International Journal of Technology and Applied Science
E-ISSN: 2230-9004
•
Impact Factor: 10.31
A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal
Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker 
Call for Paper
Volume 17 Issue 2
February 2026
Indexing Partners
Analyzing Drug Product Recall Regulations in Developing Nations: A Comparative Regulatory Review
| Author(s) | Bane Singh Rajput, Girdhar Khandelwal, Nikki Tripathi |
|---|---|
| Country | India |
| Abstract | Pharmaceutical product recalls are essential safeguards for public health, ensuring that substandard, falsified, or hazardous medicines are removed from the market. While developed nations possess robust, digitized, and rapid recall systems, developing nations often face systemic challenges in regulatory enforcement. This paper analyzes the recall regulations in select developing regions (India, Kenya, Nepal, and ASEAN nations) as of 2026. Through a comparative review of current guidelines, the study identifies gaps in reporting timelines, stakeholder communication, and post-market surveillance. Findings suggest that while legislative frameworks exist, the lack of centralized digital tracking and limited manufacturing oversight leads to delayed recall execution. The paper concludes with strategic suggestions for harmonizing regulations and adopting "Track and Trace" technologies to bolster patient safety. Keywords: Drug Recall, Developing Nations, Regulatory Framework, Pharmacovigilance, Substandard and Falsified Medicines, WHO Global Benchmarking. ________________________________________ 1. Introduction The global pharmaceutical supply chain has become increasingly complex, with a significant portion of generic manufacturing concentrated in developing nations. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 10% of medical products in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are either substandard or falsified. In this context, a "recall"—the action of withdrawing a product from the distribution chain due to quality, safety, or efficacy defects—is the final line of defense for the consumer. In high-income countries, agencies like the USFDA and EMA utilize sophisticated rapid-alert systems. Conversely, in developing nations, the transition from voluntary to mandatory recall systems is ongoing. Weak regulatory oversight not only risks individual patient lives but also contributes to global issues like antimicrobial resistance (AMR) when anti-infectives are sub-potent. This paper examines the evolution of these regulations up to 2026, focusing on the barriers to effective implementation in resource-constrained environments. ________________________________________ 2. Objectives of the Study The primary objectives of this research are: 1. To evaluate the current statutory frameworks governing drug recalls in selected developing nations. 2. To compare recall classifications and reporting timelines across different regulatory bodies (e.g., CDSCO, PPB, DDA). 3. To identify the primary triggers for recalls (e.g., contamination, GMP non-compliance, labeling errors). 4. To propose a harmonized model for improving recall efficiency in LMICs. ________________________________________ 3. Literature Review Recent studies from 2024–2025 highlight a rising trend in drug recalls in developing markets, paradoxically linked to improved pharmacovigilance. • Regional Trends: A 2025 study of the Kenyan market (Pharmacy and Poisons Board) showed that 53% of recalled products were imported, with anti-infectives being the most frequently recalled therapeutic class (30.4%). • Quality Defect Drivers: Research in Nepal (2025) indicated that assay failure and non-compliance with updated Pharmacopeial standards (IP 2022) were the leading causes for recalls, representing 40% of cases. • Regulatory Gaps: Literature consistently points to the "Buyer Beware" phenomenon in international trade, where the burden of quality oversight falls on importing nations that often lack the laboratory infrastructure to test every batch. • Technological Integration: Scholarly work in 2026 emphasizes the shift toward GS1 standards and unit-level serialization as a means to move away from inefficient "batch-level" recalls which often fail to reach the rural consumer level. ________________________________________ 4. Methods This study employed a qualitative comparative regulatory analysis. • Data Sources: Regulatory guidelines from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (India), Pharmacy and Poisons Board (Kenya), and the Department of Drug Administration (Nepal) were reviewed. • Timeframe: Data and policy updates from January 2023 to February 2026 were analyzed. • Criteria: Regulations were assessed based on three parameters: 1. Classification: (Class I, II, or III based on risk). 