Posts Tagged ‘ Botox ’

Big Pharma Lawsuits – Who Got Hit with the Biggest Settlement?

October 25th, 2010. By LucyC

It seems that every month practically, one pharmaceutical company or another makes the news for bending rules around marketing. Mis-marketing, which could also be called consumer fraud, can  result in serious, if not life-changing consequences for people making decisions about their health. 

Recently, I came across a list of the largest settlements paid by 11 pharmaceutical companies for bending the rules. The fines total a staggering $6 billion. The more frequent offender, according to the company that compiled the list, is Eli Lilly. They paid more than $1.4 billion in fines all for various violations for just one drug—Zyprexa.  

And then there’s Pfizer, who paid $2.3 billion for ‘mis-marketing’ a number of drugs including Bextra, Geodon, Lyrica and Zyvox. 

These drugs are used to treat everything from schizophrenia to epilepsy to diabetes, and the consequences of not having the correct information may have resulted in serious adverse health events, possibly even death for some. 

Not surprisingly, people tend to be very interested when the big boys get caught behaving badly, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that we feel our trust has been betrayed. We trust drug companies, and the medical profession in general, to give us the straight goods because it’s a matter of life and death. Why would you not be straight about that? Well, the answer is, not surprisingly, money. And lots of it. But eventually the offenders do get caught. And that leads to drug lawsuits, criminal investigations and ultimately, very large fines. 

So, without further ado—here’s a list of the big offenders—who took them on, what for and how much they paid, with acknowledgement to FiercePharma.com who actually did the homework on this. 

Novartis
With: U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
When: Sept. 30, 2010
Why: Novartis agreed to a $422.5 million settlement with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for its off-label promotion of Trileptal and other allegations against Diovan, Exforge, Sandostatin, Tekturna and Zelnorm. (oh, and ps, Novartis is recruiting for a Senior Brand Manager for Prevacid…)

Forest Labs
With: Dept. of Justice
When: Sept. 15, 2010
Why: After marketing Levothroid, an unapproved thyroid drug, Forest Labs received a $313 million penalty.  The settlement also covered Forest’s off-label use of Celexa for children’s use.

Allergan
With: Dept. of Justice
When: Sept. 1, 2010
Why: Allergan’s was fined $600 million by the Department of Justice. The settlement was broken into two parts: $375 million in fines and $225 milion in civil penalties, all of which stemmed from its off-label use of Botox for headaches, pain management and cerebral palsy. 

Elan
With: U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts
When: July 15, 2010
Why: Elan received a $203.5 million fine for its marketing of Zonegran, an epilepsy drug.

Johnson & Johnson
With: Department of Justice
When: April 29, 2010
Why: Though J&J is most recently famous or a rash of phantom recalls, two of the troubled drugmaker’s subsidiaries received a $81 million penalty for off-label promotions of Topamax, an epilepsy drug.

AstraZeneca
With: U.S. Attorney’s office in Philadelphia
When: April 27, 2010
Why: In the same week as the J&J settlement, AstraZeneca was fined $520 million misleading doctors and patients about the safety of its antipsychotic drug Seroquel.  

Abbott
With: Twenty-three states
When: Jan. 7, 2010
Why: In a case involving 23 different states, Abbott Laboratories and its partner, Fournier Industrie et Sante, were ordered to pay $22.5 million for blocking the states from obtaining a cheaper alternative for its cholesterol drug, TriCor. (btw, Abbott Labs is the one who brought you beetle parts in Similac, causing the recent Similac recall…)

Eli Lilly
With: Connecticut
When: Sept. 29, 2009
Why: A total of 13 states total had filed suit against Eli Lilly for Zyprexa marketing issues, but the company was ordered to pay $25 million to Connecticut in this ruling.

Eli Lilly
With: West Virginia Attorney General
When: August 21, 2009
Why: In another Zyprexa case, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw levied $2 billion in fines against Eli Lilly. In the end, the company agreed to $22.5 million in fines.

Merck
With: 35 states’ attorney offices
When: July 15, 2009
Why: Following a 35 state investigations into the Enhance study of Vytorin, Merck paid $5.4 million in fines, without admitting fault in the cases.

Sanofi-Aventis
With: Department of Justice
When: May 28, 2009
Why: In an agreement with the federal government, Sanofi paid $95.5 million total, to the federal government, state Medicaid agencies and other public health service agencies, all for its subsidiary Aventis’ nasal spray price inflation between 1995 and 2000.

GlaxoSmithKline
With: U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado
When: Jan. 29, 2009
Why: After seven years of off-label promotion on nine of its best-selling drugs, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was ordered to pay $400 million to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado.

Pfizer
With: Department of Justice
When: Jan. 26, 2009
Why: Right after acquiring Wyeth, Pfizer dropped a bombshell in its fourth quarter earnings report; the company was charged $2.3 billion for off-label promotions of its COX-2 drugs.

Eli Lilly
With: Department of Justice
When: Jan. 15, 2009
Why: In the first Zyprexa settlement (and one of three on our list), the Department of Justice levied $1.4 billion in fines against Eli Lilly. Also, as part of the settlement, the company pled guilty to a misdemeanor: violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Tags: Abbott Labs, Allergan, Bextra, Big Pharma, Botox, Celexa, Diovan, Drugs, Eil Lilly, Elan, Exforge, Forest Labs, Geodon, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, J&J, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Lyrica, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandostatin, Sanofi Aventis, Seroquel, Tekturna, TriCor, Vytorin, Zelnorm, Zonegran, Zyprexa, Zyvox
Posted in Drugs/Medical | 3 Comments »

Allergan and Botox or FDA: Who Has the Last Word?

