| • Supervision
• Counterfeit medicines
• Citric acid
• White Paper (2)
• The Council
• MDSs
• Pfizer (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Counterfeit medicines
Was it necessary to issue a class 1 recall?
From Mr I. Holloway, MRPharmS
In response to the letter from Roger
Miles (PJ, 16 June, p705) I would
like to comment on the actions taken. The recent series of drug alerts
for counterfeits have clearly demonstrated that the risks involved are
higher than those normally seen in defective bona fide medicines. We cannot
be sure that any counterfeit batches are homogeneous and we had some specific
evidence of some intra-batch variation within the recent counterfeit batches.
We provided an initial assay outcome for the bicalutamide tablets which
did give the result of about 75 per cent of the stated active ingredient.
However, the samples tested may not have been representative of the entire
batch. Counterfeits often contain unknown contaminants which cannot be
quickly evaluated by the established validated test methods. Time is paramount
in the issue of drug alerts and we did not judge it acceptable to wait
for a full forensic examination in any of the recent cases. The action
taken was endorsed by medical advisers from both the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency and AstraZeneca.
With counterfeit products there is no information on production or test
methods (if any are applied) and degradant and
cross-contamination risks are expected to be much higher than in validated
and approved products. We therefore maintain that counterfeits should be
considered as a serious health risk until enough evidence is available
to downgrade the threat.
We are grateful for the assistance provided by hospitals, community pharmacists,
physicians and wholesalers in the recent series of drug alerts in safeguarding
public health.
Ian Holloway
Manager
MHRA Defective Medicines Report Centre |