Syarikat Ubat disaman Kerana Ubat Sebabkan Kanser
On September 9th of 2011, an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit was filed by an Actos lawyer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Louisiana husband and wife. The husband developed bladder cancer after using Actos for a number of years. The Actos lawsuit discusses some of the history of Actos and its link to bladder cancer:On April 20, 2006, Takeda Limited announced the conclusion of its collaboration
in the United States between Takeda North America and Lilly to promote and market Actos, a partnership Takeda Limited described as “a great success” and “mutually beneficial to both companies.”The fact that Eli Lilly helped with the development, promotion, and marketing of Actos means that they can also be held liable in an Actos lawsuit.Actos is sold as a single ingredient product under the brand name Actos, and it is also sold in combination with metformin (Actoplus Met, Actoplus Met XR) and in combination with glimepiride (Duetact).
Most Actos lawyers (including me) will accept cases from individuals who were taking Actos or any of the drugs listed above. Prior to Actos being approved by the FDA, a two-year carcinogenicity study was conducted on male and female rats. Drug-induced tumors were observed in male rats receiving doses of Actos that produced blood drug levels equivalent to those resulting from a clinical dose.
This is one of several pieces of evidence that indicates men are at a higher risk of developing bladder cancer while taking Actos than women are.
In 2005, the results of the PROactive (PROspective PioglitAzone Clinical Trial In MacroVascular Events) three-year study were published. PROactive prospectively looked at the impact in total mortality and macrovascular morbidity using Actos. Dormandy J.A., et al. Secondary Prevention of Macrovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective PioglitAzone Clinical Trial In MacroVascular Events): a Randomised Controlled Trial, Lancet, 266:1279-1289 (2005).
The PROactive study was looking at cardiovascular events and outcomes. However, the study demonstrated a higher percentage of bladder cancer cases in patients receiving Actos versus comparators. This information was not included in the published Dormandy paper.
One issue that I’m sure will come up in any Actos lawsuit that goes to trial is the reason why this information was excluded from the Dormandy paper. Whenever negative information about a drug is concealed, juries tend to get angry.
A three-year liver safety study was also performed, and according to the FDA, that study also demonstrated a higher percentage of bladder cancer cases in patients receiving Actos versus comparators.
On September 17, 2010, the FDA issued a Safety Announcement stating it was undertaking a review of the data from an ongoing, ten-year epidemiological study being conducted by Kaiser Permanente to evaluate the association between Actos and bladder cancer. The planned five-year interim analysis demonstrated that the risk of bladder cancer increases with increasing dose and duration of Actos use, reaching statistical significance after 24 months.
Despite this finding by the FDA, Robert Spanheimer, Vice President of Medical and Scientific Affairs for Takeda, claimed to Reuters that the Kaiser Permanente study has not shown a risk to patients of bladder cancer or other cancers from Actos. No surprise that a VP for the manufacturer of Takeda denied that there is a risk of developing bladder cancer from taking Actos. At least one Actos lawyer will attempt to take this man’s deposition to ask him more about the risks of Actos and bladder cancer.
In early 2011, the American Diabetes Association published Assessing the Association of Pioglitazone Use and Bladder Cancer Through Drug Adverse Event Reporting, Piccinni, et al. Diabetes Care, 34:1369-1371 (June 2011), published ahead of print April 22, 2011. This study looked at adverse events reports made to the FDA between 2004 and 2009. The conclusion of that study was that “[i]n agreement with preclinical and clinical studies, AERS analysis is consistent with an association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer. This issue needs constant epidemiologic surveillance and urgent definition by more specific studies.”
By June of 2011, the evidence was mounting against Actos. By that time there had been several credible studies of different types that all concluded there is a link between Actos and bladder cancer.
On June 9, 2011, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) announced that it had been informed by the French Medicines Agency (“Afssaps”) of its decision to suspend the use of pioglitazone-containing medicines (Actos, Competact) in France while awaiting the outcome of the ongoing European review.
France’s decision was based upon a retrospective cohort study in France using the French National Health Insurance Plan which demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the risk for bladder cancer in males exposed to Actos for more than a year. The French cohort included 1.5 million patients with diabetes that were followed for 4 years (2006-2009).
On June 10, 2011, Reuters published that Germany had joined France in suspending the use of Actos after Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (“BfArM”) reviewed the results of the French study. BfArM recommended that doctors should not put new patients on pioglitazone.
