|
• White Paper (2)
• Liberal professions
• Pseudoephedrine
• Substance misuse (2)
• MDS (2)
• Counterfeit medicines
• NHS
• Women in pharmacy
• Technicians (2)
• Retention fees
• The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Counterfeit medicines
Was it necessary to issue a class 1 recall?
From Mr R. D. Miles, MRPharmS
The recall of counterfeit
bicalutamide 50mg (PJ, 9 June, p668) meant
that a well-practised procedure had to be initiated in every pharmacy.
Records had to be checked, stock examined and wards and patients contacted.
This is all done efficiently but is disruptive to a busy pharmacy. However,
had the fax come through a few hours later the consequences would have
been far more serious: pharmacists called out of bed to cascade the notice,
ward activity disrupted to check stock, patients frightened. And for
what purpose?
A counterfeit product containing 75 per cent active ingredient had entered
the supply chain, but did it pose an immediate threat to life such as
the consequences of an unsterile injection, a tablet contaminated by
penicillin, or an inactive resuscitation drug? I think not. There was
no statement that the batch did contain harmful contaminants. So why
the status of class 1 — “action immediately including out
of hours”?
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had, rightly,
undertaken some laboratory work and initial investigations. It also provided
an excellent question-and-answer sheet to help us deal with the situation.
This must have taken time, so why the extreme urgency with the alert?
A cynic might conclude that any loss of confidence in parallel imported
products can only benefit the large pharmaceutical companies, which pay
most in fees to the MHRA.
Counterfeit products are a threat to patient care and the MHRA, as a
custodian of public safety, is right to take a strong stand against them,
but is a class 1 recall justified when life is not threatened? I have
my doubts.
Roger Miles
Regional Specialist Procurement Pharmacist (NW)
Royal Bolton Hospital
| |
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency declined
our invitation to respond to this letter. — EDITOR
|
|