Court dockets across the country continue to show that Actos bladder cancer lawsuits are continuing to be filed by patients who took the popular diabetes drug and now are claiming serious health problems as a result of that usage.
There have been so many of these Actos bladder cancer lawsuits filed that the federal court system has been forced to create what is called a multidistrict litigation in which a federal judge in Louisiana has been designated to preside over and coordinate pre-trial legal filings and evidence-gathering.
Hundreds of these lawsuits have been brought under this jurisdiction as the judge oversees possible settlement talks, test trials and whether the litigation will be consolidated into a national class-action case.
The claims made about dangerous Actos (pioglitazone) side effects raise serious questions about the safety of a medication that already has been pulled from the pharmacy shelves in France and Germany over concerns about links to bladder cancer.
The findings from one medical research study of nearly 200,000 patients found that patients who used the medication for over a year were at 40 percent higher risk of developing bladder cancer than patients who didn’t take the medication.
The Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged heightened concerns about the safety of Actos and regulators announced in 2011 that the warning labels on the medication were being changed to inform patients about these increased health risks. To read more on Actos Click Here.
In a related legal action, a federal judge has dismissed a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a former executive of Actos manufacturer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, in which the former executive claimed that Takeda understated the dangerous side effects of Actos and attempted to shield adverse reports about the medication from the FDA.
The judge ruled that the concerns raised by Dr. Helen Ge should have been filed with the FDA rather than through what is called a false claims lawsuit in the federal court system.
In her lawsuits, Dr. Ge claimed that Takeda “intentionally misrepresented and altered the descriptions of adverse events in reports” about Actos submitted to the FDA, labeling the side effects as “non-serious.”
Dr. Ge certainly had intimate knowledge of the inner workings at Takeda because she worked for two years as a drug safety consultant and took part in reviewing adverse effects from the use of Actos.
“These events were not properly identified or reported in the FDA’s safety data base,” Ge claimed in the suit. “Takeda’s motivation to fraudulently report and under-report the serious adverse events was driven by an economic desire to falsely enhance Actos’s safety profile and to increase sales.”
Her claims are mirrored in the allegations contained in Actos bladder cancer lawsuits, in which lawyers for victims of bladder cancer claim that the company was putting profits ahead of consumer safety.