Archive for the ‘Product Liability’ Category

Generic Drug Risks

Monday, August 1st, 2011

While generic drug manufacturers would like consumers to believe that generic versions of drugs are exactly equivalent to the name brands, this is not usually the case.

Consequently, some people who switch from a name brand to a generic drug experience what doctors term a “therapeutic failure.” What this means is that while the name brand drug worked to control the patient’s condition, the generic version does not.  Patients may also experience new or different side effects.  Hardly chemically identical.

Poor Quality Control

So, how are dangerous generic drugs getting into the American marketplace? One problem is that  manufacturers are using raw materials from China, India, and other areas where quality assurance is not strict. It is worth noting that many over-the-counter medicines, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, are currently being imported from these same areas. In the opinion of our Chicago injury attorneys, it is only a matter of time before a major safety incident occurs with these products, as well.

But why doesn’t the FDA stop these problems? The simple answer is that the FDA is dramatically underfunded and understaffed to confront the task before it. The FDA pulls and tests only about 300 doses of prescription medication each year. This means that only about one in ten million doses are inspected each year. And, although the FDA is supposed to inspect the facilities where drugs are manufactured at least once every two years, due to the lack of adequate resources, in fact some drug companies have only one plant inspected every four years. And only 200 plants have been inspected in China and India in the last seven years.

Risks of Generic Drugs

The risks of generic medications are hardly academic. The next year will bring a rash of new generic medications on the market, as the patents expire on a number of the biggest drugs in America. In fact, 7 of the top 20 best-selling international medications have patents expiring in the next 14 months. This includes Lipitor, a commonly-prescribed anti-cholesterol medication, and Plavix, a commonly-prescribed blood thinner.

Also included are common medications for asthma, diabetes, depression, HIV, blood pressure, and bipolar disorder. In the next four years, drugs which account for around $255 billion in annual international sales have expiring patents.  In fact, Blue Cross Blue Shield estimates that up to fifteen percent of the American population is currently taking a medicine with a patent expiring in the next few years.

And the problems with generic safety will only get worse, thanks to a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. In this year’s term, the Court ruled that generic drugs are required to do nothing more on their labels than mirror the labels of the name-brand drugs. This decision, in Pliva v. Mensing, provides extensive protection for generic drug manufacturers, but none for innocent patients. In effect, the decision means that even when there are indications that a generic version of a drug causes catastrophic or fatal side effects not present in the name brand, up to and including kidney failure, the drug manufacturer need not provide a warning to those who take the drug.

In fact, the Court ruled that even if state consumer protection laws would require the drug maker to provide a warning, federal law preempts those state requirements and in fact mandates that the drugmaker not provide a warning, if that warning is not present on the name-brand label.

Our serious injury attorneys are more than troubled at this state of affairs. The lack of warning labels is by no means the only type of legal claim available to the victims of generic drugs. And as the legal responsibilities of the manufacturers of generic drugs continue to develop, we hope that the legal redress for those injured by these dangerous drugs will become easier to access. In the meantime, we urge consumers to take care when using generic drugs, and to weigh the risks carefully before choosing these products.

Stephen M. Passen of Passen Law Group has over 30 years representing individuals against large corporations in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases.  To speak with one of our top-rated injury attorneys, call us at (312) 527-4500 or email us at info@passenlaw.com.

share save 171 16 Generic Drug Risks

The Dark Side of Oxycontin

Friday, June 17th, 2011

OxyContin Danger 282x300 The Dark Side of OxycontinOver the past decade, Oxycontin has become a staple in pain management; a go-to drug, which has helped many patients with severe acute or chronic pain.  But, as our Chicago injury attorneys point out, Oxycontin also has a dark side.

Many have long been aware of the potential for abuse of the drug, both by “drug seekers” who pretend to be suffering pain to obtain a prescription, and by those who obtain the drug illegally or on the black market, then crush the tablets and use the drug for a high.

But two new problems with Oxycontin have recently emerged: (1) increased health risks for long-term users; and (2) unintended consequences of a new formulation designed to prevent abuse.

First, two new studies published in the most recent edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine reveal that Oxycontin can have serious health consequences. First, there was a study which followed 6,300 patients taking one of five pain medicines (including Oxycontin) for chronic pain unrelated to cancer over a nine-year period. The results showed that patients who took Oxycontin and certain other opioids, rather than other drugs, were more likely to suffer certain health problems.  These included problems as diverse as heart attacks, fractured bones, and death, seeming to suggest that Oxycontin has a pervasive negative effect on overall health. Our pharmaceutical death lawyers are curious to see how the manufacturer will respond to this data, if at all.

Second, a study by Daniel Solomon and others looked at opioids such as Oxycontin versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and coxibs when used in elderly patients suffering from arthritis. The study found that those patients treating their pain with opioids were more likely to fall, more likely to suffer a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack, more likely to be hospitalized, and more likely to die (from all causes).

