The Lowdown on Taxotere Hair Loss Lawsuit

Posted by on Oct 23, 2016 in Defective Products | 0 comments

Just like other forms of cancer, breast cancer is treatable with chemotherapy. Recent advances in the medical field have made it possible to extend the chances of survival of a cancer patient. One of the most popular chemotherapy drug prescribed to cancer patients is taxotere. Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1992, the drug generated more than $3 billion for Sanofi Aventis.

One of the common side effects of chemotherapy is hair loss. However, cancer survivors expect the hair to grow back within 3 – 6 months after stopping from treatment. A taxotere hair loss lawyer will tell you that the drug is associated with permanent hair loss which could last for over ten years. It is this side effect of Taxotere that has become the subject of recent lawsuits.

According to most of the claimant, the permanent hair loss that resulted from taking Taxotere caused them to experience a “disfiguring condition” which brought them mental anguish and economic damages. Most claims allege that Sanofi, the manufacturer of taxotere, deceived and misled them that just like other drugs, patients would see their hair grow back. The lawsuits also centered on the drug company’s fraudulent marketing scheme enticing physicians to use Taxotere.

To date, there has not been a recall of Taxotere. It was only in December 2015 that the FDA warned customers of the danger of permanent hair loss as a side effect of taxotere and updated the warning label. Part of the lawsuit is that the manufacturer of the drug did not inform patients of the side effects of the drug and that there were damages that resulted from the failure to inform.

Most lawsuits dwell on the profound impact on the well-being and quality of life that result from permanent hair loss. Studies have shown that hair loss was consistently one of the most troublesome side effects of taxotere and may affect body image.

Read More

Apples and Oranges: Disputes against Talc-Related Cancer Research Findings

Posted by on Sep 18, 2014 in Defective Products | 2 comments

There has been a recent upsurge of interest in the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer following the results published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research (“Genital Powder Use and Risk of Ovarian Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 8,525 Cases and 9,859 Controls” Cancer Prev Res August 2013 6; 811) . The study was a meta-analysis of 8 smaller studies, the data collected in each combined to provide a sufficiently large number of subjects to validate a common finding: talcum powder increases the risk of developing ovarian cancer.

But not all doctors agree that there is sufficient evidence for this conclusion. Some base their opinions on a technique called talc pleurodesis which is used to relieve the discomfort of lung cancer i.e. mesothelioma patients suffering from fluid buildup in the pleura (space between the chest and lung linings). Sterilized talc powder is applied to the pleura once the fluid has been drained in order to close the pleural space and prevent effusion. It does not cure the cancer, but it does make it easier for the patient to breathe.

Naysayers state that this is proof positive that talc does not cause cancer; in fact, it may just indicate the opposite. Pleurodesis is effective because the talc irritates the linings, causing inflammation and thus closing the space. Researchers reporting a link between genital powder and ovarian cancer posit a similar reaction when talc particles find their way up the reproductive tract and lodge in the tissue, which encourage the growth of cancer cells. According to talcum powder lawsuit lawyers at Williams Kherkher, these studies show that at the very least talcum powder manufacturers should have warned the public of the possibility of risk when it was first indicated (“Talc and carcinoma of the ovary and cervix” J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1971; 78:266–272), just to be on the safe side.

If you have just been made aware that your ovarian cancer may have been caused by using talcum powder in the genital area, you should take action immediately. Contact a reputable talcum powder lawyer to find out your legal options.

Read More

The Dangers of Sitagliptin or Januvia

Posted by on Jan 9, 2014 in Defective Products | 2 comments

Sitagliptin, which is marketed as Januvia in the US, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use by adults suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus. This dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor or diabetic drug was intended as an addition to exercise and diet to help improve the control of blood sugar level. This oral anti-diabetic drug (anti-hyperglycemic) was introduced by Merck & Co. and earned FDA approval on October 17, 2006. The FDA, likewise, permitted Sitagliptin to be combined with metformin and to be marketed under the name Janumet.

Compared to placebo and other type 2 diabetes drugs, this enzyme-inhibiting Sitagliptin or Januvia is known to cause fewer side-effects, such as lesser gain in weight and hypoglycemia. The enzyme that Januvia specifically inhibits is dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), which breaks down the Gastric inhibitory polypeptide or GIP and glucagon-like peptide-1 or GLP-1 (GIP and GLP-1 are the two major incretin hormones that are discharged by the intestine upon intake of nutrients or glucose). DPP-4’s prevention of GIP and GLP-1 inactivation causes an increase in insulin secretion while suppressing the pancreas from the releasing the hormone glucagon; this, in turn, results to normalization of blood glucose level.

Despite its efficacy, Januvia has been found to cause acute pancreatitis (the sudden inflammation of the pancreas which can result to severe complication or death). In fact, eighty-eight acute pancreatitis cases were reported to the FDA between the 16th of October in 2006 and the 9th of February 2009.

Thus, on September 25, 2009, the FDA required a revision in Januvia’s prescribing information to include information that tells about the reported acute pancreatitis cases associated with the drug. The FDA also asked the drug’s manufacturer to include: reports of necrotizing or hemorrhagic pancreatitis (severe forms of acute pancreatitis) in the prescribing information; the need for healthcare professionals to closely and carefully monitor patients for any sign of pancreatitis development after the drug has been prescribed to them; and, the need to stop use of the drug if pancreatitis is suspected during its use.

An article on the website of Williams Kherkher also speaks of medical findings that prove the high risk of developing pancreatic duct metaplasia, a “pre-cancerous cellular change” that is serious and a potential threat to life, due to use of the drug.

When it involves loss of lives due to the use of drugs, no one has the right to say that the drug’s benefits outweigh the harm. Medication is supposed to provide cure, not more serious illnesses or even death. The manufacturers of harmful drugs, including Merck & Co., have a lot to answer to the individuals (and their families) for the worse illnesses, instead of cure, that these individuals have been subjected to.

Read More