 대하여 평가할 것 이행계획서 타당성 인정 원자재 [별표 1] 3.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Inspection: post-approval, finished product (single), inspected 9 to 10 March 2026
  • Deficiency: include the date of change to licensed or notified particulars in the product master file and manage it there (Annex 1, clause 4.3)
  • Deficiency: carry out periodic full testing of incoming raw materials, and evaluate every test attribute in the product quality review (Annex 1, clauses 7.1 and 7.3)
  • Deficiency: prepare an annual plan for supplier audits (Annex 1, clause 3.3)
Insight · Editorial insight

Supplier management areas such as incoming material control and the supplier audit plan are what turned into inspection findings here. Firms should confirm that the supplier assessment cycle and the annual audit plan document are actually maintained and executed.

Check points
  • Records showing the annual supplier audit plan is prepared and carried out
  • Basis for setting the scope of incoming material testing, full or sampled
  • Whether any test attribute is omitted from the product quality review
Findings detail · a record the regulator published in KoreanRead it in the Korean edition
[Administrative action · MFDS]신라젠주식회사 — Surcharge for breach of re-examination rules
Evidence AMFDSSignal Med · T2Administrative action

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety found that the re-examination requirements set by the Minister had been breached for an acetaminophen premix injection subject to re-examination, and imposed a surcharge in place of a one-month suspension of sales.

Published2026-08-10
Document no.admin-2026006194
Companies신라젠주식회사
Action‘뉴아미노펜프리믹스주(아세트아미노펜)’에 대하여 해당품목 판매업무정지 1개월에 갈음한 과징금 금2,850,000원(금이백팔십오만원) 부과

Shown in the original Korean: 1 value in this table.

Original text
재심사 대상 ‘뉴아미노펜프리믹스주(아세트아미노펜)’에 대하여 그밖에 식품의약품안전처장이 정한 재심사 기준을 위반하였음
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Grounds: breach of the re-examination requirements set by the Minister for a product subject to re-examination
  • Action: a surcharge of KRW 2,850,000 in place of a one-month suspension of sales of the affected product
  • Product: an acetaminophen premix injection
  • Law applied: former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act articles 32 and 76, and the former Rules on the Safety of Drugs, Annex 8
Insight · Editorial insight

A breach of post-marketing re-examination obligations was settled as a surcharge in place of a sales suspension. Firms holding products subject to re-examination should periodically confirm that case collection for the survey and the reporting requirements are being met.

Check points
  • Status of compliance with the requirements for products subject to re-examination
  • Schedule management for collection and reporting of post-marketing survey data

Recall 7 cards

[Recall / sales suspension · MFDS]구주제약(주) — Recall over possible foreign matter
Evidence AMFDSSignal High · T3💊 Small moleculeRecall

A voluntary recall was started for a glimepiride tablet because of concern that foreign matter had entered the product. The recall order is dated 13 August 2026.

Published2026-08-13
Document no.recall-8bd9bd12b54d
Companies구주제약(주)
Product글리미드정2mg(글리메피리드)
Original text
이물 혼입 우려에 따른 영업자 회수
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Reason: voluntary recall because of concern about foreign matter contamination
  • Product: a glimepiride 2 mg tablet
  • Type: voluntary recall, not mandated, recall order dated 13 August 2026
  • Recall class: not determined
Insight · Editorial insight

Where concern about foreign matter is raised in a finished tablet, both in-process foreign matter control and the final visual inspection step come under scrutiny together. Sites running solid dosage lines should review the entry routes for foreign matter across compression and packaging and the means available to detect it.

Check points
  • Control of foreign matter entry routes across compression and packaging
  • Acceptance criteria and records for final visual inspection
Findings detail · a record the regulator published in KoreanRead it in the Korean edition
[Recall (Health Canada) · Health Canada]Pharmascience Inc. — Mix-up with a combination product
Evidence AHealth CanadaSignal Med · T2💊 Small moleculeRecall

Health Canada published a recall of pms-IRBESARTAN 150 mg tablets from Pharmascience Inc. The affected lot may contain pms-IRBESARTAN/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg tablets.

