Ranbaxy Sued Over Generic Lipitor Recall

Should Ranbaxy Laboratories have notified consumers of its decision to recall generic Lipitor because glass particles were found in some lots? One New Jersey man thinks so and has gone to court to force the troubled drugmaker to provide better information, as well as a refund, according to a recently filed lawsuit that seeks class action status.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court on the same day that Ranbaxy stopped producing generic Lipitor, came in response to the November 9 recall of some 40 lots of the pill. However, the recall was only made at the pharmacy level, which means that consumers were not directly notified of the problem or how to respond if they became aware.

Although pharmacies were alerted (see this), Ranbaxy did not make any public statement until a brief notice - with a link to a list of recalled lots - was placed on its web site on November 23, prompting media coverage (see this). The ensuing ruckus, however, spurred the drugmaker to place a press release on its web site on November 28.

Through this episode, Ranbaxy has maintained that it has informed the FDA of its moves, dating back to October. For its part, the FDA has noted that agency officials work with drugmakers to determine recall steps to be taken and the agency has indicated there is a "remote possibility" of patients experiencing adverse events (see this).

An FDA spokeswoman explained that, after November 9, the agency received and reviewed additional information about the recall, which led the FDA on November 30 to classify the recall as a Class II, which means the risk to patients is extremely low. And there had been no reports of injury. She noted that Class II recalls are conducted at the pharmacy level and not the consumer level. A Class II recall may cause temporary or medically reversible health problems, or the probability of serious health problems is remote. A "recall may extend to the consumer or user level, the retail level, or the wholesale level," according to the chapter on recall procedures in the FDA Regulatory Procedures Manual. "In urgent situations, consideration should be given to the need for a press release that could be nationwide or to affected geographical areas only."

"...In reviewing or developing a recall strategy, the (FDA's Center Recall Unit) should take into account the health hazard evaluation, type or use of the product, the ease in identifying the product, the degree to which the product's deficiency is obvious to the consumer or user, the amount of product remaining unused in the marketplace, distribution pattern, validated salvage or rework plan, and the continued availability of essential products" (here is the manual).

So far, Ranbaxy is aware of one patient complaint of an adverse event. Nonetheless, the lawsuit argues that Ranbaxy should have taken the initiative to alert consumers directly and promptly, and also maintains that the drugmaker should have provided instructions on how to respond to the recall and information on obtaining a refund (here is the lawsuit). A Ranbaxy spokesman declined to comment.

“Defendants either knew, recklessly disregarded or reasonably should have known about the dangerous nature of its product at the time of sale of the product and thereafter,” the lawsuit states. “Even when defendants announced that (their) product was tainted, there was no notice to consumers concerning the dangers or how to obtain a refund.”

As we wrote previously, this comes at a delicate time. In January, a consent decree was signed for a permanent injunction that prevents the Indian drugmaker from making medicines for the US market until certain facilities meet US standards (read here). Ranbaxy set aside $500 million to cover all potential civil and criminal liability, but the final amount of any settlement has not yet been decided.

Ranbaxy maintains the generic Lipitor was made in a plant in India, according to an e-mail that we received from a spokeswoman for the drugmaker. However, Venkat Krishnan, who heads the Ranbaxy Americas business, sought to clarify that statement in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

He explained that the active ingredient is made in Tonasa, India, and glass lining in tanks may have splintered. But he insisted the episode "has nothing to do with US manufacturing," an apparent reference to finished product. Some pills are made in India and some at its Ohm Laboratories facility in New Brunswick, New Jersey, where workers discovered foreign particles in late September during routine quality checks of the active ingredient before use, according to the story.

refund pic thx to ben husmann on flickr

14 Comments

Dec 6, 2012 - 1:18pm
Ranbaxy is just a crappy company plain and simple. I would like to think that they dont represent all Indian drugmakers, but they probably do as the largest one.

I hope Ranbaxy get sued, loses their shirt and gets shut down. US Pharmacies would be a better place without them.

Dec 6, 2012 - 1:57pm
Hi Ed, In this case, information identifying the recalled lots was eventually made public.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in the case of a pharmacy level recall, the pharmacy is notified, but along with patients, prescriber- physicians, NP's ect who may have prescribed the recalled drug are also not notified.

