Skip to content
ProPublica Donate
ProPublica Donate
New Search

Opella Healthcare International Sas

France See location details

This drug manufacturing facility is registered with the FDA by Opella Healthcare International Sas.

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
6 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.

5 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.

  • Jan 10, 2025
    Jan 10, 2025
    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.
  • Oct 31, 2019
    Oct 31, 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.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Jun 23, 2017
    Jun 23, 2017
    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.
    4 citations
    Training , Education , Experience overall
    Employees engaged in the manufacture of a drug product lack the training required to perform their assigned functions.
    Equipment Design, Size and Location
    Equipment used in the manufacture, processing, packing or holding of drug products is not of appropriate design, of adequate size, and suitably located to facilitate operations for its intended use.
    Procedures for non-sterile drug products
    Procedures designed to prevent objectionable microorganisms in drug products not required to be sterile are not established.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Sep 18, 2015
    Sep 18, 2015
    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.
    5 citations
    Following/documenting laboratory controls
    Established laboratory control mechanisms are not followed and documented at the time of performance.
    Scientifically sound laboratory controls
    Laboratory controls do not include the establishment of scientifically sound and appropriate test procedures designed to assure that in-process materials conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality and purity.
    Annual visual exams of drug products
    Reserve samples from representative sample lots or batches of drug products selected by acceptable statistical procedures are not examined visually at least once a year for evidence of deterioration.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.
  • Sep 19, 2013
    Sep 19, 2013
    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.
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Oct 21, 2011
    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.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Do the Inspection Outcomes Mean?
These are the possible FDA compliance outcomes we highlight:
  • Import alert. This is rare and means drugs from this facility were banned from coming into the U.S. Specifically we are including alerts relating to FDA manufacturing standards for drug products. The agency sometimes exempts certain drugs from import bans, ostensibly to prevent drug shortages.
  • Warning letter. This is a disciplinary tool the FDA uses to lay out significant violations of federal requirements. The company has an opportunity to respond and/or provide its plans to correct the issues. The agency might later issue a “close-out letter” to say it has confirmed that issues raised in a previous warning letter were fixed. But that doesn’t always happen.
  • Unacceptable state of compliance. This means 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. The agency classifies this as “official action indicated.”
  • Some issues found, but no further FDA action. This is very common. It means 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. The agency classifies this as “voluntary action indicated.”
  • Inspector documented issues. Inspectors can file notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection using a 483 form. In some cases, we’re unable to connect a Form 483 to an FDA inspection designation, but we show that an inspector filed this form, perhaps as part of an inspection that was not included in the public inspection dashboard.
  • Acceptable state. This is common and the best possible outcome for an inspection. This means the FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors. That doesn’t always mean no issues turned up. Sometimes, inspectors address concerns with management on site that they believe do not need to be documented on a 483. The agency classifies this as “no action indicated.”
There may be additional communications, including about issues being resolved, that are not reflected in our database because they have not been made public.

How Did ProPublica Connect This Information?
We have written an in-depth methodology, but in short, we connected several FDA databases:
  • The Structured Product Labeling database.
  • The National Drug Code Directory.
  • The Electronic Drug Registration and Listing System.
  • Data from the agency’s inspection dashboard.
  • A spreadsheet of facility addresses we sued the FDA for, which connected them to drug application numbers.
  • Form 483 documents we received from a Freedom of Information Act Request.
ProPublica described the app and the methodology used to build it to the FDA, which did not comment. The agency previously told ProPublica that it doesn’t reveal where drugs are made on inspection reports to protect what it deemed confidential commercial information.

How Do I Report Incorrect Information?
If you work for a manufacturer or otherwise see that information we are displaying may be incorrect, please email [email protected].