Epipen

What the EpiPen Recall Might Mean for You

EpiPen and EpiPen Jr auto-injectors distributed between December 2015 through July 2016 are being recalled. 

In early April,  pharmaceutical company Mylan NV announced a recall of certain brand name EpiPen products. The flaw in the recalled devices means that in a case of emergency, patients could face serious health risks. EpiPen

In a public statement, Mylan stated that “this recall is being conducted as a result of the receipt of two previously disclosed reports outside of the U.S. of failure to activate the device due to a potential defect in a supplier component.”

Mylan’s EpiPen, expanded its recall of the popular auto-Injectors to the U.S. In the recall announcement, Mylan made it clear that they would be readily available to replace the recalled devices. 

Epipen
Patients, customers and distributors are being notified and should refer to Mylan.com/EpiPenRecall for updates on product return and replacement instructions.

Further, the pharma giant stated that “there will be no additional replacement-related financial burden to them as a result of this recall.” 

Patients with the recalled auto-injectors could face serious consequences from anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction to things like insect bites, food, and medication. 

The recalled product was manufactured by Pfizer’s Meridian Medical Technologies and was distributed between December 2015 and July 2016 by Mylan Specialty.

If you or your loved one have been put at risk by the EpiPen or any other Mylan product, contact the legal professionals at Medical Claim Legal.

Chantix

Violations during Chantix Trial Lead to FDA Warning Letter

Physician faces FDA Warning after ignoring protocol during a clinical trial.

A Chantix trial has ruffled the feathers of the FDA. Dr. Cassandra Curtis, an Indianapolis-based physician received an FDA warning letter after failing to follow drug protocol at her clinic.Chantix

The approved plan for Chantixa smoking cessation drug, required that patients participating in a trial meet certain guidelines. The FDA accused the doctor several violations including keeping “inadequate records” of the amount of the drug being distributed.

Guidelines insisted that patients enrolled in the trial must “smoked an average of at least 10 cigarettes a day during the past year.” 3 of the patients did not meet this requirement.

Dr. Curtis also included a patient in the study with a pre-existing condition which should have disqualified them. One chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient was enrolled.

Other accusations in the warning letter accused the doctor of failing to maintain adequate patient records, therefore compromising a collection of useful data.

These violations are serious ones as the FDA warning notes that they compromise “safety and welfare.”

Chantix Suicide Risks and Bizarre Behaviors

Chantix and it’s maker Pfizer have already had a share of controversy as the drug has been tied to increased suicide risk. Other bizarre behavior was documented when one user faked his death.

Business Insider documented other specific “changes in behavior” seen amongst Chantix users:

  • In July 2012, a plaintiff named Eric Hall sued Pfizer, claiming Chantix made him rob a toll collector, wreck his car, and land in jail, according to this personal injury blog.
  • In May 2011, MSNBC reported regulators were overlooking serious psychotic reactions to the drug, citing a study by the non-profit Institute for Safe Medication Practices.
  • That study found a 24-year-old woman on the drug started beating her boyfriend because he looked “peaceful,” MSNBC reported.
  • The study also found a 42-year-old man punched a stranger at a bowling alley.
  • In September 2007, The New York Times reported the late indie rocker Carter Albrecht – described by friends as even-tempered – had assaulted his girlfriend while on the drug.
  • And in February 2008, New York Magazine ran this first-person piece called “This Is My Brain On Chantix,” in which the author claimed the drug spurred “self-destructive fantasies.”

Chantix Legal Representation

Pfizer has fought tooth and nail to remove warnings about the suicide risks. The company has attempted to provide evidence to the FDA, in the form of clinical trials, that demonstrate that there is no connection between the treatment and a suicide risk. However, the money trail has presented a troubling pattern.

After performing a review of Pfizer’s financial disclosures, the FDA found that investigators at 32 sites where the trial was being performed were paid $25,000 or more by the Chantix drugmaker Pfizer.

If you or a loved one used Chantix and experiences adverse effects, you could be entitled to financial compensation. The Medical Claim Legal team could get you the help that you need.

Software

Medical Device Software Vulnerabilities a Huge Concern

Software vulnerabilities of medical devices may be difficult for health sector officials and manufacturers to manage.

As we reported last week, St. Jude implemented software updates that could protect pacemakers and other medical devices from being compromised by hackers. Oxycontin

Unfortunately, new information suggested that the public is not completely in the clear.

“Software is never perfect and all systems still will have these flaws,” says Joshua Corman, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council and an expert on medical device security. “The question is how gracefully and collaboratively and quickly and safely can we respond to these flaws.”

