Mcguff Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

United States See location details

This drug manufacturing facility is registered with the FDA by Mcguff Pharmaceuticals, Inc..

Facility Inspection History

The FDA is responsible for inspecting drug manufacturing facilities for violations of good manufacturing practices, such as a lack of documented drug quality testing or contaminated equipment. Below is a timeline of FDA inspections and outcomes for this facility assembled by ProPublica.

Note: ProPublica does not provide medical advice. Stopping your medication, doctors warn, can be dangerous. Please consult your doctor first if you have concerns. Read more
11 Known Inspections

The inspections we were able to locate using available FDA data do not include inspections in advance of the release of a new drug product.

6 Inspections Found Issues

When issues are observed, inspectors usually file an FDA 483 form with citations. In more serious cases, the FDA can issue warning letters or even ban the import of drugs from the facility.

  • Apr 28, 2025
    Apr 28, 2025
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA ruled the facility was in an “unacceptable state of compliance.”

    Inspectors found serious issues at the facility, and the agency ultimately recommended official compliance action. In cases like this, the FDA typically pauses the facility’s pending drug approvals. There may be additional communications, including about issues being resolved, that are not reflected in our database because they have not been made public.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
    4 citations
    Procedures not in writing, fully followed
    The responsibilities and procedures applicable to the quality control unit are not in writing.
    Written procedures not established/followed
    Written procedures are not established and followed for the cleaning and maintenance of equipment, including utensils, used in the manufacture, processing, packing or holding of a drug product.
    Procedures for sterile drug products
    Procedures designed to prevent microbiological contamination of drug products purporting to be sterile are not written.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
  • Aug 20, 2024
    Aug 20, 2024
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • Jan 26, 2024
    Jan 26, 2024

    An inspector documented issues at the facility.

    We were unable to connect this 483 form to an FDA inspection designation, but we do know that an inspector filed this form observing problem(s).
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
  • Nov 22, 2019
    Nov 22, 2019
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    7 citations
    Disinfecting materials, aseptic processing area
    Equipment was and Materials or supplies were not disinfected prior to entering the aseptic processing areas.
    First pass air blockage, open unit with sterile product
    Personnel conducted aseptic manipulations in an area that blocked the movement of first pass air around an open unit, either before or after it was filled with sterile product.
    Flow of personnel and materials, facility
    Your facility was designed and/or operated in a way that permits poor flow of personnel and materials.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Mar 26, 2019
    Mar 26, 2019
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
    7 citations
    Training--operations, GMPs, written procedures
    Employees are not given training in the particular operations they perform as part of their function.
    Defined areas of adequate size for operations
    The separate or defined areas and control systems necessary to prevent contamination or mix-ups are deficient.
    Calibration/Inspection/Checking not done
    Routine calibration of mechanical equipment is not performed according to a written program designed to assure proper performance.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
  • Jun 2, 2017
    Jun 2, 2017
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • Dec 31, 2014
    Dec 31, 2014
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA ruled the facility was in an “unacceptable state of compliance.”

    Inspectors found serious issues at the facility, and the agency ultimately recommended official compliance action. In cases like this, the FDA typically pauses the facility’s pending drug approvals. There may be additional communications, including about issues being resolved, that are not reflected in our database because they have not been made public.
    2 citations
    Lack of written stability program
    There is no written testing program designed to assess the stability characteristics of drug products.
    Sterility/pyrogen-free testing
    Each batch of drug product purporting to be sterile and pyrogen-free is not laboratory tested to determine conformance to such requirements.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Mar 27, 2014
    Mar 27, 2014
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • May 31, 2013
    May 31, 2013
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • Aug 16, 2012
    Aug 16, 2012
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • Aug 24, 2011
    Aug 24, 2011
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Jun 2, 2010
    Jun 2, 2010
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.

Frequently Asked Questions