FDA Reports Illnesses Linked to Mylan Acamprosate Recall
The agency has received reports of injuries or illnesses in connection with the recall of acamprosate calcium tablets.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 10:00 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 1, 2026, 10:00 p.m. ETFirst report
Mylan Recalls Acamprosate Calcium Tablets Over Dissolution Concern
Mylan is recalling acamprosate calcium delayed-release tablets, 333 mg, in 180-count bottles with an October 2026 expiration date, according to a report from Medical Daily. The recall was announced by the FDA. No illnesses have been reported in connection with the recall, Medical Daily reported.
The concern is that a tablet which does not break down on schedule may deliver less drug into the bloodstream than intended, according to Medical Daily. The cause of the issue has not been determined.
Consumers who have the affected product are advised to call the dispensing pharmacy, provide the lot and expiration date, and ask the pharmacy to check it against the current FDA enforcement listing, as reported by Medical Daily.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 02:00current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 02:23current
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.