An article today reveals further concerns about the drug Vytorin. Vytorin is prescribed to reduce cholesterol. Earlier testing raised questions about whether or not it was beneficial for patients. A more recent study has now raised questions about whether or not Vytorin causes cancer. Anyone taking Vytorin should take a close look at both of these studies to determine whether or not they should continue taking it.
The current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association has an article about the fact that the drug company Merck used ghostwriters to publish studies about its drug Vioxx without revealing the involvement of the ghostwriters or the fact that some of the academics involved with the research were paid. The article can be found here. The article reviewed over 250 documents and found that Merck frequently had studies and research performed by Merck scientists, but when the results were published, an academic researcher would be listed as the primary author. In many cases, the fact that academic researcher received payment from Merck was not revealed in the study. These actions undoubtedly had an impact on the FDA in reaching its decision to approve Vioxx for sale to the public. The FDA does not employ independent scientists to perform studies and its review process is therefore limited to a review of the science that is provided to it by the drug company that is seeking approval of the drug. A study known to be performed by Merck or that has an academic affiliation which has been purchased would be looked at more skeptically by the FDA in its approval process than a study which appears to be the work of independent, unpaid researchers. Merck sought to bolster the credibility of its own research by making it appear that outside, independent academics had been involved in the research. This behavior by Merck was not uncovered by the FDA, but was uncovered by civil justice lawyers who sifted through millions of documents provided to them by Merck to get at the truth of the science upon which the FDA based its approval of Vioxx. This deceptive practice by Merck shows the need for a stronger more independent FDA approval process and the need for strong civil justice attorneys to reveal these practices when the FDA fails to prevent them.
The New York Times has reported today that Democratic and Republican Senators who have reviewed the issue believe that next year's proposed funding for the FDA is inadequate. Read the article here. The current proposal by the Bush administration is a 3% budget increase which according to the article is not enough to cover increased costs of running the administration. Given the importance of the role of the FDA and the recent revelations that it is unable to fulfill its mission, it is time for the FDA to receive sufficient funding so that it can fulfill its function and protect Americans from potentially harmful products.
Written By: Attorney Chris Booberg
Visit Our Website: JoelBieber.com
The Supreme Court is set to rule sometime early next year on the idea of pre-emption as it relates to the FDA's approval of a drug. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the drug companies, it could mean that FDA approval of a drug prevents people from suing in their state court or it could prevent them from being able to sue at all. It has been recently reported and noted previously in this blog, that the FDA does not perform any testing of its own before approving a drug. The FDA is forced to rely on whatever testing is done by the drug company and relies on the drug company to report the results of its testing. The case that is coming before the Supreme Court next year involves a situation where a drug company performed a test, but did not submit the results to the FDA until after the drug had received FDA approval. You can read more about the case here. In the case going before the Supreme Court, the FDA waited six years before it released results of Johnson and Johnson internal testing that showed that the Ortho Evra birth control patch released much higher than expected amounts of estrogen. This situation points out the need for the plaintiffs to have access to the Courts in cases where the FDA is unable to protect the public from a potentially harmful drug. A wide ranging ruling pre-empting plaintiff's lawsuits will possibly leave people who a hurt by drugs in the future without any recourse because the drug companies can point to the FDA approval and argue that it grants them immunity from suit.
Written By: Attorney Chris Booberg
Visit Our Website: JoelBieber.com
Drug companies have sales representatives who make calls on doctors to meet with them about the drugs that their company makes and give them information about the benefits of the drugs in order to increase sales. Currently, the law requires that the drug representative only discuss uses of the drugs that have been approved by the FDA. The FDA has now announced that it is considering relaxing this law. The FDA is considering allowing the drug companies to distribute marketing about drugs directly to doctors relating to uses for which the drugs have not received FDA approval. To read an opinion article by a professor and department head from Duke University click here. This idea sounds like having the fox guard the hen house. The reason for the FDA approval process, as weak as it is, is that the FDA reviews the available science and research and approves a drug for certain uses. This proposal would allow the drug company to determine what was an appropriate "off-label" use and market that use directly to doctors without any FDA involvement. This is a step too far and hopefully the FDA will receive enough negative comments during the public comment period that it will see the error of this misguided plan.
Bloomberg has reported on the $27.1 million dollar punitive damages verdict in an Arkansas Prempro case in which the compensatory damages of $2.75 million were decided last week. You can read the article here. This is a strong message from the jury to Wyeth, the manufacturer of Prempro. This verdict comes on the heels of a new AMA study regarding the use of Prempro which was detailed in a previous blog.
Our firm represents a number of women who have sued Wyeth Pharmaceuticals after being diagnosed with breast cancer which we believe was caused by use of the medicine Prempro. In a study released today, The American Medical Association has revealed that a study of the drug Prempro causes an increased cancer risk in women who take it. This result took the leaders of the study by surprise. In an article in Medicalnewstoday.com, the lead investigator of the study stated, "This latest study reinforces the original finding that combined hormone therapy of estrogen plus progestin should not be taken for the purpose of reducing disease in post-menopausal women," Chlebowski said. "These findings also reinforce the need for monitoring for cancer in women who have taken the combination of estrogen plus progestin." This is strong support for the thousands of women who developed breast cancer after taking Prempro in an effort to avoid bone loss or for cardiovascular benefits. This study demonstrates that any potential benefit of disease prevention is outweighed by Prempro's potential to cause breast cancer. The full study can be found here.
Here is a quick post to the 2.75 million hormone therapy verdict that was entered against Wyeth, in Little Rock, Arkansas. (Wall Street Journal) The jury will return on March 3 to deliberate the issue of punitive damages. This verdict was from a trial that occurred in the multidistrict litigation, where cases that are filed in federal court have been consolidated. Currently, The Joel Bieber Firm represents women that suffered injury from hormone therapy.
