We reviewed the case report by Shrestha et al. describing ranitidine-induced anaphylactic shock. Although the clinical management of the case is clearly presented, the report appears to have limited novelty and originality, as similar cases have already been extensively documented in the literature, spanning a wide clinical spectrum from mild hypersensitivity to fatal outcomes. Moreover, while ranitidine has been withdrawn in many high-income countries, it remains in use across numerous low- and middle-income countries, including Nepal. We therefore argue that for such a report to make a meaningful scientific contribution, its discussion should more explicitly address regional pharmacovigilance gaps, disparities in drug regulation, and the responsibility of national regulatory authorities regarding the continued availability of this agent.