In late 2016, there were reports that the Merlin@home transmitter used in monitoring certain St. Jude Medical implant devices could be hacked. These hacks could lead to deadly consequences for  the patient.

MedSec, a cybersecurity firm,  initially found the problems in the St. Jude devices. After which they “tipped off”- the activist investment firm Muddy Waters, which publicized the flaws and advised clients to bet against the health care firm’s stock.

Ever since the US government and St. Jude confirmed the one flaw, the VA has been “taking steps to be sure all our patients and providers are aware of this issue and take appropriate actions to be sure that all our patients get the update for their monitor,” said Merritt Raitt, acting director of the VA National Cardiac Device Surveillance Program.

Coca-cola

Consumer Group Suing Coca-Cola Due to Sugary Soda Risks

Lawsuit claims Coca-Cola misled consumers on sugary soda health risks.

The consumer-advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) asserts that Coca-Cola has misled consumers about the health risks of sugary drinks such as soda. Coca-Cola

In 2015, it was revealed that the corporate giant had heavily funded and been involved in the operation of the research group Global Energy Balance Network. Coca-Cola aimed to help establish the group as a “reputable scientific source to counter “public health extremists.” The company has starkly tried to avoid claims that their products are unhealthy.

It is based on these findings that the lawsuit claims that, “for years, [the] defendants have engaged in a pattern of deception to mislead and confuse the public (and governmental entities that bear responsibility for the public health) about the scientific consensus that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”

The industry group, American Beverage Association (ABA) is the co-defendant in the lawsuit. The ABA continues to argue that obesity is a “complex condition.” Further asserting that as obesity and diabetes rates continue to rise, that soda consumption is dropping.

CSPI wants the ABA and Coca-Cola to make some changes. They want marketing to disclose the health risks of sugary drinks, while stopping ads directed at children. They also want the groups to disclose file “indicating the potential health implications.” Plus, the CSPI would like for Coca-Cola and the ABA to fund a public health campaign.

The ABA said in a statement that “America’s beverage companies know we have an important role to play in addressing our nation’s health challenges. That’s why we’re engaging with health groups and community organizations to drive a reduction in the sugar and calories Americans get from beverages.”

Coca-Cola has called the suit “legally and factually meritless.”

Infuse bone graft

Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit Gets New Life

A lawsuit accusing Medtronics of covering up negative side effects of its Infuse bone graft has been revived by an appeals court.

A lawsuit accusing Medtronic of misleading shareholders by concealing the adverse effects of its Infuse bone graft, has been revived by the The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Infuse bone graft has been used in more than 1 million surgeries. In 2002, the FDA approved the Infuse bone graft for use in specific types of spinal fusion surgeries. The Infuse bone grafts variety are “synthetic, concentrated proteins…mixed with collagen from cows and injected into the spine to alleviate pain.”

The Spine Journal found, in 2011, that the risks of the product had been understated by medical professionals.

In 2012, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee stated that Medtronic, Inc., the manufacturer of the Infuse bone graft, had paid doctors hundreds of millions of dollars to write favorable articles and manipulate studies on the popular product.

In 2013, Medtronic shareholders sued the company claiming that the company’s stock had been inflated due to these unethical activities. As the truth about the product emerged, they have alleged hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

In 2014, Medtronic agreed to settle its Infuse bone graft lawsuit for $22 million that involves 950 people. Around 2,300 surgeons had used Medtronic products in the US prior to any serious side effects being reported.

An earlier decision in the case judged that shareholders had waited too long before seeking legal action. As 2016 came to a close an appeals court found that the case could still be brought forward.

The case will now be returned to the lower court for further proceedings.

Powdered medical gloves

Powdered Medical Gloves Banned By the FDA

The use of most powdered medical gloves has been banned by the FDA.

For only the second time in history the FDA has banned a medical device. Powdered medical gloves seem to pose adverse risks.Powdered medical gloves

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found that powdered medical gloves (powdered surgeon’s gloves, powdered patient examination gloves, and absorbable powder for lubricating a surgeon’s glove) “present an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.” This has led to a new rule banning these products from use, effective January 18, 2017.

One group has called the ban “18 years too late.” Nearly 20 years ago, in 1998, the advocacy group Public Citizen, filed the first of several citizen’s petition calling on FDA to ban powdered gloves.

After the ban was proposed by the FDA, Public Citizen responded saying that “when a medical product, drug or, in this case device, has unique serious risks but no unique benefit, it should be banned. The FDA’s statement that “we … only take this action when we feel it’s necessary to protect the public health” ignores overwhelming evidence going back almost two decades about the necessity to do so.”

