News|Articles|June 8, 2026

Pharmaceutical Technology

  • PharmTech May June 2026
  • Volume 50
  • Issue 3
  • Pages: 34

Investigating Patient Complaints About Combination Products

Listen
0:00 / 0:00

Key Takeaways

  • Ultimate product performance accountability remains with the drug manufacturer, necessitating thorough supplier assessment and component qualification rather than reliance on prior market use.
  • Patient self-administration failures must be evaluated for use error, training adequacy, labeling clarity, and whether device design reasonably prevents predictable misuse.
SHOW MORE

Susan J. Schniepp, distinguished fellow at Nelson Labs, and Siegfried Schmitt, PhD, vice president, Technical at Parexel, discuss how companies can investigate patient complaints involving prefilled syringes and combination products.

Q. My company got a complaint from a patient that their prefilled syringe failed to inject. We make the drug product and purchase the syringe. How do we investigate a problem with the commercial syringe component that we used?

A. The drug manufacturer is responsible in the end for whatever the product does, even if it’s made up of components where the manufacturer doesn’t really have a lot of control over.

The question is, how well have you assessed the quality of the product? Have you assessed the supplier of this syringe? Because it’s all too easy to say, “Oh, something is off the shelf.”

But just because a product has been used by many doesn’t mean it’s suitable for everyone.

If the complaint is coming from the patient and the patient is self-administering the product, did they get instructions from the physician before they got the medication? Is this human error on the part of the patient?

Even if the patient did something wrong. The manufacturer needs to take this into account and should create either patient instruction or a device that is suitable for everyone. Because you can’t just say, “Well, we only sell to those who are capable and who do it right all the time.” That would be wrong.

The device, when you look at the regulations, needs to be fit for purpose, and fit for purpose means if you have a patient population that is from young to old, from very able to handicapped, then you need to provide for all of those.

And one way to do this, to prepare for this at least, is to perform usability tests If these usability tests weren’t done with a wide enough population of potential patients, perhaps you need to go back to these tests and see if they were good enough. Did they really understand, or were these already people who were used to do such testing?

We need to be very careful with testing because we can only test a certain limited number of people. And what we have here is real-world evidence if you want, and that points to where we have a gap here.

Complaint numbers can go up and down. It’s very unpredictable. The key thing is you don’t just need to have a procedure to address complaints, but you should revisit your procedure in intervals to look at not just what the regulators are saying, but also how the business environment has changed.

Look at your communication and supply chain and check your quality agreement for its robustness and to see who is responsible for these types of complaints. Because, if you don’t spell out who is responsible in your supply agreement, there may be finger pointing. This is a shortcoming with a lot of quality agreements; they may not be granular enough.


Related to this article

Complying with International Pharmacopoeias
Susan J. Schniepp, distinguished fellow with Nelson Labs, and Siegfried Schmitt, PhD, vice president, Technical, with Parexel, clear up some of the confusion about what does and does not need to be complied with regarding standards set by international pharmacopoeias.
Glass vial, pipette and woman scientist in laboratory for medical study, research or experiment. Test tube, dropper and professional female person with chemical liquid for pharmaceutical innovation. | Image Credit: ©HockleyMedia24/peopleimages.com -stock.adobe.com
Equivalence test using two one-sided tests are widely used for demonstrating the comparability of treatment effects in different research fields. The method described in the manuscript aims to use simulations in Microsoft Excel to compute power for 2 one-sided tests for two groups with unequal variances.
CPHI Milan 2026: Nitrosamine Risk Mitigation, Part 2
Mitigating nitrosamine risk requires assessing each product individually, says Bram Baert, Global Head of Regulatory Affairs at Capsugel, and Sandrine Picco, Senior Analytical Specialist on Capsugel's Innovaform Accelerator Team, in this interview with PharmTech.
PharmTech Weekly Roundup—October 2, 2026
This week on PharmTech, Merck diversified its pipeline, USP emphasizes supply chain security, AI systems are examined, and speakers preview their presentations at CPHI Milan and AAPS PharmSci 360.