It is always bad news for a drug company when one or more countries bans or suspends the sale of a drug. I’m skeptical that Actos will be taken off the market here in the U.S., but that has more to do with my cynicism about the FDA than my opinion of the drug’s safety. The FDA looks at drug companies as its customers, not patients. The agency receives a substantial percentage of its funding from drug companies in the form of “user fees” and I think that causes the agency to be too cozy with manufacturers.
On June 15, 2011, the FDA issued another Safety Announcement stating that “use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.” The FDA ordered information about this risk to be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the label for pioglitazone-containing medicines.
The FDA reported that the risk of bladder cancer increased with increasing dose and duration of pioglitazone use. When compared to persons never exposed to pioglitazone, exposed to pioglitazone therapy for longer than 12 months was associated with a 40% increase in risk. Based on this data, the FDA calculated that therapy with Actos for longer than 12 months was associated with 27.5 excess cases of bladder cancer per 100,000 person-years follow-up, compared to those who never used pioglitazone.
June 15th is an important day because it will probably trigger the statute of limitations for Actos lawsuits. What that means is that people who took Actos and got diagnosed with bladder cancer on or before June 15th of 2011 will lose their ability to file a lawsuit on June 15th of another year. Whether that year is 2012, 2013, or another year depends upon the law of the state the person resides in. If you’d like to know how long you have to file an Actos lawsuit, give me a call or e-mail me and I’ll be glad to discuss your situation with you.
If you’d like to read the entire 32-page Actos lawsuit, you may download it here.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos, Drugs, Lawsuits Leave a Comment
I’m Now Able to Help Individuals Who Developed Bladder Cancer While Taking Actos
September 10, 2011 | Author:
About a year ago I wrote a quick blog post about whether Actos causes bladder cancer. At the time, I wasn’t certain whether there was enough evidence to support filing an Actos bladder cancer lawsuit. I’m now convinced that there is credible medical evidence that shows that Actos causes bladder cancer. I’m therefore accepting cases from individuals who developed bladder cancer while they were taking the drug Actos.
If you have any questions about whether your bladder cancer was caused by Actos, I’d be happy to chat with you. You can call me toll-free at 888-315-3997, or email me at justinian@justinian.us. Either way, you’ll talk to me directly and we can figure out what your legal options are. More importantly, we can discuss whether an Actos lawsuit might help you pay for bladder cancer treatments you might otherwise not be able to afford.
If you are concerned that you might have bladder cancer, but aren’t sure, you should consult with your doctor. I understand that some signs of bladder cancer are blood in the urine, painful urination, and difficulty urinating. If you’re taking Actos and have any of these symptoms, you should talk to your doctor.
You should definitely NOT stop taking Actos unless you first talk to your doctor about doing so. Abruptly stopping taking a medication can cause serious health problems. So if you’re concerned about the risk of developing bladder cancer from Actos, please talk to your doctor before you stop taking it.
Here is some more information about the link between Actos and bladder cancer.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Another Journal Links Actos to Bladder Cancer
September 2, 2011 | Author:
European medical authorities have been closely examining the link between Actos and Bladder Cancer for a number of years. An editor for the Irish Medical Times summarized the findings of several studies and concluded that there is an increased risk between the use of Actos and Bladder Cancer:There is a small increased risk of bladder cancer with the use of pioglitazone [Actos]; epidemiological data suggest a relative risk of around 1.2 (ranging from 1.15 to 1.33 for ever use across studies). Source: Pioglitazone – New contra-indications and warnings — Irish Medical Times
Once again, the people with the highest risk of developing bladder cancer while taking Actos appear to be those who are taking the highest doses for the longest period of time. People who have been taking Actos for one year or longer seem to be at the highest risk of developing bladder cancer.
Scientists at the FDA and at the European equivalents of the FDA are still examining data and looking at the link between Actos and bladder cancer. However, the link at this time is strong enough that I’m currently accepting Actos cases. Not sure if an Actos lawyer can help you? Call or e-mail me and I’ll be happy to talk about your situation.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos, Drugs Leave a Comment
Diabetes Expert Sees Clear Link Between Actos and Bladder Cancer
June 18, 2011 | Author:
Dr. V. Mohan, a diabetes expert in India recently weighed in on the link between Actos and bladder cancer:Dr. Mohan says the pioglitazone group was matched against diabetics who were not on the drug. “We learn that there was a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer. Not any other form of cancer, the narrowing down to the bladder shows the clear link to the drug,” Dr. Mohan adds. Longer exposure and higher dosages lent to the increased risk of bladder cancer. Source: The Hindu : States / Tamil Nadu : Another diabetes drug mired in controversy
Dr. Mohan based his opinion upon several European studies. Each of the studies showed some degree of risk of developing bladder cancer while taking the drug Actos. Although none of the studies by themselves show a “clear link,” Dr. Mohan apparently believes that taken together all of the studies show a clear link between Actos and bladder cancer.
