In recognition of American Heart Month, which kicks off tomorrow (Feb. 1st), and National Wear Red Day (Feb. 3rd), LawyersandSettlements.com takes a look at our most-viewed drug lawsuit topics for 2011 in which heart attack or heart side effects were the alleged primary injuries.
Unfortunately, while a lot of focus this month will be on the positive measures we all can take to improve heart health—and that’s certainly important—it can be easy to overlook the negative heart side effects some drugs can have—and attention should be given to those as well.
As the chart at left depicts, Actos, Paxil and Zoloft accounted for the majority of 2011 traffic related to heart side effects, with Actos receiving the most at 25 percent. The Type 2 diabetes drug was released as an alternative to Avandia, which as you’ll recall came off pharmacy shelves as a result of the new FDA REMS program that became effective in November, 2011. Still, Avandia came in as the fourth most popular heart lawsuit topic.
Paxil, the popular antidepressant, has been linked to heart birth defects in infants and the drug drove in 18 percent of traffic last year. Ditto Zoloft, which accounted for 10 percent of the pageviews among readers concerned over the potential for heart birth defects.
The ten prescription drugs on the list fall into four distinct classes: Actos and Avandia are prescribed for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes; Vytorin helps to control cholesterol, which has a direct impact on heart health; Trasylol is used during surgery to mitigate blood loss; the remaining drugs address depression and anxiety.
Reader interest in Prozac, Lexapro, Effexor, Celexa, Zoloft and Paxil shows continued concern surrounding pregnant women using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) drugs and potential heart birth defects.
Here’s the full list:
Top 10 Drug Lawsuit Topics for Heart Side Effects in 2011
*SNRI (serotonin-norephinephrine reuptake inhibitor) or SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) drugs associated with heart birth defects when taken during pregnancy
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.
So you caught the news recently that Merck’s Gardasil was approved by the FDA for use in boys ages 9 to 26. No one really expects much from this news—ie, doctors aren’t expected to be offering it to their male patients (or their parents as the case may be). But I find it interesting none the less.
First, the background…Gardasil is the vaccine that’s supposed immunize young girls (ages 9 – 26) from the HPV virus—aka, human papillomavirus, the sexually transmitted one that can lead to cervical cancer. There’s a lot of heated debate on Gardasil in girls–we’ve blogged on it as well–and the New York Times recently reported that in order to be effectively immunized with Gardasil, it requires a series of three injections, each costing $130 (translation, around $400; translation, it ain’t cheap).
But now let’s just take a look at that NYT report again. I read on through the whole article…la Read the rest of this entry »
The latest flurry of statin drug-related news could substitute for your afternoon t.v. soap fix—except there’s a very real-life drama being played out. It’s full of intrigue and false promises. Who knew that the anti-cholesterol drug market could offer so much, and yet so little at the same time?
Here’s the topline history to get you up to speed—just in case you’ve missed the last couple of months’ news on drugs like Vytorin, Zetia and Lipitor…
Zetia + Simvastatin (aka Zocor) = Vytorin
↓
Vytorin + Zetia = Class Action Settlement
↓
Zetia + Atorvastatin (aka Lipitor) = Refused by FDA = Bad News for Merck
↓
Vytorin + Arbiter 6 Study (due 11/16) = Expected Bad News for Merck
↓
Niaspan + Arbiter 6 Study = Expected Good News for Abbott Labs
So what’s the deal with this Arbiter 6 thing? It’s the clinical study that was conducted—and whose results are hotly anticipated at the American Heart Association (AHA) annual scientific meeting in Orlando on November 16th—to review the efficacy of cholesterol drugs Read the rest of this entry »
LawyersAndSettlements.com reported a while ago (Aug. 5th precisely) about the proposed class action settlement in the Vytorin-Zetia case against Merck and Schering-Plough.
At the heart of this case are claims that Vytorin and Zetia were marketed as being more effective than other anti-cholesteral drugs on the market (namely, those drugs in the class known as statins)—and that Vytorin and Zetia were sold at higher prices even though there wasn’t really evidence that they were more effective than less-expensive anti-cholesterol drugs.
For consumers—aka the “Consumer Class” of the Vytorin/Zetia settlement, it means that if you were taking either of these drugs and either paid or were obligated to pay for them between November 1, 2002 and September 17, 2009, you may be eligible to participate in this settlement. Translation: you may be able to get some money back on your purchases as a result of this settlement.
How much money?—it’s the number one question we always get about settlements. Well, as Read the rest of this entry »