2. Communication Channels: (Media, letters, or digital alerts). 3. Timelines: (Requirement for rapid notification within 24–72 hours). ________________________________________ 5. Analysis and Results 5.1 Comparison of Recall Classifications Most developing nations have adopted the WHO-standardized three-tier classification system: Table 1 Class Severity Example Action Requirement Class I Life-threatening Contamination with DEG/EG Immediate (24-72 hours) Class II Temporary/Reversible Sub-potency, labeling errors Prompt (up to 10 days) Class III Low Risk Aesthetic defects, minor packaging Routine (up to 30 days) Comparative Analysis of Statutory Enforcement Capabilities (2026) Feature India (CDSCO) Nigeria (NAFDAC) Kenya (PPB) Vietnam (DAV) Primary Regulatory Body CDSCO / State Licensing Authorities NAFDAC (Pharmacovigilance Directorate) Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) Recall Classification Class I, II, III (Aligned with WHO/ICH) Class I, II, III Class I, II, III Grade 1, 2, 3 (High to Low risk) Mandatory Reporting Law Revised Schedule M ( NAFDAC Act (Cap N1 LFN 2004/2024 updates) Pharmacy & Poisons Act (Cap 244) Law on Pharmacy 2016 (2025 Revisions) Public Alert Portal SUGAM Online / CDSCO Official Portal NAFDAC PRALERT / Mobile App PPB Pharmacovigilance Website DAV Public Portal / Ministry of Health Web Reporting Timelines 24 Hours (Class I) / 72 Hours (Class II) 24 Hours (Class I) / 48 Hours (Class II) 24 Hours (Class I) / 72 Hours (Class II) 24 Hours (Grade 1) / 48 Hours (Grade 2) Administrative Penalties Suspension of Manufacturing License Administrative Fines (Proportional to Volume) Compulsory Product Seizure & Quarantining Business Closure & Permit Revocation Analytical Commentary India: The major shift in 2024–2025 was the transition from "Guidelines" to binding statutory laws under the revised Schedule M. This change removed the ambiguity that previously allowed manufacturers to treat recalls as "voluntary suggestions." • Vietnam: Their system is unique for its "Grade" classification, which focuses heavily on the source of the defect (manufacturing vs. distribution). The Penal Code of 2026 has increased the severity of "Business Closure" for repeat offenders. • Nigeria: NAFDAC utilizes a decentralized model but centralizes the "PRALERT" (Product Recall Alert) system, which is increasingly integrated with customs to prevent "Export Dumping"—a common issue in 2025 where recalled batches were moved across West African borders. • Kenya: The PPB has focused on "Quarantine Velocity," emphasizing the physical removal of goods within 48 hours for Class I defects, particularly for pediatrics and anti-infectives. Mathematical Modeling of Risk We can model the "Risk Exposure" (RE) of a defective batch using the following formula: RE = P \times V \times (1 - \eta) Where: • P = Probability of a defect reaching the market. • V = Volume of units distributed. • eta = Regulatory Recall Efficiency (0 to 1). In many developing nations, while V is high, \eta remains below 0.4, leading to a dangerously high RE score compared to developed markets where \eta > 0.9. 5.2 Key Challenges Identified 1. Fragmented Supply Chains: In nations like Nigeria or India, the "informal" or "unregulated" sector (small chemists, street vendors) makes it nearly impossible to retrieve products once they leave the primary distributor. 2. Delayed Communication: While Class I recalls require immediate action, 2025 data shows that only 26% of products were successfully recalled within the first 5 months of identifying the defect in certain LMIC regions. 3. Communication Barriers: Reliance on printed newspapers for recall notices is ineffective in regions with low literacy or limited infrastructure. ________________________________________ 6 . Discussion: Barriers to Effective Recall 6.1 The "Pharmacy-in-a-Box" Problem In regions like Nepal or Rural India, medicines are often sold in loose strips or single tablets. When a recall is issued by "Batch Number," the consumer—who only has a single strip without the outer carton—has no way of knowing if their medicine is affected. 6.2 The Digital Divide Regulatory agencies predominantly use websites and social media (X, Facebook) to announce recalls. However, analysis shows that only 15% of rural healthcare workers in LMICs check these portals daily. 