Reference e-complaint: (b)(4).Investigation, x-initiated manufacturer's investigation, x-no sample returned, review dhr, inspect returned samples, inspect stock product.Analysis and findings: dhr review could not be performed as the subject lot was not provided.A two year review of manufacturing records did not show any related manufacturing issues during the last 2 years.There have not been any related product design or product specification changes in the last two years.Historical review of complaint files did not show any related complaints.A follow up to the secondary reporter, church and dwight, did not yield any additional information.The complainant however indicated she previously did not have any discharge and had used about 7 trimo-san¿ vaginal jelly tubes in a span of 4 weeks prior to the alleged event.The patient was advised by her doctor to reduce the application of the trimo-san¿ vaginal jelly to twice a week to help manage her uterine prolapse.Assignable cause could not be determined based on the information provided.There was no patient injury reported.There has not been any additional information received since.Based on overall complaint history, product knowledge, and the reported complaint condition, it is unlikely the reported complaint condition would result in any adverse event.The discharge may have been due to over application of the trimo-san¿ vaginal jelly.No further actions are needed at this time.Coopersurgical will continue to monitor complaints of this nature for any adverse trends.Correction and/or corrective action: no further actions are needed at this time.Corrective action level: 4, x-none.Was the complaint confirmed? no.Review and closure.Preventative action activity reviewed.Trend and monitor to cip.
|