Drug control scanner on 51 below-quality meds, list sent to retailers & wholesalers
West Bengal Drug Control
has found 51 medicines, manufactured by various pharma companies, which failed quality tests. A list for the same has been sent to the wholesalers and retailers of medicines in the state.
In the notification dated May 2, the deputy director of Drugs Control has pointed out at least 45 medicines which are not of standard quality. At least five medicines are termed as spurious and one medicine was found to be 'misbranded'.Many of these medicines were drawn and tested by the Food and Drug Administration at Mumbai. Of the list of medicines, the directorate found batches of a number of medicines which are of daily use.A batch of Acelofenac, a
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
used for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, was manufactured by an India govt enterprise. Another batch of Cefuroxime Axetil, used in the treatment of bacterial infection was also manufactured by the same enterprise. Both the medicines were found to be not of standard quality.A batch of Telmisartan, used in the treatment of high blood pressure and hypertension was also found to be not of standard quality.
It was manufactured by one of the largest pharma companies in India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Drug Approvals Hit an FDA Wall
Does Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary want to accelerate life-saving drugs as he claims? The agency's recent torpedoing of an immunotherapy shot for advanced melanoma and slow-rolling a treatment for a rare disease raise big questions. The FDA's approval of new drugs has notably slowed this year. Annual novel drug approvals averaged 52 in the first Trump Presidency and 48 under Joe Biden, but there have been only 22 in the first seven months of this year. On current trend that would make 38 for the year. One concern is that regulators are nixing drugs under the false flag of raising scientific standards. A case in point is Replimune's melanoma treatment, which the FDA rejected last month. About a third of patients who hadn't responded to prior immunotherapy showed a strong response to Replimune's in a clinical trial. Tumors shrank in nearly all patients, and responses proved durable over three years. Serious side effects were rare. Oncologists who treated patients in the trial hailed the results. Yet the FDA said the trial was 'not considered to be an adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation that provides substantial evidence of effectiveness.' Its quibble is that the trial lacked a control group. Vinay Prasad, the head of the biologics division, has long criticized such single-arm studies that have no placebo groups. He believes medicines should undergo randomized controlled trials that track patients over longer periods to measure overall survival. Never mind if patients die in the interim. It's unethical to give patients with an advanced deadly disease a treatment that failed to help them as a placebo. Measuring overall survival would also require drug makers to run bigger trials and over longer periods, delaying access to potentially life-saving therapies. Replimune executives said they were blind-sided by the FDA rejection and its shifting post-hoc demands. Leading oncologists lambasted the FDA and urged the agency to reconsider. Replimune's 'results are unpredecented,' Vishal Patel, a dermatology oncologist at George Washington University Cancer Center, wrote to Dr. Makary this month. 'Physicians urgently want and need this agent based on the data they have seen,' University of Iowa oncologist Mohammed Milhem wrote in another letter. 'Indeed, the precedent set by this rejection is likely to halt many aspects of the science and clinical development required to move agents like this into practice in later line disease.' 'The world looks for leadership from the FDA based on rationality, science and evidence,' wrote Melanoma World Society president Axel Hauschild. Doing a randomized controlled trial, he said, 'would be considered as unethical' in his home country of Germany. We criticized Dr. Prasad, who was appointed by Dr. Makary, for using dubious safety risks in an effort to scuttle a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. After a public backlash, the FDA backed down, and Dr. Prasad resigned. Yet Dr. Makary recently brought him back. This followed a StatNews story in which anonymous FDA officials sought to pin the blame for the Replimune rejection on Richard Pazdur, the agency's head of oncology. But Dr. Prasad's shop was directly responsible for the Replimune review and his career staff had supported approval. In any case, the buck stops with Dr. Makary. The finger-pointing and his continued support for Dr. Prasad is creating tremendous uncertainty for pharmaceutical developers. If Dr. Makary really wants to make drug approvals for deadly and rare diseases faster and more flexible, he'd send a signal by ordering the FDA to reconsider Replimune's treatment. *** He'd also green-light Stealth BioTherapeutics' treatment for Barth syndrome, which the bureaucracy is strangling. Barth causes a fatal weakening of the heart, muscles and immune system and afflicts about 150 Americans. It's the sort of rare-disease therapy that Dr. Makary says he wants to bring to market faster. Stealth applied for approval in January 2024, and an FDA advisory committee last autumn found the drug to be effective. But the agency keeps changing its demands and has deployed one excuse after another to delay approval. The agency recently told Stealth to resubmit its application, which would take at least six months to review. Stealth CEO Reenie McCarthy says her company might not survive that long. If the company fails, patients that began receiving the medicine in the trial will lose access, and others may never benefit. Parents of children in Stealth's trial are urging the FDA to approve it. So are Democrats and Republicans in Congress. 'I have lost two boys with Barth syndrome and know firsthand how lethal Barth syndrome is,' Shelley Bowen of South Carolina tells us. Do FDA leaders care? Does Dr. Makary?