Published2026-08-12
Document no.hc-82479
CompaniesPharmascience Inc.
Productpms-IRBESARTAN 150 mg Tablet
ClassType II
Original text and translation
Contamination
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Issue: contamination
  • Detail: the affected lot may contain pms-IRBESARTAN/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg tablets
  • Class: Type II
  • Advice: verify whether product on hand is affected and consult a healthcare provider before discontinuing use
Insight · Editorial insight

This is a mix-up recall in which a combination product from the same active ingredient family entered packs of the single-ingredient product. Sites handling products of similar appearance and the same active family on one line should check line clearance and the identification controls applied at packaging.

Check points
  • Line clearance procedure for products of similar appearance
  • Means of product identification and verification in the packaging process
Recall detail · From the source · Health Canada
Active ingredient · 150 mgDosage form · Tablet
What you should do
Original · Health Canada

Verify whether your product is affected.Consult your healthcare provider prior to discontinuing use of the affected product, or if you have any health concerns.Contact the recalling firm if you have any questions about the recall.Report any health product&nbsp;related&nbsp;side effects&nbsp;to Health Canada.Report any other health product safety&nbsp;complaints&nbsp;to&nbsp;Health Canada.

[Recall (Health Canada) · Health Canada]Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Canada Inc. — Incorrect pen inside the package
Evidence AHealth CanadaSignal Med · T2Recall

Health Canada published a recall of Semaglutide Injection from Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Canada Inc. The ground is that an incorrect pen was placed inside the package.

Published2026-08-11
Document no.hc-82477
CompaniesDr. Reddy's Laboratories Canada Inc.
ProductSemaglutide Injection
ClassType II
Original text and translation
Packaging
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Issue: packaging - incorrect pen in package
  • Product: Semaglutide Injection, 1.34 mg/ml solution
  • Class: Type II
  • Advice: verify whether product on hand is affected and consult a healthcare provider before discontinuing use
Insight · Editorial insight

For a prefilled pen presentation, the wrong component going into the pack at assembly is what led to the recall. Firms that pack pens or kits themselves or through a contractor should confirm the component verification method and the records of final pack inspection.

Check points
  • Method for verifying pen and kit components against the pack specification
  • Line clearance records when components change over on the packaging line
Recall detail · From the source · Health Canada
Active ingredient · 1.34 mg/mlDosage form · Solution
What you should do
Original · Health Canada

Verify if your product is affected.Consult your healthcare provider prior to discontinuing use of the affected product, or for any health concerns.Contact the recalling firm if you have any questions about the recall.Report any health product&nbsp;related&nbsp;side effects&nbsp;to Health Canada.Report any other health product safety&nbsp;complaints&nbsp;to&nbsp;Health Canada.

[Recall (Health Canada) · Health Canada]Teva Canada Limited — Lot number and expiry date missing
Evidence AHealth CanadaSignal Med · T2Recall

Health Canada published a recall of TEVA-ECTOSONE 0.1% Cream from Teva Canada Limited. The ground is that the lot number and expiry date may be missing from the affected lot.

Published2026-08-07
Document no.hc-82461
CompaniesTeva Canada Limited
ProductTEVA-ECTOSONE 0.1% Cream
ClassType II
Original text and translation
Labelling
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Issue: labelling
  • Detail: the lot number and expiry date may be missing from the affected lot
  • Class: Type II
  • Advice: product with no lot number and expiry date may be affected by the recall
Insight · Editorial insight

A missing marking becomes a ground for recall because it breaks traceability and shelf life control rather than because anything is wrong with the product itself. Firms running tube printing for semi-solid products should confirm how printing is verified and how unprinted units are detected.

