OTTAWA ? Health Canada is warning consumers not to use Lot 51436 of the product Genteal Artificial Tears 25 ml due to possible contamination with bacteria. A recall of the affected lot has been initiated by the distributor, Novartis.

Use of eye drops contaminated with bacteria may cause serious eye infection. People who are immune suppressed, such as those with HIV/AIDS, or who are undergoing chemotherapy or taking drugs which cause immune suppression may be at a higher risk for infection.

The product, with an expiry date of 2008-08, is fabricated by CIBA Vision Canada Inc., Sterile Manufacturing.

Lot numbers can usually be found on the top of the box or front panel of the bottle. The Drug Identification Number (DIN) for this product is 02231289. The DIN can be found on the front panel of the product label and outer packaging.

This product is used to relieve eye irritation or dryness and is sold without a prescription as an over-the-counter drug. It is widely available and is distributed across Canada. According to the company, the product was tested prior to release for sale and met all specifications, including sterility. However, the company advised Health Canada that it is recalling the product as a precautionary measure based on a recent review of the production facility controls.

Health Canada is advising consumers who use Genteal Artificial Tears to check the lot number on the bottle. If it is Lot 51436, with an expiry date of 2008-08, they should immediately stop using the product and return it where it was purchased. People using the affected lot who experience symptoms of eye infection such as redness, swelling, discharge, pain, itchiness, increased sensitivity to light and change in vision should seek medical attention.

Health Canada will update this advisory as soon as additional information is available. Health Canada advisories are posted at the following web address: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/2005/index_e.html

Read more…

From Dr. Kristin Heeney - heeney.ca

Comments(0)

Wal-Mart recently announced in a letter that they are “excited to announce a long term alliance between Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club and 1-800 CONTACTS..” May Heaven help us, because 1-800 sure isn’t going to. I promptly wrote the following E-mail to Dr. Patel, Wal-Mart’s Director of Professional Relations: Dr. Patel, I would advise against any kind of alliance with […]

Wal-Mart recently announced in a letter that they are “excited to announce a long term alliance between Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club and 1-800 CONTACTS..”

May Heaven help us, because 1-800 sure isn’t going to. I promptly wrote the following E-mail to Dr. Patel, Wal-Mart’s Director of Professional Relations:

Dr. Patel,
I would advise against any kind of alliance with 1-800 CONTACTS. You’re not the first one to try. Standard Optical, a Utah-based optical chain, aligned with this Utah-based contact lens reseller for a while, and it didn’t last long. You should talk with those in the know about why it didn’t work out.

1-800 is also militant about teaching the general public to force the doctor to make decisions not in their best interest. Everyone inside our industry acknowledges that yearly eye exams are important, but 1800’s own website indoctrinates consumers to mandate to their doctor that prescriptions should expire at the two year mark OR LATER. (see: http://www.1800contacts.com/docAndRx/DocRx-release-1.shtml ). As a Utah eye doctor, I already suffer with practicing in the only state in the nation with a minimum 2-year contact lens expiration date- thanks to 1800’s lobbying power in our Utah legislature.

I had a patient last year, whom if her prescription hadn’t expired, she wouldn’t have come back in to see me for her yearly exam. If she wouldn’t have had her yearly exam, I wouldn’t have noticed an FDT screening visual field defect and reduced vision in one eye that wasn’t there the previous 2 yearly exams. If I wouldn’t have seen her, I couldn’t have referred her to the ophthalmologist who referred her for imaging which found the diagnosis of a brain tumor. A yearly eye exam saved her life, and under 1800’s reign, we are sure to miss these kinds of cases in the future.

If your only goal is to cut costs related to online sales at walmart.com, why not use 1800 as a nameless, behind the scenes
subcontractor? Giving them the limelight is the wrong move for Wal-Mart. An alliance with 1800 disgraces our reputation.

Also, I’ll quote from your FAQ (http://www.walmartod.com/clients/1814/docs/FAQ_Alliance.pdf): “Consumers in that same survey specifically cited cost and “purchasing them is inconvenient” as reasons for over-wearing their lenses.” Wal-Mart boasts about how something like 50% of a town’s population visit their store in any given week. How is stopping by the vision center on their bi-weekly pilgrimage inconvenient? What they meant to say is expensive or don’t have enough money. They expect to buy a box per eye and stretch it as long as possible. The real problem is that people expect a year supply of contacts to be less expensive than glasses just because you throw them away, and most also expect them to be a replacement for, not in addition to, glasses. Change those two perceptions, and you’ll increase your contact lens sales without help from the enemy of 1800 CONTACTS.

Please see my previous blog posts about 1800:
http://www.optoblog.com/2007/10/09/check-yearly-live-another-year/
http://www.optoblog.com/2007/07/30/patients-say-the-funniest-things/
http://www.optoblog.com/2007/03/19/1-800-eat-crap-and-die/

Sincerely,
David Langford, O.D.

Share This

Listen to this blog entry Read more…

From Optoblog - www.optoblog.com

Comments(0)