NDTV
2 days ago
- NDTV
Skittles, M&Ms To Be Naturally Dyed Soon, Says Candy-Maker Company
Two days after Mars Inc. met with Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, the privately held food company posted a statement saying it would offer naturally colored options next year for four of its most iconic candies, including M&M's and Skittles. The July 24 announcement on the Mars Wrigley website went largely unnoticed at a time when candymakers have been viewed as the biggest holdout in the Trump administration's efforts to get companies to voluntarily strip synthetic dyes from their food. The move by Mars marks a step toward appeasing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made artificial dyes a top target. Consumers have pressed for more natural options, and some states have passed new restrictions, including West Virginia, which will prohibit the sale of food with synthetic dyes starting in 2028. Mars, however, stopped short of removing artificial dyes from all of its brands, saying it continues to work on that effort. "When we have identified fully effective, scalable solutions across the entire portfolio, we will share additional item commitments and timelines," the company said in the statement. An FDA spokesperson applauded Mars for its action on synthetic dyes and called the move "a win for parents, consumers and public health." Other food companies have made broader statements pledging to remove synthetic dyes from vast swaths of their products. Hershey Co., which makes Hershey's chocolates and Jolly Rancher candy, for example, said in late June that it would remove artificial dyes from its portfolio by the end of 2027. Representatives of Mars met with Makary on July 22, according to his public calendar. "I think we're going to get there with Mars," Makary said the next day on a Politico podcast.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
America's drug regulator is in turmoil
TO APPRECIATE the dilemmas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces when it reviews new drugs targeting rare diseases, consider the recent rollercoaster ride of Sarepta Therapeutics, a biotech firm. In 2023 the FDA granted accelerated approval for its gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare genetic disorder that typically causes death in early adulthood. Peter Marks, director of the FDA's biologics centre at the time, approved the treatment despite reviewers' concerns about limited clinical data. Some hailed that as proof the FDA could be nimble in cases where sufferers had few options. The treatment costs an eye-watering $3.2m per patient, so the drug's approval delivered Sarepta a major payday. But in the past four months three patients on Sarepta's treatments have died from acute liver failure. On July 18th the FDA asked the firm to suspend distribution. Within days its stock lost nearly half of its value (see chart 1). Illustration: Vartika Sharma Chart 1 Political drama followed. Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist with access to President Donald Trump, accused Vinay Prasad—Dr Marks' successor and a long-standing critic of loosening evidentiary standards for drug approvals—of being a 'leftist saboteur' bent on derailing 'Trump's deregulatory mission'. Her attack was widely seen as criticism of his decision to pause Sarepta's therapy. On July 28th the FDA reauthorised the treatment's use for some younger patients. By the next day Dr Prasad had resigned to 'spend more time with his family'. George Tidmarsh, a physician-scientist newly in charge of the agency's other key drug-evaluation division, became acting head of this one, too. But on August 9th Dr Prasad was re-hired, apparently after being persuaded that the FDA's commissioner, Martin Makary, supported him. Ms Loomer responded by threatening exposés of FDA officials. It is hardly a picture of stable decision-making at an agency responsible for regulating products that account for some 14% of America's GDP. Drugs that target rare diseases, known as orphan drugs, constitute a distinctive segment of the pharmaceutical industry, one that is replete with extraordinary financial promise, scientific risk and knotty ethical considerations. The FDA polices this frontier. It is a treacherous mandate even without interventions by the likes of Ms Loomer. And while the challenges for