The second concern to emerge in recent weeks regarding Oxycontin concerns the new formulation of the drug. Purdue Pharma, the drug’s manufacturer, announced the new formulation about nine months ago, but it is only now coming into patient’s hands. The reformulation, designed to stop abuse, makes it difficult or impossible to crush the pill – when an attempt to do so is, made, the pill does not turn to powder, but instead gelatinizes.

Unfortunately, this change has been a dangerous one for many patients. Indeed, an FDA MedWatch alert has already been issued, advising physicians that patients are suffering from dangerous consequences of the new formula, including choking, gagging, regurgitation, difficulty swallowing, and the tablets becoming lodged in a patient’s throat.

The alert states that these problems are “potentially due to the swelling and hydrogelling property of the tablet,” a conclusion which it does not take an expert to reach. Our Chicago injury attorneys wonder whether Purdue was aware of these dangers before launching the reformulation – whether the reformulation was properly tested, and whether any of the test subjects reported these results. If so – or if Purdue does not take action now that it is becoming aware of the problem, the company may be liable to patient-victims in a products liability or wrongful death action.

Patients are also reporting increased side effects from the new formulation, including upset stomach and other GI problems, as well as headaches.

And these problems are compounded by the fact that the drug now appears to be less effective. Physicians and patients are reporting that many sufferers now require a higher dose of Oycontin to keep chronic pain under control.  Physicians who are aware of the problem have been forced to increase patients’ dosages, or switch them to a different medication entirely, with the attendant transition problems. These physicians fear that colleagues who are unaware of the changed formulation or its results may turn away patients who are in pain, believing them to be “drug seekers” due to their sudden need for an increased dose.

We devoutly hope that all patients who were on the previous formulation of Oxycontin are able to work with knowledgeable physicians to continue effective pain management, and to ensure their safety, whatever drug they select.

For a free consultation with an experienced Illinois serious injury and wrongful death attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 The Dark Side of Oxycontin

Banned Chemicals Found in Children’s Products

Friday, May 27th, 2011

The use of chemical flame retardants in children’s products, including furniture, pillows and pads, and pajamas, has been an established practice for decades — to prevent serious burn injury to children.  In the 1970s, however, researchers began to examine how exposure to some of these chemicals in children’s pajamas affected the health and safety of America’s children.

The result was the removal of a class of flame retardants, called Tris phosphate chemicals, from children’s pajamas. This removal was a major victory for advocates of public safety and against dangerous products. The Tris chemicals were found to be a likely carcinogen, as well as posing other health dangers, including possible neurological problems, as well as fertility issues.  These chemicals were removed under pressure from scientists and the public in the 1970s.

Yet now, a new shows that these chemicals remain prevalent in a wide array of American baby products.

In the study published in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology, researchers looked at 101 baby products made with polyurethane foam.  These products included nursing pillows, highchairs, changing pads, sleep positioners (a dangerous product in its own right), portable mattresses, rocking chairs, and car seats.

Eighty of these 101 products contained chemical flame retardants.  Fourteen of them contained TCEP, a flame retardant classified by the State of California as a known carcinogen.  Four of the 101 products contained Penta-BDE, a flame retardant banned in many other countries which accumulates in human tissue over time.  In most of the products, these chemicals made up between three and five percent of the weight of the foam, but in some cases, up to twelve percent of the weight came from the flame retardants.  Specifically, the s study found:

Based on exposure estimates conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), we predict that infants may receive greater exposure to TDCPP from these products compared to the average child or adult from upholstered furniture, all of which are higher than acceptable daily intake levels of TDCPP set by the CPSC. Future studies are therefore warranted to specifically measure infants exposure to these flame retardants from intimate contact with these products and to determine if there are any associated health concerns.

As noted by some critics, the research did not take the critical next step – it did not study the infants and children who use such products to determine whether they were absorbing these dangerous chemicals from the products.  But the study did suggest that these infants and children were exposed to the chemicals at a rate higher than that recommended by the government – already a fairly lax standard.  Our child injury lawyers do not need further evidence, however – it does not take a study to know that chemicals that are dangerous when present in children’s clothing are also dangerous when present in children’s pillows, chairs, and padding.

Tris chemicals were not banned by the government when they were removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s.  Indeed, it is overwhelmingly difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain bans or restrictions on chemicals used in the U.S.  As an example, asbestos is not yet banned, in spite of the conclusive evidence that it causes cancer and other fatal diseases.  Indeed, under current federal standards, manufacturers are not even required to indicate on the label that flame retardants were used, let alone to identify which chemical flame retardants a product contains.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, like the EPA, has also fallen far short on this issue.  The CPSC has had a federal flammability standard in the works for sixteen years, with no end to the process in sight.  When questioned, a spokesman for the CPSC simply stated that further research is still needed.

The time when such statements were sufficient is long past.  The products liability attorneys  of Passen Law Group join with others in demanding that the CPSC and the EPA take action to remove these toxic chemicals intended for use by the youngest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago toxic exposure lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Banned Chemicals Found in Childrens Products