Public Advisory - NRA-Amlodipine 5 mg tablets: One lot recalled as some bottles may contain the wrong drug
Summary
Affected products
Issue
Nora Pharma is recalling one lot of NRA-Amlodipine 5 mg tablets because some bottles may contain the wrong tablets, which have been identified as metoprolol succinate prolonged–release 12.5 mg tablets.
NRA-Amlodipine treats high blood pressure and chest pain in adults and children aged 6 to 17. The tablets are white or off-white, octagonal, flat, and scored in the middle with '210' and '5' on one side.
The metoprolol succinate prolonged-release 12.5 mg tablets are white, round and scored in the middle.
While metoprolol is also used to treat high blood pressure and chest pain, substituting amlodipine (5 mg) with metoprolol (12.5 mg) can lead to serious side effects such as dangerous blood pressure changes (especially dangerously low drops), difficulty breathing, or an abnormally slow heart rate.
Patients with other conditions (especially heart failure, asthma, severe peripheral arterial disease, pheochromocytoma, or diabetes) and those taking other medications could experience different side effects with varying levels of severity.
Children taking the wrong medication may face a higher risk of serious side effects and potential harm.
Health Canada is monitoring the company's recall and investigation, including its implementation of corrective and preventive actions to stop this issue from reoccurring. The Department will inform the public if any new health risks are identified.
What you should do
Additional information for health professionals:
Également disponible en français
SOURCE Health Canada (HC)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ImmunoPrecise Antibodies' LENSai Platform Achieves Breakthrough in Epitope Mapping Accuracy
ImmunoPrecise Antibodies Ltd. (NASDAQ:IPA) is one of the best hot stocks to buy according to Wall Street analysts. On July 3, ImmunoPrecise Antibodies announced significant validation for its proprietary epitope mapping platform, called LENSai. This platform is powered by IPA's patented HYFT technology and has shown its ability to accurately predict antibody binding sites even on therapeutic targets it has never encountered before in its training data. A new benchmark study tested LENSai on 30 antibody-protein pairs, 17 of which were entirely new to the platform, so LENSai had no prior exposure to these specific antibodies, targets, or complexes. Despite this, LENSai achieved prediction scores, measured by AUC (Area Under the Curve), that were nearly identical to those obtained from its original training data. A scientist analyzing antibodies in a lab. The consistent high performance on unseen complexes confirms LENSai's generalizability and its ability to reliably analyze and predict antibody binding for diverse biological structures, achieving near-crystallography precision. Traditional epitope mapping methods can take months and require extensive wet-lab work and expensive materials. In contrast, LENSai delivers results in hours using only digital sequences. ImmunoPrecise is already integrating LENSai into collaborations with major pharmaceutical and biotech companies, as well as scaling access through secure APIs and custom partnerships. ImmunoPrecise Antibodies Ltd. (NASDAQ:IPA) is a techbio company that uses multi-omics modeling and complex AI through a series of proprietary and patented technologies, and supports the discovery and development of therapeutic antibodies. While we acknowledge the potential of IPA as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mia Hughes: Alberta judge relies on myth that gender drugs are lifesaving
An Alberta judge has temporarily blocked the province's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, ruling that denying trans-identified youth these interventions would cause 'irreparable harm.' The injunction, issued on June 27, stems from a Charter challenge led by LGBT charity Egale Canada. But Justice Allison Kuntz — and the advocacy groups opposing the ban — have it exactly backwards: it's the unproven interventions Alberta has restricted that have the potential to cause lasting harm — including sterility, sexual dysfunction, and impeded psychosocial development. Echoing the language of the Charter challenge, Justice Kuntz cited several factors she believed would cause 'irreparable harm:' that the law would reinforce discrimination, inflict emotional harm, and lead to 'permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity.' In other words, undergoing natural puberty would be harmful to these minors' identities. Yet, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith takes a different view. 'The court had said that they think that there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse,' said Smith the day after the ruling. She made clear that her government intends to challenge the decision in the higher courts, expressing confidence that Alberta has 'a very solid case.' That means taking the matter before the Alberta Court of Appeal — and make no mistake: Smith's confidence is well-founded. Bill 26 is backed, not only by multiple systematic evidence reviews and independent European investigations, but is also bolstered by recent developments in the U.S. legal landscape — most notably the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's right to restrict these same interventions. The Tennessee case was brought by a coalition of civil rights lawyers led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who also argued that the state's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors would cause harm. But the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't persuaded. It sided with Tennessee's right to protect children from unproven, high-risk interventions — dealing a decisive blow to those who advocate for medicalizing adolescent transgender identities. Like the Egale-led Charter challenge, the ACLU's case relied on the claim that denying these drugs would cause irreversible physical and emotional harm — and increase the risk of suicide. But some of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices had done their homework. Citing the UK's Cass