So, if a patient had a bad reaction and there was no public information, then the health care professional might not attribute to the drug and might misdiagnose.

Hi Anne,

Yes, you are correct. There was a link on the Ranbaxy US site as of November 23 that listed the individual lot numbers.

And as far as I know, a pharmacy level recall would leave a physician in the dark. I provided a link in this story to the FDA policy manual that explains in more detail what happens, but you raise an important public health issue.

Thanks for writing in, ed

Dec 6, 2012 - 4:02pm
From a product liability standpoint the only legitimate "class" of litigants would be those who actually took the product and were injured by it. Fenwick has no leg to stand on. If he had taken the product I'd pay for the jejunocolonoscopy to pull the glass out through his butt crack but not a penny more. Oh, and the standard industry proferring, I'd also pay for his travel and parking costs and a Wendyburger and large Frosty to drive home with.
Dec 6, 2012 - 6:42pm
Ed: Could you comment on OIIs 5:13 pm comment, last line? I'd like you to add it to your already overflowing list of complaints...

Thanks.

Dec 6, 2012 - 8:28pm
oii: I am not an attorney, but if the medical procedure is paid by an insurer, then wouldn't the patients' insurer have the right to recollect the paid claim via subrogation?
Dec 7, 2012 - 12:37am
Ed, I appreciate you deleting the "nonsense" (for lack of a better word), but I also hope you address it with oii as well. Based on his long-term pattern, I honestly have my doubts it will do much if anything.

As you know, urs is too small of a group for bullying and bigotry, but unfortunately oii's teenage-like behavior has carried on for quite some time, and as you well know, its not just me who feels this way.

We all deserve the right to read your stories without having to worry about what hateful vitriol or purposely deceitful and nonsense postings we might read.

thank you.

Dec 7, 2012 - 6:39am
Thanks, Ed.

I have another question. Reports indicate that, with the exception of Medco (now part of ERX) most pharmacies are replacing recalled Ranbaxy generic Lipitor.

Generic Lipitor is a very popular drug. Given this, wouldn't it be an in stock item that large pharmacies- like CVS for example- order directly?

If so, then aren't these pharmacies authorized distributors of record?

The reason that I ask is that while the FDA does not have recall authority, as i understand it, pharmaceutical manufacturers AND distributors do have voluntary recall authority.

So, if large pharmacies who order large volumes directly from a pharmaceutical company are authorized distributors of record, then would they have voluntary recall authority?

Also, if most pharmacies are replacing recalled Ranbaxy Lipitor, but a few - a minority- are not, then are the majority of pharmacies who are replacing recalled Ranbaxy Lipitor setting the standard of care?

If so, then besides potentially losing Medicare Part D/other customers, is there an increased liability for the minority of pharmacies who will not replace the recalled Lipitor because they are not following the standard of care?

What about if the doctor writes a new prescription and indicates that Ranbaxy generic Lipitor is contraindicated?

Dec 7, 2012 - 6:40am
Meant to say with the reported exception of Medco and ERX (Medco is now part of ERX).
Dec 7, 2012 - 10:25am
Anne, if it were my company, and our company's only liability were to pay for the colonoscopies for those who ingested the product we would be more than happy to cover the cost of the procedure rather that deal with insurance companies, litigation, subrogation, etc. just to get it off out plate.
Dec 8, 2012 - 12:12am
Anne raises the interesting question of whether docs ever can contraindicate a particular generic.
Dec 8, 2012 - 10:23am
Oii: Different companies probably have different viewpoints with respect to potential litigation risk, different types of litigation risk, and also, brand value and customer retention rates.

JiM: A doc can contraindicate but that does not mean that the pharmacy is required to fill. So, what I think you mean is whether or not the pharmacy will stay on or fill a scrip if a particular generic is contraindicated.

Dec 9, 2012 - 4:34pm
I think Ranbaxy is not representative of all Indian generic companies -- but it should be punished by taking away its diovan generic exclusivity. Why the FDA does not do that and why Mylan has to file a law suit to get that makes no sense.
Mar 21, 2013 - 10:15am
I happn To know of one case where A person has severe and life threating injurys From this drug;