LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 1999 | Volume
: 47 | Issue : 1 | Page : 53-
Contaminated irrigasol solution
Mohan Raj Nair
Dept. of Ophthalmology, Sree Uthradom Thirunal Hospital, P.B.No.1052, Pattom, Trivandrum - 695 004, India
Mohan Raj Nair
Dept. of Ophthalmology, Sree Uthradom Thirunal Hospital, P.B.No.1052, Pattom, Trivandrum - 695 004
|How to cite this article:|
Nair MR. Contaminated irrigasol solution.Indian J Ophthalmol 1999;47:53-53
|How to cite this URL:|
Nair MR. Contaminated irrigasol solution. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1999 [cited 2023 Feb 3 ];47:53-53
Available from: https://www.ijo.in/text.asp?1999/47/1/53/22811
I would like to thank Dr. Ravi Thomas for bringing to our notice the contaminated lot of Irrigasol from Core Parentals of Ahmedabad (Ind J Ophthalmol 1998;46:173).
It is to be appreciated that he has come forward to expose the lack of quality control and callous behaviour of a major pharmaceutical company. It was an eye opener that the claim that the technology used, FFS (form, fill, seal) is "nontouch" so assures purity, appears to be unfounded. Particularly shocking was the irresponsible behaviour of the company authorities; probably they know they can get away with it. With consumer litigations on the rise, I think we need to be more vigilant and share information on similar substandard products.
This boldness is in stark contrast to an article in an earlier issue of the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, titled, 'Effects of Viscoelastic Ophthalmic Solutions on Cell Cultures' (March 1998, page 37-40). To quote the abstract "The development of mild but significant inflammation probably attributable to viscoelastic ophthalmic solutions in cataract surgery was recently brought to the notice of the authors, and hence a study of the effects of these solutions available in India, on cell cultures was undertaken". "The presence of particulate materials in products D and F indicates that the method used to purify the solution are not effective". Clearly the title and abstract indicate that the study tried to examine the quality of Indian viscoelastic and not efficacy of the cell culture method employed. Unfortunately the authors had shied away from breaking the code to let us know which were the poor quality viscoelastics that are to be avoided. It would have sent a clear message to the manufacturers to pull up their socks on quality or else they will be censured.
We need the industry just as they need us; often it becomes difficult to censure them and with a lax drug authority, pursuing a legal route will be time consuming and futile. Having brought to our notice the evidence of contamination and irresponsible behaviour of the company, we should boycott all their products. In this context we have to look to our AIOS President to take the lead.
Further I request the Editor to introduce a 'Products News & Views' section in the Journal. This would give an opportunity to members who have had similar bad experiences or been treated shabbily, to air their views on ophthalmic drugs and equipment. In fairness to the manufacturers they may be given an opportunity to reply through this column or use it to recall/inform ophthalmic practitioners of a faulty product. It could also be a forum to introduce new products.
I would like to commend Dr. Ravi Thomas for coming forward and wonder how many of us would have done the same.