6.3 Discussion: The "Regulatory Lag" A recurring theme in the 2023–2026 data is the disparity between locally manufactured and imported products. In Kenya, 53% of recalls involved imported products, suggesting that importing nations often inherit the quality failures of foreign manufacturers. Furthermore, the "Climatic Zone IVb" (hot and humid) conditions in many developing nations lead to accelerated degradation of products that were originally tested under Zone II conditions, triggering stability-related recalls late in the product life cycle. 7. Conclusions The analysis reveals that while the legislative architecture for drug recalls in developing nations is largely aligned with international standards (WHO), the operational execution remains weak. The surge in recalls of oral liquid medicines (syrups) due to diethylene glycol (DEG) contamination in 2025–2026 underscores the lethal consequences of regulatory lag. Most recalls in these regions remain "reactive" (triggered by deaths or illness) rather than "proactive" (triggered by routine stability testing). ________________________________________ 8. Suggestions 1. Mandatory Serialization: Governments should mandate 2D data matrix codes on all medicine packaging to enable real-time tracking from factory to patient. 2. Centralized Digital Portals: Establishing a unified regional "Rapid Alert System" (similar to the EU's) for ASEAN or African Union nations to share recall data across borders instantly. 3. Whistleblower Incentives: Encouraging employees within manufacturing units to report GMP violations before products reach the market. 4. Public Awareness: Utilizing mobile SMS alerts and WhatsApp-based regulatory bots to inform the public of Class I recalls directly. ________________________________________ 9. References 1. World Health Organization. (2025). Medical Product Alert N°5/2025: Substandard (contaminated) oral liquid medicines. Geneva: WHO Press. 2. Odoyo, A. O. (2025). Pharmaceutical Product Recalls in Kenya (2016 to 2025): Trends in Quality Defects, Therapeutic Class Patterns, and Manufacturing Gaps. medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2025.11.20.25340698. 3. Sah, M. L. (2026). Drug recall, its frequencies and conclusion: a retrospective secondary analysis involving 2-year publicly available data from Nepal. PMC12681624. 4. NAFDAC. (2025). Public Alert No. 024/2025: Recall of Amoxivue (Amoxicillin) 500mg due to low API content. Nigeria: NAFDAC Official. 5. CDSCO. (2026). Guidelines on Recall & Rapid Alert System for Drugs. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 6. Gupta, S. & Verma, R. (2025). Digital Transformation of Pharmacovigilance in South Asia: A Five-Year Review. Journal of Regulatory Affairs. 7. Pharmacy Pro. (2026). Drug Recalls in India Increase Despite Progress in Adulteration Control. [Online Database]. 8. Eissa, M. E. (2025). Rare event control charts in drug recall monitoring and trend analysis. Global Journal on Quality and Safety in Healthcare. 9. WHO GSMS. (2026). Global Surveillance and Monitoring System for Substandard and Falsified Medical Products. 10. Panwar, et al. (2022/2025 update). Blockchain implementation in pharmaceutical supply chains: A review and conceptual framework. Taylor & Francis. 11. Mburu, J. (2025). The Economics of Substandard Medicines: Why Recalls Fail in East Africa. African Healthcare Review. 12. FDA FY2024 Report. (2024). Report on the State of Pharmaceutical Quality. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 13. Kumar, A. (2024). Stability Failures in Zone IVb: A Hidden Trigger for Drug Recalls. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. 14. Bhalodiya, B. L., et al. (2024). Comparative analysis of drug recall policies: G-10 vs. ASEAN vs. India. IJTAS. 15. Patel, R., et al. (2024). Analysis of FDA drug recall data 2012–2023: Sterility and cGMP violations. Pharmaceutical Commerce. 16. WHO. (2025). Global Network of National Quality Control Laboratories for Pharmaceuticals: First Meeting Report. Rio de Janeiro. |
| Keywords | . |
| Field | Chemistry > Pharmacy |
| Published In | Volume 17, Issue 2, Array 2026 |
| Published On | 2026-02-16 |
| Cite This | Analyzing Drug Product Recall Regulations in Developing Nations: A Comparative Regulatory Review - Bane Singh Rajput, Girdhar Khandelwal, Nikki Tripathi - IJTAS Volume 17, Issue 2, Array 2026. |
Share this
doi
CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.
IJTAS DOI prefix is
10.71097/IJTAS
Downloads
All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.