Even so, Dr. Mohan cautions patients who are taking Actos not to suddenly stop taking it. “Do not stop or start drugs without medical advice,” said Dr. Mohan. And that’s excellent advice. Please do not stop taking Actos because you’re afraid of getting bladder cancer, or because of anything you read here. This blog is written by an Actos lawyer, not by a doctor. If you have medical question, please consult with your doctor.
But if you have legal questions, such as whether you may qualify for an Actos lawsuit, please e-mail or call me at your convenience. I’ll be happy to discuss your specific situation and tell you what your legal options are.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Actos, Drugs Leave a Comment
Someone at Merck suspects GSK is hiding info from the FDA
May 13, 2011 | Author:
I checked my web stats today to and saw something that made me laugh. Someone from Merck’s office in Germany found an article on this site by using Google to search for “GSK hides safety information – FDA.”If the person at Merck finds evidence that GSK is in fact hiding safety information from the FDA, I hope he or she will share it with me so I can publish it here. Until then, I’ll just wonder how much industrial espionage goes on between drug makers.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in DangerousDrugs.US Leave a Comment
Zoloft Birth Defect Lawyer – I’m now reviewing potential cases
March 20, 2011 | Author:
It’s been known for quite some time that Paxil can lead to terrible birth defects, particularly in an infant’s heart. Doctors are now recognizing that other antidepressants, such as Zoloft, can also cause birth defects. I’m currently reviewing potential cases of children who were born with birth defects after their mother took Zoloft during pregnancy. SSRI drugs like Zoloft are strongly associated with heart defects, skull defects, low birth weight and premature babies, PPH, and other serious illnesses. If you took Zoloft during your pregnancy and your child has a birth defect, I’d be happy to talk to you to see if Zoloft may be to blame. You can use the contact form on my website, or just e-mail me directly at justinian@justinian.us
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Topamax Birth Defect Lawyer – I Am Now Reviewing Cases
March 15, 2011 | Author:
Evidence is mounting that Topamax causes certain types of birth defects, such as cleft palates and cleft lips. The FDA recently updated the Topamax label to reflect the now-recognized risk that Topamax can cause birth defects. As I wrote at another Topamax lawyer blog,The FDA classifies drugs according to whether or not they pose a risk of causing birth defects. Topamax was initially in Category C, meaning that studies showed a risk of birth defects in animals, but there was insufficient evidence in humans. The FDA has now moved Topamax to Category D, which means there is positive evidence of risk of birth defects in humans.
It’s still too early to tell whether or not parents of injured children will win Topamax lawsuits, but I’m reviewing cases for evidence that Topamax was linked to a child’s birth defects. Contact me if you’d like me to take a free look at your potential Topamax case.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
Posted in Topamax Leave a Comment
Big pharma takes pages out of asbestos playbook.
January 14, 2011 | Author:
Can you trust your advocacy organization to disclose their ties to big pharma? Looks like there’s only a one-in-four chance that you can.The study analyzed data from Eli Lilly & Co. from the first half of 2007 and found that only 25 percent of 161 organizations disclosed funding from the drug giant on their Web sites. Just 18 percent acknowledged Lilly’s grants in their annual reports, and 1 percent listed Lilly on a corporate sponsors page.
Source: Advocacy groups fail to disclose drug company funding, a new study finds – chicagotribune.com
I see disturbing parallels between modern-day pharmaceutical practices regarding sponsorships and what asbestos companies used to do. For decades, asbestos companies doled out funding to organizations that would produce scientific research that was in line with the interests of asbestos companies. They then used this secretly corporate-funded research to defend themselves in court.
I’m glad more pharmaceutical companies are starting to disclose who they give money to, but I’m saddened that so many advocacy groups don’t want their members to know whose money the organizations take.
If you have any questions about this blog post - or anything else on this site - please e-mail me at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us