rare-disease drugs are especially acute, they mirror those facing the entire sector in a regulatory landscape for drugs and new treatments that is growing ever more politicised and unstable. Though 200m-500m people worldwide suffer from rare diseases—and nearly half of these illnesses affect children—drugmakers had long neglected the development of treatments. To spur such work Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act in 1983. It offers companies seven years of market exclusivity. Between the legislation's strong incentives and advances in cell and gene therapies, orphan drugs have become an important sector for biotech firms. Today these therapies account for roughly half of the new drugs the FDA approves. They are lucrative, too. Some companies, such as Sarepta, rely almost entirely on orphan drugs for their revenue. Even Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical giant, earned roughly a third of its revenue from these treatments in 2024, according to Evaluate, a pharmaceutical-analytics firm (see chart 2). Mr Makary, the new commissioner of the FDA, has joined a long line of agency chiefs in calling for faster drug reviews, which can take ten months. In June the FDA launched a pilot scheme to cut that to just a month or two for treatments deemed to support 'national interests'. Because robust randomised trials are often unfeasible for rare diseases given the tiny patient pool, Mr Makary has also talked about developing quicker alternative approval pathways for orphan drugs. But these moves towards innovation have been undermined by the administration's inclination to shoot first and aim later. Speaking on the Megyn Kelly Show, a podcast, Mr Makary announced a plan to speed up drug approvals for ultra-rare diseases by relying on 'a plausible mechanism', meaning a scientific explanation showing that treatments could theoretically lead to improved outcomes. Such a standard would be 'about as low as it goes', argues Daniel Kracov, a lawyer who advises pharmaceutical firms on regulation. However, parents of patients with diseases so rare that they can be impossible to run trials for are pushing for new ways to win approval for novel drugs. Officials at the FDA worry that the push to accelerate approvals without hiring more staff will backfire. One reviewer who works on rare diseases notes that during evaluations of proposed treatments for them, the science can be less familiar, the clinical trials smaller, and approval may hinge on less conventional intermediate evidence. This uncertainty can breed scepticism initially. What often persuades reviewers of a treatment's safety and efficacy is statistical stress-testing and other scrutiny of the evidence that can take months. Speeding this up risks causing reviewers to err on the side of caution, which could lead to fewer approvals, not more. Side effects may include Congress is another source of uncertainty. Lawmakers have so far failed to reauthorise a voucher programme that encouraged drugmakers to pursue treatments for rare pediatric diseases. In exchange, companies received a voucher granting expedited FDA review for another drug. The vouchers are transferable and can be sold for tens of millions of dollars on a secondary market (see chart 3). Amid instability, 'vouchers are selling for more, because there is some possibility that Congress will not get this done by the end of 2026', says David Ridley, a health economist at Duke University. Drug development typically takes a decade or longer, which is why investors prize policy certainty. 'The biggest thing is, you want the FDA to be consistent,' explains Matt Phipps, a biotech analyst at William Blair, an investment bank. 'You want them to tell you something and then stick with it and not change their minds at the last minute.' Smaller biotech firms that fuel early innovation across the industry will struggle most to ride out the volatility. Funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the wellspring of biomedical research, and threats of pharmaceutical tariffs have given a hypersensitive industry additional reasons to retreat. More uncertainty at the FDA is likely to make it harder to approve drugs in general, and possibly orphan drugs especially. Rollercoasters are no fun when you have no choice but to ride them. America-s-drug-regulator-is-in-turmoil