Back in March of 2016, the FDA had prosed the powdered medical gloves citing evidence that they were a  danger to  patients, risks included airway and wound inflammation, post-surgical adhesions and allergic reactions.

Powdered gloves aim to make the removal of gloves easier for medical professionals. So, the FDA had to determine whether the ease of use outweighed the risks.

The rules not that powder is fine when used in the manufacturing process, but should not be a part of the finished product. The rule from the FDA “encourages manufacturers to ensure finished non-powdered gloves have as little powder as possible.”

 

If you believe that you or a loved one might have suffered from the medical use of powdered gloves, let the Medical Claim Legal Team help.

Johnson & Johnson Faces More Legal Trouble Over Hip Products

Johnson and Johnson is facing more legal trouble related to their hip products.

There are currently more than 8,000 suits for the DePuy Orthopaedics products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.

In the past, the company has lost one trial involving the device and won another where the courts ruled in the manufacturer’s favor.

In the new case, the victim claims to have “suffered substantial injuries and damages” from the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary manufactured hip implant.

This comes less than a month after a federal jury in Dallas ordered Johnson & Johnson and its DePuy Orthopaedics unit to pay more than $1 billion to plaintiffs who claimed they were injured by Pinnacle hip implants.

The Indiana man filed the lawsuit in Middlesex County Superior Court on Dec. 9, the new suit alleges that the metal-on-metal version of the product is defective. As a result of defects,  metal particles move into a recipient’s bloodstream and tissue after wear and tear.

If you have suffered pain or suffering due a faulty Johnson & Johnson hip replacement product, you could be entitled to compensation.

Adverse event

FDA Complaints Just Got Transparent: Adverse Event Now Public

Data from the Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System can be useful in litigation and beyond.

Thanks to a new service, consumers might be little bit safer. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that the Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) database will be made public. The CAERS is a database that includes reports about harm and product complaints submitted to the FDA.

The new database can be accessed by consumers, researchers, industry pros and attorneys. The boon helps individuals learn more about products and their potential or previous harm to individuals.

Perhaps more importantly, industry professionals now have access to data with transparency.  The co-founder of Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, a group that monitors concerns about food safety, Michael Jacobson sees this as a victory.

“If somebody, like a poison-control center, has concerns, they can go and see if there happen to be some reports,” Jacobson said told Bloomberg.

Lawyers and companies, will find this information particularly useful. Some of the information can help with litigation. The information will certainly be mined by parties who could use reports to file lawsuits against manufacturers or retailers.

The CAERS  data will help the FDA and other experts monitor and study trends in “adverse event reports” that could signal a genuine safety issue with a product.

FDA provides raw data extracted from the CAERS database. The files include data from January 2004 through March 2016, including:

  • demographic and administrative information and the CAERS report ID number;
  • product information from the case reports;
  • symptom information from the reports;
  • patient outcome information from the reports.

For  those who may have experienced any type of adverse effects from food, drugs, or cosmetics, further evidence to support your claim might be available for you through the CAERS data.

See if the Medical Claim Legal team can help you along the way.

Actos Lawsuit Continues To Lumber On…

Much has been written and analyzed about the issues surround Actos (Pioglitazone), the drug released in 1999 by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which was supposed to help control blood sugar levels in Type 2 diabetes cases.  As we have discussed previously, many people using Actos developed bladder cancer among other health complications.   Since first being announced, plaintiffs have filed Actos lawsuit claims alleging a link between Actos and bladder cancer. Plaintiffs claim they were impacted by the medication and weren’t alerted to the risks.

Actos Lawsuit Claims Continue
Actos Lawsuit Claims Continue

As noted consistently, studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the risk of bladder cancer linked to the use of Actos. The Journal of the American Medical Association found there was no significantly increased risk of cancer in patients who took Actos, but researchers said they could not exclude a small increased risk. The British Medical Journal earlier this year had Actos linked to a 63 percent increased risk of bladder cancer.

Obviously the pharmaceutical giant Takeda has taken action and settled actos lawsuit claims filed by plaintiffs. Additionally, some lawsuits went to court, with juries awarding millions of dollars in damages.

If you or a loved one has taken Actos, you could be at risk for health complications including dangerous and sometimes deadly bladder cancer.  You could be entitled to compensation and should consider joining the Actos lawsuit.

Why Medical Claim Legal is Right for Your Case

Medical Claim Legal can give you the access to a vast network of lawyers who are trained and versed in Actos lawsuits.  Their knowledge and history in the court room will increase the likelihood that you will  get the settlement you are entitled to.  Using our free referral process,  you will take the first step towards your claim.  No payment needed, just the courage to take the first step.