FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Novartis Recalls Lot of Diovan 160 mg Tablets Over Dissolution Issue

A lot of Diovan tablets was recalled after failing dissolution specifications, according to medicaldaily.com.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 18, 2026, 12:00 p.m. ETWritten Aug 18, 2026, 11:24 p.m. ET
initiated a recall of a lot of Diovan on August 4, 2026, in a developing situation reported by medicaldaily.com. The FDA listed the recall in a report dated August 8, 2026. The recall applies to under lot code AV5913C with an expiration date of June 2027. Medicaldaily.com reported that the action was taken because the product . The medication may not be released into the body as intended, which affects how well it works rather than whether it is harmful to swallow. A tablet that dissolves too slowly may deliver less drug than intended, meaning the dose may be working at less than full strength. No adverse events have been publicly linked to the lot, according to medicaldaily.com. Patients on recalled lots can generally exchange the product at the dispensing pharmacy. No patient should stop taking Diovan on their own; patients should keep taking the medication, call the pharmacy or prescriber, and arrange a replacement.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 03:24current

    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.