Report, one directly challenged the ACLU's most powerful rhetorical weapon: the 'transition or suicide' narrative. In a pivotal exchange during the December 2024 oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito confronted ACLU attorney Chase Strangio with the fact that there is no reliable evidence that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones reduce suicide risk in this population. Strangio was forced to admit that suicide among trans-identified youth is extremely rare — and that, therefore, the claim these interventions are lifesaving is unsupported. And just like that, the medical justification for subjecting healthy adolescents to these interventions has vanished. There is no life-threatening emergency — only experimental drugs being offered to confused youth still exploring their identities and trying to find their place in the world. With Skrmetti, the ACLU learned a hard lesson — one Egale may soon face: in court, activist rhetoric doesn't cut it. Evidence matters. You can't win by shouting slogans or crying 'transphobia' when pressed. You can't call a treatment 'evidence-based' unless there is actually evidence to support it. Of course, Canada's judicial system differs significantly from that of the United States. Charter rulings tend to allow more room for ideological interpretation — and a Canadian court is not bound to follow the same evidentiary reasoning as the U.S Supreme Court. But the Skrmetti ruling is sure to have boosted the confidence of Smith and her legal team as they plan to take this fight to the higher courts. Like the ACLU's challenge to Tennessee's ban, the Egale-led Charter challenge rests on a strange and radical argument. It asks the court to treat the natural developmental stage of puberty as 'harm,' and the denial of experimental drugs as a violation of Charter rights. Most striking is the Section 12 claim: that restricting access to blockers and hormones amounts to 'cruel and unusual treatment' — a clause intended for criminal punishment, not medical regulation. Framing a protective measure as state-inflicted cruelty makes a mockery of the Charter's purpose. But more fundamentally, the challenge to Alberta's ban ignores a core ethical principle in paediatric care: a 'child's right to an open future.' Adolescents are still developing — physically, cognitively, and emotionally. To offer them potentially irreversible medical interventions based on transient identities is not an act of compassion; it's a form of foreclosure. True protection means safeguarding all the possible versions of the self that a young person has yet to discover — and shielding them from life-altering decisions they are not yet equipped to make. In essence, the Egale-led Charter challenge isn't about protecting rights; it's about defending an indefensible medical experiment — one that treats unproven drugs as safe, evidence-based care and the natural course of puberty as a danger. When Alberta moves forward defending its law, the Court of Appeal will face a choice: follow the science-led shift seen across Europe — or give legal cover to a collapsing ideology. Justice Kuntz failed to see past the activist script. The real test now is whether Canada's upper courts will have not only the clarity to recognize it — but also the courage to reject it. Mia Hughes specializes in researching pediatric gender medicine, psychiatric epidemics, social contagion and the intersection of trans rights and women's rights. She is the author of 'The WPATH Files,' a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and director of Genspect Canada. National Post Opinion: The retrenchment of Russian power and influence in the Middle East Opinion: The Iranian regime's new war targets its own people
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Surprising Reason Americans Are Still Struggling to Get Off the Couch
Americans were sitting less—until the pandemic hit. From 2013 to early 2020, the average amount of time spent sedentary was on a steady decline, according to a JAMA research letter. Then came lockdowns, remote work, and closed gyms. Now, five years later, we're still not moving the way we used to. The surprising part? It's not the pandemic itself that's holding us back. It's what we kept from that time: virtual meetings, delivery apps, and digital convenience that eliminate nearly all incidental movement. Between 2017 and 2020, average sedentary time hovered around 5.9 hours per day. Despite reopening efforts and a return to daily routines, Americans today are still logging six hours of sitting time daily, and that number hasn't budged since 2021. Experts believe the technology we adopted during lockdowns plays a bigger role than we realize. Zoom meetings replaced office walks. Grocery delivery replaced cart-pushing. And once-automatic steps, like walking into work or grabbing lunch across the street, have quietly disappeared. The shift wasn't temporary. For many, it became the new baseline. And that matters. Yahoo reported that prolonged sitting is linked to a higher risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even certain cancers. The phrase 'sitting is the new smoking' might sound overused, but it's rooted in the reality that a sedentary lifestyle is still a leading health concern in the U.S. That doesn't mean everyone needs to hit the gym seven days a week. In fact, experts say daily movement—even in small doses—can make a measurable difference. Taking walking breaks, adding 'exercise snacks' throughout the day, or choosing to run errands in person instead of online are all ways to offset the damage of desk-bound days. There's also a growing divide in who's able to get moving again. Gym membership rates hit a record high in 2024, but researchers note that those benefits mostly reach higher-income Americans. For people working multiple jobs or without flexible schedules, building in movement remains a challenge. The solution isn't more pressure. It's more purpose. We don't need to overhaul our lives. We just need to start moving in the right direction, one step at a Reason Americans Are Still Struggling to Get Off the Couch first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 7, 2025