Check points
  • Means of verifying tube printing of lot number and expiry date
  • Procedure for detecting and segregating unprinted or badly printed units
Recall detail · From the source · Health Canada
Active ingredient · 0.10%Dosage form · Cream
What you should do
Original · Health Canada

Verify if your product is affected. If the lot number and expiry date are missing, your product may be affected by this recall.Consult your healthcare provider prior to discontinuing use of the affected product(s), or for any health concerns.Contact the recalling firm if you have any questions about the recall.Report any health product&nbsp;related&nbsp;side effects&nbsp;to Health Canada.Report any other health product safety&nbsp;complaints&nbsp;to&nbsp;Health Canada.

[Recall · FDA]MICRO LABS USA INC — Defective container on an eye drop
Evidence AFDASignal Med · T2💊 Small moleculeRecall

FDA listed a recall of Dorzolamide HCl and Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution from MICRO LABS USA INC. The ground is multiple complaints of broken cap spikes and drops that could not be delivered.

Published2026-08-05
Document no.D-0730-2026
CompaniesMICRO LABS USA INC
ProductDorzolamide HCl and Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution, USP, 2%/0.
ClassClass II
Original text and translation
Defective Container: Firm received multiple complaints of broken cap spikes and undeliverable drops.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Reason: defective container - multiple complaints of broken cap spikes and undeliverable drops
  • Product: Dorzolamide HCl and Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution, USP, 2%/0.5%, 10mL bottle
  • Class: Class II
Insight · Editorial insight

A defect in the opening structure of the primary pack of an eye drop escalated into a recall by way of accumulated user complaints. The change history of the container closure system, its usability verification and complaint trend monitoring need to be connected as one chain.

Check points
  • Usability verification of the container closure system for eye drops
  • Criteria for considering a recall once complaints of the same type accumulate
Recall detail · From the source · OpenFDA
Status · OngoingVoluntary: Firm initiatedFirst notified · Letter
Status
Recall initiated · 2026-07-22FDA classification · 2026-07-24FDA published · 2026-08-05
Affected lots and expiry
Original · OpenFDA

Lot # DLHU0031, Exp Date: 06/30/2027.

Recall size and scope

Distribution — Nationwide in the USA.

Company location — Somerset, NJ, United States

Product identification

Brand name — DORZOLAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE AND TIMOLOL MALEATE OPHTHALMIC SOLUTION

Generic name — DORZOLAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE AND TIMOLOL MALEATE

Active ingredient — DORZOLAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE, TIMOLOL MALEATE

Route of administration — OPHTHALMIC

Application number — ANDA204777

[Recall · FDA]Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA — Abnormal texture in a topical gel
Evidence AFDASignal Med · T2💊 Small moleculeRecall

FDA listed a recall of Azelaic Acid Gel 15% in 50 gram tubes from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA. The ground is a CGMP deviation raised by product quality complaints of abnormal texture or consistency.

Published2026-08-05
Document no.D-0731-2026
CompaniesGlenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA
ProductAzelaic Acid Gel, 15%, 50 gram tubes, For Topical Use only, Rx only, Distributed…
ClassClass II
Original text and translation
CGMP Deviations: Product quality complaints concerning abnormal texture or consistency (described as grainy, gritty, or sandy) were received.
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Reason: CGMP deviations - product quality complaints of abnormal texture or consistency, described as grainy, gritty or sandy
  • Product: Azelaic Acid Gel, 15%, 50 gram tubes, for topical use
  • Class: Class II
Insight · Editorial insight

A change in the texture of a semi-solid can generally be linked to raw material particle size or to mixing and cooling conditions, and this case was classified as a CGMP deviation. Sites producing gels and creams should check whether the acceptance criteria for the description test would catch what the user actually perceives.

