FDA Closes Recall of Apollo Care Semaglutide Vials Over Particulate Matter
The FDA has closed the recall of certain semaglutide vials distributed nationwide, citing the presence of particulate matter.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ETFirst report
Apollo Care Recalls Semaglutide Vials Over Particulate Matter
On August 19, 2026, the FDA posted an enforcement report for a recall initiated by Apollo Care, LLC of Columbia, Missouri, involving 4,250 vials of semaglutide injection. The recall, numbered D-0757-2026, was initiated on July 29, 2026, and is ongoing. The product is described as SEMAGLUTIDE 20mg (5mg/mL), Glycine 20 mg (5mg/mL), 4 mL Sterile Multi-Dose Vial, Rx Only, For Subcutaneous Injection Only, with NDC 71170-724-04. The affected lots are AC-017275 (exp. 12/13/2026) and AC-017282, AC-017285 (exp. 12/27/2026).
The reason for the recall is the presence of particulate matter, identified as a nylon/polyamide and silk/proteinaceous-type material. The FDA has classified this as a Class II recall, which the agency defines as a situation where the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The recall is distributed nationwide within the U.S.
The FDA enforcement report lists no other enforcement actions by Apollo Care, LLC. The recall status is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 20:22current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 20:23current
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.