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, as of August 19, 2026.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 5:50 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 25, 2026, 5:54 p.m. ET

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has closed the recall of certain semaglutide vials distributed nationwide by , of , Missouri. The agency considers the recall carried out, according to the FDA enforcement report for recall number , dated August 19, 2026. The recall, initiated July 29, 2026, covers 250 vials of Semaglutide 7.5mg (5mg/mL), Glycine 7.5 mg (5mg/mL), 1.5 mL Sterile Multi-Dose Vial, Rx Only, For Subcutaneous Injection Only, NDC 71170-721-01, with lot AC-017273 and expiration 12/12/2026. The reason given was the presence of particulate matter, identified as a nylon/polyamide and silk/proteinaceous-type material. The FDA classified the recall as , meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and the chance of serious harm is remote. The FDA database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Earlier reports

Aug 25, 2026, 5:50 p.m. ETFirst report
Apollo Care Recalls Semaglutide Vials Over Particulate Matter
Apollo Care, LLC of Columbia, Missouri, is recalling 250 vials of semaglutide 7.5 mg (5 mg/mL) with glycine 7.5 mg (5 mg/mL), a sterile multi-dose vial for subcutaneous injection, according to an FDA enforcement report dated August 19, 2026. The recall, initiated July 29, 2026, is identified as recall number D-0755-2026 and is ongoing.
The reason for the recall is the presence of particulate matter, identified as a nylon/polyamide and silk/proteinaceous-type material. The affected product is labeled with lot AC-017273 and expiration date 12/12/2026, and is distributed nationwide within the U.S.
The FDA has classified this as a Class II recall, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and the chance of serious harm is remote. The FDA database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 125 Aug 2026, 21:50current
First published.
Version 125 Aug 2026, 21:54current
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.