Check points
  • Acceptance criteria for description and particle size testing of semi-solids
  • Control of parameter variation in the mixing and cooling process
Recall detail · From the source · OpenFDA
Status · OngoingVoluntary: Firm initiatedFirst notified · Two or more of the following: Email, Fax, Letter, Press Release, Telephone, Visit
Status
Recall initiated · 2026-07-23FDA classification · 2026-07-28FDA published · 2026-08-05
Affected lots and expiry
Original · OpenFDA

Lot #: 19260937A, Exp. Date February 2028; 19261225A, 19261185A, Exp. Date March 2028; 19261664A, 19261682A, Exp. Date April 2028.

Recall size and scope

Distribution — Nationwide within the United States.

Company location — Elmwood Park, NJ, United States

Product identification

Brand name — AZELAIC ACID

Generic name — AZELAIC ACID

Route of administration — TOPICAL

Application number — ANDA204637

[Recall · FDA]MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC — Precipitate found in an injection
Evidence AFDASignal Med · T2💊 Small moleculeRecall

FDA listed a recall of Mycophenolate Mofetil for Injection USP 500 mg/Vial from MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. The ground is the presence of precipitate.

Published2026-08-05
Document no.D-0734-2026
CompaniesMYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC
ProductMycophenolate Mofetil for Injection USP, 500 mg/Vial, Single Dose Vial, 4 vials…
ClassClass II
Original text and translation
Presence of precipitate
Key facts · Basis: official source record kept by the collector
  • Reason: presence of precipitate
  • Product: Mycophenolate Mofetil for Injection USP, 500 mg/Vial, single dose vial
  • Class: Class II
Insight · Editorial insight

Precipitation in an injection can generally be linked to characteristics of the material or to manufacturing and storage conditions, and visual particulate inspection alone may find it late. Sites handling injectables should confirm the description attribute in the stability test panel and the criteria for responding to a storage condition excursion.

Check points
  • Description and insoluble particulate attributes in the stability test panel for injectables
  • Criteria for reassessment following a temperature excursion in storage or distribution
Recall detail · From the source · OpenFDA
Status · OngoingVoluntary: Firm initiatedFirst notified · Letter
Status
Recall initiated · 2026-07-02FDA classification · 2026-08-04FDA published · 2026-08-05
Affected lots and expiry
Original · OpenFDA

Lot #: 3241653, Exp 4/30/2027

Recall size and scope

Quantity — 5688 vials

Distribution — USA Nationwide

Company location — Morgantown, WV, United States

Product identification

Brand name — MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL

Generic name — MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL

Route of administration — INTRAVENOUS

Application number — ANDA203859

Trade press briefing 10 items

Weekly Newsletter

New GMP inspection findings, every Monday

Every Monday we email the week's new inspection records from the FDA, EMA, Health Canada and MFDS, with a short summary of the week's regulatory news. We'll also let you know when the site gains new features. Unsubscribe any time with one click.

See recent findings first

Sent every Monday · a confirmation email follows when you subscribe · unsubscribe from the footer of any email.

AI Disclosure

How this content is produced, and caveats

1. Information generated by AI

Card titles, summaries, Korean translations, implications, check items, and detailed analysis are content generated automatically by generative AI from published primary official material.

2. Information provided as in the source

Figures, codes, dates, agency and company names in the fact table, quotations from the original text, source and official-document links, and findings tables (FDA Form 483 observations, MFDS routine inspection findings, and so on) are extracted mechanically from the source and are not reworded or rewritten.

3. Verification, limitations, and user notes

  • To improve accuracy, GRM provides evidence grades (A, B, C) and signal tiers (1–3). Evidence A means the information can be checked directly against a primary official document.
  • Summaries, translations, implications, check items, and detailed analysis generated by generative AI may contain mistranslations, omissions, misread context, or information that is not up to date.
  • This service is reference material intended to provide regulatory and quality information; it does not provide legal, regulatory, quality, or compliance advice or official interpretation.
  • Before using this material for decisions, quality system operation, regulatory response, or audit preparation, users must check the official source and the relevant agency's latest material themselves.

This digest is AI-generated from primary sources; interpretations are not official or legal advice — verify against the original before acting.