FDA Closes Recall of Accord Healthcare Levothyroxine Tablets
The FDA has closed the Class II recall of certain levothyroxine sodium tablets due to subpotency, according to an agency enforcement report.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 10:42 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 10:42 p.m. ETFirst report
Accord Healthcare Recalls Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets Due to Subpotency
Accord Healthcare, Inc. of Raleigh, NC, initiated a recall of Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets, USP, 50 mcg (0.05 mg), 1000-count bottles, according to an FDA enforcement report dated September 2, 2026. The recall, identified as D-0776-2026, was initiated on August 6, 2026, and is ongoing. The reason given is "Subpotent Drug." The product is distributed nationwide within the United States.
The affected lots are D2401834 and D2401982 with expiration date 08/31/2026, and D2402584, D2402585, D2402586, D2402588, D2402587, D2402589 with expiration date 11/30/2026. The product is manufactured for Accord Healthcare by Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited in India, with NDC 16729-448-17.
The FDA has classified this as a Class II recall, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote, according to the FDA's recall definitions. The FDA enforcement report lists no other enforcement actions for this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 02:42current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 02:54current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.