September 30th, 2010. By janem

As you may know, Allergan Inc. recently pled guilty to off-label promotion of its product Botox and dished out $600 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability suits. Allergan apparently made it a top corporate priority to maximize sales of Botox for headaches, pain, spasticity and juvenile cerebral palsy from 2000 to 2005—the time the FDA hadn’t approved Botox for marketing. Oh yeah, and Botox wasn’t approved to treat wrinkles either. So what was it approved for?

In 1989, Botox was FDA-approved to treat strabismus (crossed eyes) and blepharospasm (involuntary eyelid muscle contraction). In 2000 and 2004, it was approved to treat cervical dystonia (involuntary neck muscle contraction) and primary axillary hyperhidrosis (excessive underarm sweating). Then in 2010, approval was given to treat adult upper-limb spasticity. That’s it.

But greed got the better of Allergan and it concocted a plan in 2003 to tap into the headache and pain market: It came up with the “CD/HA Initiative” (CD standing for on-label cervical dystonia) as a “rescue strategy”, it claimed that cervical dystonia was “underdiagnosed” and that doctors could diagnose cervical dystonia based on headache and pain symptoms, even when the doctor “doesn’t see any cervical dystonia.” So the FDA steps in and justice is served.

The civil penalties will be divided between federal and state health plans that were billed for unapproved uses of Botox, and five whistle-blowers who filed lawsuits in Georgia under the False Claims Act.

EXCEPT that Allergan seems to get the last word in:  As part of the agreement, the company was required to drop its lawsuit filed against the FDA in October challenging a government rule that prohibits companies from marketing “off-label” promotions, i.e., unapproved uses.

“This is a good outcome that protects the American people,” said the FDA Commissioner. “The off-label promotion of drugs threatens public health and the regulatory framework of the FDA.”

HUH? Why did the FDA make a deal to drop Allergan’s off-label promotions suit—is the agency that unsure of its legal position,  or does Allergan have deeper legal pockets? Or?? Curious minds would sure like to know…

Tags: Allergan, Botox, Off-label
Posted in Drugs/Medical | 1 Comment »

Here’s What’s Wrong with Botox

September 3rd, 2010. By AbiK

Think I’m going to say that it’s the way Botox can turn a once-expressive face into one that looks like it’s just come out of the freezer? Nope. Or that it’s spurred on our youth-obsessed culture thereby driving the insecurities of aging women to new heights? Nope again.

The issue with Botox is this: it’s easy to get and easy to steal. Too easy. It’s getting to the point where it might as well be right up there with the more “commodity” beauty that you find on drugstore shelves. Heck, when you see reports of former Miss USA Shannon Marketic allegedly shoplifting Olay Pro-X and then read about the recent string of Botox Bandits, is there really any difference?

For those of you who haven’t been following, yes, there is a brand of thief known as Botox Bandit. The latest arrest was Maria Elizabeth Chrysson (who’s 29—again? one can’t help but ask) in Miami. Funny thing is that this is Chrysson’s third charge of Botox “theft”. Botox, mind you, can run $300 – $500 per visit and can get over the $1,000 mark. The theft happens when the patient, post-injection, either writes a check that’ll bounce or says that she needs to hit an ATM or she left her purse in the car (whoops!).

Ok, it’s not the theft that’s actually the issue. To be more precise, the theft is more like a symptom. Think about it. What other medical—yes medical—procedure can you walk into Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Botox
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

The Latest Botox Buzz: ‘Teen Toxing’

August 12th, 2010. By Hunter West

Am I missing something here? 

The last time I checked, cosmetic Botox was approved for wrinkles in the brow between the eyes. 

That’s it. Oh, there are other approved medical uses for Botox—therapeutically in children as young as 12 with abnormal twitching of the eyelid or crossed eyes. It can also help patients 16 and older with involuntary contraction of neck muscles, and by people 18 and up to combat excessive sweating..

However, cosmetically Botox has an extremely limited footprint (or face print, if you will) according to the original approval for cosmetic purposes by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

Does that surprise you? 

Little wonders that it does, given the astounding degree to which Botox is used off-label cosmetically. 

It’s outrageous. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, outline toxin—which is Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Botox
Posted in Drugs/Medical | 3 Comments »

What Price Beauty? Your Lawyer knows…

September 8th, 2009. By AbiK

The phrase “What price beauty?” is starting to take on new meaning. Used to insinuate something that went a bit too far—in cost, time, discomfort, whatever—to achieve beauty. But now, it’s about safety. And it goes beyond whether the manicurist remembered to disinfect the cuticle nipper/trimmer. Not downplaying a potential infection, but beauty’s got bigger—and potentially more dangerous—issues to deal with. Enter medispas…

There’s a lot of misconception about what a medispa is and isn’t. A medispa, or medical spa, refers to a facility where both traditional spa treatments (facial, massage, waxing, manicure) and non-surgical cosmetic procedures (laser hair removal, cosmetic injections like botox, laser resurfacing, chemical peels) are administered. A medispa operates under the supervision of a doctor—but that doesn’t mean the doctor either performs the treatment or is even on-site when it happens.

Sounds straightforward—until you ask yourself, so who’s wielding that Yag laser during my hair removal treatment? And what board certified them? Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Botox, Malpractice, Medispa
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues | No Comments »