On Nov. 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Ministry of Health and Welfare ordered the recall of all 80mg and 160mg Prevan film-coated tablets — medication for high blood pressure produced by Genovate Biotechnology Co (健亞生物科技) — after the drug was found to contain a carcinogenic chemical.
As there have been three recalls of blood pressure medication in only a few months, questions need to be asked about what is wrong with the quality control of imported pharmaceutical ingredients, and what else the FDA should do in addition to ordering recalls?
In the past, finding raw material supply sources and quality control were mostly the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies, which self-managed in accordance with the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standard.
Although GMP is in common use internationally, raw material safety issues occur often. As a result, all countries have been re-evaluating and improving source review and inspection management to ensure the safety of medication.
There are some feasible actions that the FDA could take. In terms of post-approval inspection, it could integrate written and on-the-spot inspections to implement risk management at pharmaceutical companies and factories, and ensure that the medication production information is identical to the registered information.
For high-risk items, it could plan for inspectors to verify whether the product documents are in line with the documents issued following the original inspection.
Also, during factory inspections, the FDA could conduct random sample testing and improve the inspection of supplier approval and supervision in accordance with the Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme (PIC/S) and GMP to maintain product quality and safety.
In addition to regular factory inspections, extra factory checks could be conducted in response to special incidents, such as when a company is being reported, a marketed product fails a quality test, a defective product is reported or if there has been a related news report.
To ensure the quality of products on the market, the FDA could conduct theme-based inspections and send inspectors to collect samples directly from factories, so as to monitor quality. If a product fails a test, the FDA should order the company to recall the drug.
Despite the FDA’s recall demand, it is reported that local health bureaus nationwide do not have sufficient personnel to conduct inspections.
Perhaps the FDA could demand that local hospitals, clinics and pharmacies remove the products from their shelves by promptly passing the information to them through its penalty mechanism. Patients who are taking the defective drug could ask doctors to replace it with similar high blood pressure medication.
Despite the series of high blood pressure drug recalls in recent months, it seems as if the FDA is merely being reactionary, fixing holes after they are discovered.
What could it do to tighten the quality control of imported pharmaceutical ingredients? Should it not look into where the responsibility lies if strict inspections are not carried out on raw material imports?
A government that only demands recalls, but does not review the handling of a case, look into accountability or demand compensation from the medical companies involved, can hardly be said to be responsible.
Liu Dian-ke is a pharmacist and a doctoral student of business administration at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS