XARELTO RECENT LABEL CHANGE: Is Rat Poison Safer?

A WHITE PAPER REPORT BY MASS TORT NEXUS

(The following information and conclusions are based on opinions formed after a review of relevant facts and data by John Ray and edited by Lisa Powell, Mass Tort Nexus www.masstortnexus.com)

XARELTO LABEL CHANGE AND CLINICAL TRIAL BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2018, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a division of Johnson & Johnson) changed its Xarelto® drug safety label as follows:

Monitoring for the anticoagulation effect of rivaroxaban using a clotting test (PT, INR or aPTT) for anti-factor XA (FXa) activity is not recommended.

Rivaroxaban is an anticoagulant medication. Anticoagulants thin blood. Rivaroxaban is sold under its trade name, Xarelto®. Xarelto® is used to prevent and/or treat blood clots that could result in strokes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, in patients undergoing knee and hip reconstruction or replacement surgery, and for secondary prevention in patients who have had an Acute coronary syndrome event.

Prior to FDA approval in 2011, clinical trials were conducted to test the safety and efficacy of Xarelto® and to compare it to other anticoagulants. Trial administrators measured both the medication’s effectiveness in thinning the blood and how long it took to be within the therapeutic range. A blood test is used to measure the international randomized ratio (INR). The INR was used to determine the appropriate dose and dosage (i.e., amount and rate of administration) specific to each patient; or, in this case, each trial participant.

The safety label update made last week by the drug maker, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a division of Johnson & Johnson) in effect states that the INR test used to gain FDA approval—and that doctors continue to use to dose and monitor the effects of Xarelto® in their patients—is arguably defective. Not only would this render the clinical trial results invalid but also bolster plaintiffs’ new and existing claims that the drug maker(s) failed to adequately inform doctors that there was no means by which to determine the correct dose and dosage for any given patient. Essentially a doctor would have to wait until the patient bleeds out or throws a clot before determining that the patient may not be on the right dose and/or dosage. In other words, the INR test likely has no diagnostic value and is no more effective than a shot in the dark.

Summary of Facts and Subsequent Findings

  • On October 11, 2018, the Xarelto® drug safety label was changed to “not” recommend INR testing to monitor the effects Xarelto® on patients
  • INR testing was used in clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of Xarelto® and to compare it to other anticoagulants prior to FDA approval and market release in 2011
  • Title 21 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation requires that drug labels include a summary of essential scientific information including a statement of the recommended or usual dosage
  • Results from Xarelto® clinical trials using INR testing are at best, questionable, and at worst, invalid
  • A change to the Xarelto® drug safety label likely indicates that the drug makers failed to adequately warn that there was no means by which to determine correct dosage for any given patient
  • A pharmaceutical product for which correct dose and dosage cannot be established for a given patient is arguably defective in a significant way
  • Physicians that rely on INR testing without knowing that it may render inaccurate results could lead them to incorrectly dose Xarelto® potentially causing significant harm to their patients

Methodology Flaws in the Xarelto Clinical Trials

INR testing was used in the original Xarelto® clinical trials known as the ROCKET-AF and EINSTEIN DVT/PE trials. These trials were paid for by the drug makers—Bayer Healthcare and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a division of Johnson & Johnson). These trials were conducted to establish the safety and efficacy of Xarelto® and to compare it to other anticoagulants.

The following is an excerpt from the EINSTEIN DVT/PE clinical trial results:

EINSTEIN DVT/PE trial design: Randomized, phase 3, multicenter, open-label, parallel group,

active-controlled, event-driven noninferiority studies (EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE) with patients receiving XARELTO® at an initial dose of 15 mg twice daily with food for the first 3 weeks, followed by XARELTO® 20 mg once daily with food or enoxaparin 1 mg/kg twice daily for at least 5 days with VKA, then VKA only after target INR (2.0-3.0) was reached. Patients were treated for 3, 6, or 12 months at HCP discretion.

In other words, Xarelto® was administered to trial participants and after a target INR was reached, they received a different anticoagulant—a VKA (i.e., vitamin K antagonist).

Given the drug safety update added to the Xarelto® label by Janssen on October 11, 2018:

Monitoring for the anticoagulation effect of rivaroxaban using a clotting test (PT, INR or aPTT) for anti-factor Xa (FXa) activity is not recommended.

Results from Xarelto® clinical trials using INR testing are at best, questionable, and at worst, invalid.

Thank You for Sharing. Not!

In May 2017—17 months before Janssen changed the Xarelto® label—Clinical Therapeutics, an international peer-reviewed journal, published an article entitled, “International Normalized Ratio Is Significantly Elevated with Rivaroxaban and Apixaban Drug Therapies: A Retrospective Study Published.” An excerpt from the article follows (emphasis added):

Purpose

Direct factor Xa inhibitors such as rivaroxaban or apixaban may prolong prothrombin time (PT) and elevate international normalized ratio (INR). However, these tests are not reliable for assessing the anticoagulation effects of these agents. PT assay sensitivity is relatively weak at therapeutic drug concentrations and is subjected to significant variations depending on the reagent used. Conversion of PT to INR may even increase the variability. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study aiming to assess the prevalence and extent of INR elevation in hospitalized patients receiving rivaroxaban or apixaban as part of their home medications and to find out whether other existing factors could elevate INR apart from the drug entity itself. [Emphasis added.]

Methods

The data collected from 218 hospitalized patients׳ charts included PT and INR taken on admission, patients׳ characteristics, laboratory results, other medications regularly used, and coexisting clinical conditions.

Findings

No statistically significant association between INR elevation and the parameters examined was found in our study. INR was significantly elevated in both drug groups (P < 0.001), with 84.2% of rivaroxaban patients and 78.3% of apixaban patients presenting with INR levels above the higher limit of the normal range. Furthermore, INR was significantly higher in the rivaroxaban group than in the apixaban group (P < 0.001).

Implications

Both of the reviewed drugs significantly elevated INR. Moreover, rivaroxaban elevates INR significantly more than apixaban, and there are apparently no other factors affecting INR but the drugs themselves. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm and clarify the clinical significance of these results.

In that the common tests used to determine the correct administration of Xarelto® are not recommended by the drug maker, how are doctors to determine what dose and dosage of Xarelto® is correct vs. what dose and dosage may render a patient over anticoagulated and more likely to experience severe bleeding, or under anticoagulated, leaving patients more likely to suffer the adverse events Xarelto® is intended to treat?

In other words, doctors have relied on—and may continue to rely on—the test that the makers of Xarelto® now say is not recommended to determine the blood-thinning effects of the drug without knowing that these tests were likely rendering inaccurate results which could lead to their treating patients in a manner likely to cause them significant harm.

If the means to determine the correct dosage to administer to a given patient does not exist, the product is arguably defective. In addition, it would be impossible for a drug maker to comply with the requirements of Title 21, as follows:

21 CFR § 201.56 (a)(1): The labeling must contain a summary of the essential scientific information needed for the safe and effective use of the drug.

21 CFR § 201.100(b)(2): Requires labels for prescription drugs bear a statement of the recommended or usual dosage.

Janssen’s Misleading Advertising Campaign

There are three types of anticoagulants used in the United States. Xarelto® is a direct factor Xa inhibitor type. Benefits claimed by its U.S. manufacturer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., include once daily administration of an oral pill, no dietary restrictions, and less testing requirements resulting in fewer blood draws. Warfarin, another type of anticoagulant, is a vitamin K inhibitor.  If a patient’s blood becomes too thin after taking warfarin, vitamin K is administered to reverse its blood-thinning effects (i.e., an antidote or reversal agent). While the INR measurement is an effective test to dose and monitor warfarin in patients, Janssen’s advertising campaign touting less testing requirements for Xarelto® as a benefit is laughable given that the INR test used repeatedly to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Xarelto® “is not recommended.” Until early 2018—approximately seven years after its market release–Xarelto® did not have a reversal agent, and to date, there is not a “recommended” test for doctors to accurately dose and monitor the effects of Xarelto® in their patients.

In 2014, the FDA required Janssen to add new language to its official warnings and precautions including an update to its “black box” because the test equipment used to measure the INR during clinical trials was deemed faulty. The black box is the strongest and most urgent FDA warning added to an official drug label. The update notifies patients and caregivers about certain risks and potentially dangerous side effects from Xarelto®. A year earlier, the FDA cited Johnson & Johnson for its misleading advertising campaign in contradiction to U.S. laws and regulations.

According to Recall Center, a consumer protection organization:

Since the drug’s release, there have been multiple updates to the label warning users of possible risks. In 2013, the FDA issued a determination letter to Johnson & Johnson advising them that their print advertising published in WebMD magazine earlier that year was misleading. They cited the following deficiencies:

  • Effects of the drug to potential patients were downplayed
  • Efficacy claims appeared to be disassociated from the potential risks
  • Assertions that Xarelto has “no dosage adjustments,” which the FDA noted is inaccurate according to the product information’s section on warnings and precautions, as well as its section on dosage and administration.

Because of these allegations, the FDA declared Johnson & Johnson to be in violation of U.S. laws and regulations that oversee drug marketing. [U.S. Food & Drug Administration. “Letter to Roxanne McGregor-Beck, RE: NDA #202439.” (June 6, 2013) FDA.gov. Accessed Oct. 27, 2014]

According to a 2017 PR Newswire press release published by Business Insider (emphasis added):

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bayer Healthcare (OTC: BAYRY) are accused of downplaying the risks of taking Xarelto and aggressively marketing the drug as an alternative for warfarin in patients needing blood thinners to reduce the risk of dangerous clots. The companies positioned the drug as more convenient, calling for a once-a-day dose and eliminating the need for regular monitoring of a patient’s blood. However, the lawsuits charge that doctors and patients were not fully informed of the risks.

While Janssen’s Xarelto® advertising campaign claims:

And with XARELTO® you can

  • Spend your time how you want to spend it, with no regular blood monitoring

MISLEADING. A more accurate statement would arguably be:

Regular blood monitoring would be useless because it will not identify whether a patient is under anti-coagulated [i.e. clotting too much] or over anti-coagulated [i.e., bleeding too much].

  • Enjoy a full variety of healthy foods with no known dietary restrictions

TRUE.

  • Know it’s working, with no frequent dosage adjustments

MISLEADING. A more accurate statement would arguably be:

There is no means by which to determine if a dosage adjustment is needed in that the common tests to make such a determination are inaccurate in patients who have been administered Xarelto®.

It bears repeating:

A pharmaceutical product for which correct dosage cannot be established or determined for any given patient is arguably defective in a significant way.

With Testing, Rat Poison Can Be Correctly Dosed for Benefit

There may be no better example of why correctly dosing an anticoagulant is important than warfarin. Warfarin first came into commercial use as a rat poison in 1948. Correctly dosed, warfarin is an effective anticoagulant for humans; incorrectly dosed, warfarin is poison.

Unlike Xarelto®, INR testing is reliable for dosing warfarin. To optimize the therapeutic effect without risking dangerous side effects such as bleeding, close monitoring of the degree of anticoagulation is required. During the initial stage of treatment, the INR is checked daily. Intervals between tests can be lengthened if the patient manages stable therapeutic INR levels on an unchanged warfarin dose. Newer point-of-care testing is available and has increased the ease of INR testing in the outpatient setting. Instead of a blood draw, the new INR point-of-care test involves a simple finger prick.

Therefore, an anticoagulant that cannot be accurately dosed is arguably not as safe as rat poison.

———-

The foregoing is an observation of statistics and data related to Xarelto®. The conclusions contained herein are based on opinions formed by the author after a review of the relevant data. We acknowledge that others could draw differing conclusions and opinions based on the same observations.

 References:

https://www.clinicaltherapeutics.com/article/S0149-2918(17)30242-4/pdf

https://www.recallcenter.com/xarelto/fda-news/

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/report-more-than-15-000-adverse-events-linked-to-xarelto-in-2016-1002203317

https://www.xareltohcp.com/dvt-pe/clinical-trials

Read More

XARELTO INITIAL ROCKET & EINSTEIN CLINICAL TRIALS NOW SEEN AS FLAWED: ADD THE MAY 2018 FAILURE OF TWO LATEST BAYER/JANSSEN STUDIES = BAD SCIENCE

Xarelto Study Red Flags Ignored: Why were medical research professionals ignored when red flags were raised over the viability of the Xarelto Rocket AF and Einstein DVT study results? Now the clinical trials for both are considered flawed, and the two most recent studies, the “Commander HF” and “Mariner,” failed to produce clear evidence that Xarelto is able to reduce the rate of blood clots in certain high-risk patients or after an acute decline in their condition.

By Mark A. York (October 23, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Xarelto (rivaroxaban) is a prescription blood thinner created by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011. This drug is an anticoagulant for preventing blood from clotting, often used to treat deep vein thrombosis, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other conditions.

More than one study has shown Xarelto can cause a higher rate of internal bleeding, than other anticoagulant drugs and until very recently, there was no available “antidote” for stopping internal bleeding in patients taking Xarelto. With warfarin, vitamin K has been shown to stop bleeding but there is no vitamin K “parallel” for people taking Xarelto. For Xarelto, it can take 24 hours for a dose to get out of the body. That means that if internal bleeding starts, the patient may simply have to wait it out and hope it stops on its own.

What The Medical Studies Say About Xarelto?

The FDA has received thousands of adverse event reports regarding Xarelto and medical studies have examined the safety of this drug:

  • New England Journal of Medicine (2011): Published the ROCKET-AF study, which compared Xarelto to Warfarin in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation. This was the biggest clinical trial of this medication and it compared the effects of Xarelto to the effects of a similar drug known as Warfarin in over 14,000 patients. The study concluded that “there was not significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding.”
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (2012): The study discussed the risk of uncontrollable bleeding outweighing the benefits for several different blood thinners including Xarelto. The researchers in this study found that there was a tripled risk of bleeding among the patients, who were given the drug, and no improvement in overall survival rates.
  • Institute for Safe Medication Practices (2012): Issued a report based on FDA data from the first quarter of 2012. During this period, the FDA received 356 adverse event reports of Xarelto side effects including “serious, disabling, or fatal injury.” Additionally, 158 reports indicated blood clots were the serious side effect.
  • New England Journal of Medicine (2013): Published the results of the ROCKET study, which found that Xarelto may carry an increased risk of bleeding.
  • Medscape (2013): Xarelto is associated with a higher risk of bleeding in certain patients. It caused a nearly 3-fold increase of the risk of bleeding in “acutely ill patients” and 4-fold increased risk of major bleeding in patients that had “Acute Coronary Syndrome” (ACS).

Drug Makers Failed To Disclose Faulty Device In Xarelto Trials

 Rivaroxaban and the ROCKET AF trial issue chronicles: A closer look at benefit risk profile of the drug.

  • BMJ2016354 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5131 (Published 28 September 2016)Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i5131
  • Study Analysis: There has been a lot of hue and cry over the recent question raised about the ROCKET AF[1] trial for rivaroxaban which was the only trial used by the company for drug approval from USFDA. This is indeed a very important concern as it directly impacts the well-being of the patients who are at the receiving end of this very highly prescribed anticoagulant drug in 2014.[2] The main concern with this whole confusion surrounding the ROCKET AF trial is that the device used for measuring the INR in trial arm of warfarin patient was faulty and gave lower INR values than it should have, leading to over dosing of warfarin and thereby increasing bleeding problems with the same, compared to the trial arm of rivaroxaban. However, there has been a reanalysis done by the ROCKET AF researchers, which again reinforced the prior result database of the trial and which was accepted by FDA as well[3]. In the reanalysis, the US FDA clearly mentioned that the effect of the faulty device results in causing bleeding episodes, both minor and major, was minimal.[4]
  • However, following this reanalysis, not everyone who raised the question in the first place was convinced and there was a demand that the data of the complete ROCKET AF trial should be made public for everyone to assess and understand the risks. But since the trial was done and results released before the principles on responsible clinical trial data sharing came into effect, the parent pharmaceutical company for rivaroxaban refused to share the patient level details, citing concerns on privacy and transparency policy [5].
  • In spite of everything said and written for and against this issue, a simple question arises, regarding the amount of belief, honesty and hard work that goes without questioning when you bring a new chemical entity to the research stage, get it approved and then bring it to market. For this to happen, there have to be maintained a very fine balance between pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities and marketing people. In this case, after initial suspicions, the drug regulatory authorities have cleared and supported the approval of rivaroxaban after reanalysis and that should have a say, in case we want to continue trust with this process of drug entry into the market.
  • Rivaroxaban has shown its efficacy and safety both in patients who required adequate anticoagulation e.g. those who had atrial fibrillation and underwent cardioversion. There are few other trials where rivaroxaban has performed better or equally good than warfarin in terms of both efficacy and safety [6]. These results lead us to believe that all was not wrong with the ROCKET AF trial results. All these, combined with personal experiences of those physicians who had been using the drug rivaroxaban for the last couple of years with a hugely favorable result clearly imply that the drug rivaroxaban is holding its side strongly in the midst of all the controversies surrounding its approval and efficacy and it is here to stay. Adding a last word to all this discussion is that rivaroxaban will always hold an upper hand compared to warfarin when prescribed because of its very favorable and easy to use once daily dosing. We cannot discard all the positive reports and positive experiences associated with this drug, based on real time data, only because of the question raised by some, and considering the fact that the question had been satisficatorily answered with a re analysis with no change in the result.

What Did Or Didn’t The FDA Do About Xarelto?

  • In July, 2011, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved the medicine for sale on the market for a limited group of people. This included people who had knee or hip replacement surgery because they were considered to be at a higher risk of blood clotting. Read the FDA News Release here.
  • In November, 2011, Xarelto was approved for a larger group of people, including people with an abnormal heart rhythm, and was used to prevent stroke. Read further.
  • In June, 2012, an FDA advisory panel voted against approving this medicine for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome.
  • In November, 2012, Xarelto was later approved for general treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after a fast track regulatory review by the FDA. Read more.
  • October 22, 2014, the FDA issued a recall for approximately 13,500 bottles of Xarelto after receiving a customer complaint about contamination in a sales sample.
  • January 12, 2015 – An antidote may have been discovered by Portola Pharmaceuticals for Xarelto. A late-stage clinical trial of the intravenous medication, andexanet alfa, met its goal of “immediately and significantly” reversing Xarelto.

The approval history for Xarelto was actually pretty controversial. FDA reviewers originally said that they recommended against approval, then there was an FDA advisory committee (independent group of key opinion leaders) and they voted in favor, so the FDA approved the drug. Their concern was with how the Phase III trials were run and whether Xarelto had really proved its efficacy. The tests compared patients on warfarin to patients on Xarelto, but the patients on the warfarin run had poor TTR. That means the patients weren’t well controlled on warfarin to begin with, which skews the data in favor of Xarelto.

During the approval process, Xarelto actually wanted a superiority label, which would say that the drug was better than warfarin and other blood thinners. Because of the concerns with the Phase III data, the FDA only gave them a non-inferior label, which says they’re essentially the same in terms of effectiveness.

The INRatio device was the subject of two FDA warning letters about inaccurate readings just as the trial was starting in 2005 and 2006. In 2014, the device was recalled. The use of the INRatio device may have skewed the results with inaccurate readings, making Xarelto look better in comparison with warfarin.

In a 2017 annual report issued by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), it was stated that oral anticoagulant drugs, including Xarelto (rivaroxaban), showed “unacceptably high risks,” according to two government data sources, the FAERS adverse events reports for 2016 and a new systematic study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Overall, the CDC found in its systematic study that the FDA’s FAERS voluntary reporting underestimates anticoagulant drug-related injuries. The CDC discovered that approximately 228,600 emergency department visits occur each year due to the use of blood thinner drugs, including Xarelto, which is 10 times more than the FAERS total number of voluntary reports.

Xarelto Clinical Trial Red Flags

Controversy Surrounding ROCKET-AF: A Call for Transparency, But Should We Be Changing Practice?

Jason D Matos1 and Peter J Zimetbaum1,,2

Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2016 May; 5(1): 12–13.

doi:  [10.15420/aer.2016.24.2]

Prior to the emergence of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACS), nearly all patients were prescribed vitamin K antagonists for thromboembolic prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Johnson & Johnson), an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is now one of the most frequently prescribed NOACs used for this indication.1,2

ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation), published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2011, demonstrated the non-inferiority of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the primary prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. This double-blinded randomised trial, which included 14,264 patients across 45 countries, also showed no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding between these two groups.3

Rivaroxaban use in AF has become widespread since the publication of this trial and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Two additional Factor Xa inhibitors, apixaban and edoxaban, have also been evaluated in similar randomised trials and have demonstrated non-inferiority to warfarin for stroke or systemic embolism prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular AF with no significant difference in major bleeding.4,5

In recent months, the results of ROCKET-AF have come into question after the FDA issued a recall notice for the device used to obtain International Normalised Ratio (INR) measurements in the warfarin control group. The FDA found that lower INR values were seen with the ‘point-of-care’ INRatio Monitor System (Alere) compared with a plasma-based laboratory in patients with certain medical conditions.2 These conditions included abnormal haemoglobin levels, abnormal bleeding and abnormal fibrinogen levels.6Since the FDA recall of this device, there has been widespread concern that falsely low INR readings in ROCKET-AF may have led to warfarin overdosing. Inappropriately high warfarin dosing could have increased bleeding rates in the control group and therefore made the rivaroxaban arm appear falsely favourable.7 This point-of-care device recall also highlighted a lack of transparency of the specifics of devices used in large clinical trials.

In response, the authors from ROCKET-AF released a correspondence in February 2016, citing the FDA recall. They also provided a post hoc analysis of patients who may have been affected by the recall. They found that major bleeding was greater in patients with conditions affected by the recall, but, reassuringly, the bleeding risk was greater in those who were on rivaroxaban and not warfarin.6

Despite this post hoc analysis, concern has arisen regarding the generalisability of ROCKET-AF given the faulty point-of-care INR readings. There has been a call for complete transparency of the data from this trial and a better explanation of the mechanism of the incorrect INR measurements.7

Once published, the data supporting an FDA-approved treatment should be available for independent analysis. One issue is that rivaroxaban was approved in the US prior to 1 January 2014, before a new transparency policy on clinical trial data sharing was approved by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).2 Drug companies are refusing to share any data on pharmaceuticals approved before 2014.

A device malfunction in a large clinical trial also should raise concern, especially when that trial has altered clinical practice for millions of patients. On review of Patel et al’s correspondence regarding the point-of-care malfunction, there is inadequate explanation of the mechanism of these faulty readings. Why are they only seen only in patients with abnormal haemoglobin and fibrinogen levels? How inaccurate could the readings be – within 0.1 or 1.0 of a gold standard value? Most alarming is the revelation that the manufacturer had evidence of faulty readings in similar models dating back to 2002.2

Despite legitimate concerns regarding the absence of data transparency and the faulty point-of-care device, rivaroxaban need not be removed from clinical practice for AF patients. In ROCKET-AF, the drug demonstrated non-inferiority to warfarin in preventing thromboembolic events. In addition, data has shown that patients potentially affected by the faulty point-of-care device actually bled more on rivaroxaban than warfarin.6 Therefore, the original risk–benefit ratio presented in ROCKET-AF remains true.

There are other, albeit smaller, randomised trials with shorter follow-up times that compare rivaroxaban and warfarin for thromboembolic prophylaxis.8,9 For example, Cappato et al in 2014, randomised 1,504 patients to show that oral rivaroxaban was non-inferior to warfarin in preventing a composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischaemic attack, peripheral embolism, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death in patients with AF undergoing cardioversion. Major bleeding rates in the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms were similar (0.6 % versus 0.8 % respectively).8

The prospective observational trial XANTUS (Xarelto for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) followed 6.784 patients on rivaroxaban for AF during a mean time of 329 days at 311 different hospitals. Major bleeding occurred in 128 patients (2.1 events/100 patient years) and 43 patients (0.7 events/100 patient years) suffered a stroke. These numbers are more reassuring than those seen in ROCKET-AF, though the patient population had a lower risk profile, with an average CHADS2 score of 2.0 compared with 3.5 in ROCKET-AF.10

To further mitigate concern regarding inaccuracies of bleeding rates in the ROCKET-AF control group, it is helpful to compare bleeding rates in the warfarin arms of the other major NOAC trials. The RE-LY (Randomised Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial, had a warfarin-arm major bleeding rate of 3.4%/year.11 The ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial, had a warfarin-arm major bleeding rate of 3.1%/year.4 The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, had a warfarin-arm major bleeding rate of 3.4 %/year.5The warfarin arm of ROCKET-AF had a 3.4 %/year major bleeding rate, comparable to the other studies. Furthermore, the ROCKET-AF patients are known to be at higher risk for stroke and bleeding; their average CHADS2 score was highest among these studies (3.5 compared with 2.1–2.8).3 In addition, ROCKET-AF had a very high percentage of patients with a HAS-BLED score ≥3 (62 %) compared with the other studies (23 % in ARISTOTLE and 51 % in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48).1214

Several large randomised trials have compared the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for venous thromboembolic disease. The warfarin arm of the EINSTEIN-PE trial (Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibitor Rivaroxaban in Patients with Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism), which randomised patients with pulmonary embolism to warfarin or rivaroxaban, had a major bleeding rate of 2.2 %. The bleeding rate was lower in the rivaroxaban arm (1.1 %) and notably patients received a higher loading dose of rivaroxaban for the first 3 weeks (15 mg twice daily) compared with the daily 20 mg daily in ROCKET-AF.15

The recent uncertainties surrounding ROCKET-AF demonstrate the need for widespread data transparency for major trials with the capability of so greatly affecting patients’ lives. These are complicated issues both for the companies’ manufacturing products and the clinical trial organisations who carry out these studies and analyse the data. Ultimately the goal of full transparency to allow increased confidence in trial results should be sought. In this instance there is no compelling evidence of imminent danger of excessive bleeding with rivaroxaban. We should take notice of the recent findings, but there is no need to change practice.

What Are Xarelto Side Effects?

The most dangerous Xarelto side effect is uncontrollable bleeding. Blood thinning drugs have also been associated with bleeding complications. Other side effects include:

  • Blood clots
  • Gastrointestinal bleeding
  • Spinal bleeding
  • Intracranial bleeding
  • Epidural bleeding
  • Cerebral bleeding
  • Stroke
  • Difficulty breathing

For Information on Xarelto and other mass torts see:

Michael Brady Lunch will speak on the Xarelto litigation as well as the status of Pradaxa litigation and related issues at the upcoming Mass Tort Nexus “CLE Immersion Course”

November 9 -12, 2018 at The Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale , FL.

For class attendance information please contact Jenny Levine at 954.520.4494 or Jenny@masstortnexus.com.

  • For the most up to date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit  masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.
  • To obtain our free newsletters that contain real time mass tort updates, visit masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.
  • WWW.MASSTORTNEXUS.COM

REFERNCES CITED IN STUDIES SHOWN ABOVE

 Rivaroxaban and the ROCKET AF trial issue chronicles: A closer look at benefit risk profile of the drug. References:
BMJ 2016354 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5131 (Published 28 September 2016)Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i5131
  1. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:883-891. Article
    2. Top 50 pharmaceutical products by global sales. PMLiVE, Available here.
    3. FDA analyses conclude that Xarelto clinical trial results were not affected by faulty monitoring device.https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm524678.htm
    4. ROCKET AF Reanalysis Reviews.http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/202439Orig1s000Ro…
    5. Joint EFPIA-PhRMA Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing Become Effective.http://www.efpia.eu/mediaroom/132/43/Joint-EFPIA-PhRMA-Principles-for-Re…
    6. Cappato R, Ezekowitz MD, Klein AL, et al. Rivaroxaban vs vitamin K antagonists for cardioversion in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2014; 35:3346-3355.

_________________________________________________________

Controversy Surrounding ROCKET-AF: A Call for Transparency, But Should We Be Changing Practice? References
Jason D Matos1 and Peter J Zimetbaum1,,2 Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2016 May; 5(1): 12–13.; doi:  [10.15420/aer.2016.24.2]
  1. Kubitza D, Becka M, Wensing G, et al. Safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of BAY 59-7939 – an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor – after multiple dosing in healthy male subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;61:873–80. PMID: 16328318. [PubMed]
  2. Cohen D. Rivaroxaban: can we trust the evidence? BMJ. 2016;352:i575. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i575; PMID: 26843102. [PubMed]
  3. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883–91. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638; PMID: 21830957. [PubMed]
  4. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–92. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039; PMID: 21870978.[PubMed]
  5. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093–104. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907; PMID: 24251359. [PubMed]
  6. Patel MR, Hellkamp AS, Fox KA, et al. Point-of-care warfarin monitoring in the ROCKET AF Trial. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:785–8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1515842; PMID: 26839968. [PubMed]
  7. Mandrola J. Rivaroxaban: It’s not time to cut the rope, yet. Medscape. 9 February 2016. Available at: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/858648. (accessed 6 May 2016.
  8. Cappato R, Ezekowitz MD, Klein AL, et al. Rivaroxaban vs. vitamin K antagonists for cardioversion in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:3346–55. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu367; PMID: 25182247.[PubMed]
  9. Cappato R, Marchlinski FE, Hohnloser SH, et al. Uninterrupted rivaroxaban vs. uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists for catheter ablation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1805–11. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv177; PMID: 25975659. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Camm AJ, Amarenco P, Haas S, et al. XANTUS: a real-world, prospective, observational study of patients treated with rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1145–53.DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv466; PMID: 26330425. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139–51. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561; PMID: 19717844.[PubMed]
  12. Sherwood MW, Nessel CC, Hellkamp AS, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated With rivaroxaban or warfarin: ROCKET AF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2271–81.DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.024; PMID: 26610874. [PubMed]
  13. Lopes RD, Al-Khatib SM, Wallentin L, et al. Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin according to patient risk of stroke and of bleeding in atrial fibrillation: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380:1749–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60986-6; PMID: 23036896. [PubMed]
  14. Eisen A, Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, et al. Edoxaban vs warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the US Food and Drug Administration approval population: An analysis from the Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48 (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) trial. Am Heart J. 2016;172:144–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.11.004; PMID: 26856226. [PubMed]
  15. EINSTEIN-PE Investigators, Buller HR, Prins MH, et al. Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1287–97. DOI: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1113572. PMID: 22449293. [PubMed]

 

 

 

 

Read More

Why Isn’t Medical Cannabis Used to Treat Opioid and Substance Abuse Disorders More Often? 

Will Medical Marijuana Become A Viable Addiction Treatment Option?

By Mark A. York (September 28, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) More and more medical treatment professionals, politicians and others have joined in the quickly emerging role of medical marijuana to help in treatment by patients struggling with opioid addiction. Now, two studies are reflecting this emerging treatment to be viable.

Will medical marijuana become a viable option in the long term treatment programs that may be coming out of the Opiate Prescription Litigation MDL 2804 and the many state court opioid based lawsuits filed across the country? See Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase Re: National-Prescription-Litigation-MDL-2804-USDC-ND-Ohio, where the various opioid litigation dockets and court rulings are provided.

Recent studies, published journal JAMA Internal Medicine, compared opioid prescription patterns in states that have enacted medical cannabis laws with those that have not. One of the studies looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicare Part D between 2010 and 2015, while the other looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicaid between 2011 and 2016.

Additionally, three states have approved Medical Cannabis for alternative treatments related to both pain management and substance abuse disorders, where cannabis has been determined as an appropriate treatment. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois are at the forefront of using changes to state laws regarding medical cannabis in the most effective clinical settings when possible.

PENNSYLVANIA CANNABIS BASED OPIOID ADDICTION TREATMENT

The Pennsylvania Department of Health approved major changes to the state’s medical marijuana program, when the  health department added opioid addiction to the list of conditions eligible for treatment with medicinal cannabis. With that decision, Pennsylvania joins New Jersey and Illinois as the only states that have done so.

Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine told local media that marijuana won’t be the first treatment for addiction to opioids. Instead, doctors will try more traditional therapies first.

“It’s important to note that medical marijuana is not a substitute for proven treatments for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Levine said. “In Pennsylvania, medical marijuana will be available to patients if all other treatment fails, or if a physician recommends that it be used in conjunction with traditional therapies.”

A related positive note by Pennsylvania is the Department of Health has approved cannabis research licenses for five Philadelphia area medical schools on Monday. With one topic of research at the institutions being the potential role of cannabis in addiction treatment as a normal treatment protocol.

The schools that received approval to study cannabis are Drexel University College of Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine.

JAMA STUDY RESULTS

The researchers found that states that allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes had 2.21 million fewer daily doses of opioids prescribed per year under Medicare Part D, compared with those states without medical cannabis laws. Opioid prescriptions under Medicaid also dropped by 5.88% in states with medical cannabis laws compared with states without such laws, according to the studies.

“This study adds one more brick in the wall in the argument that cannabis clearly has medical applications,” said David Bradford, professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia and a lead author of the Medicare study.

“And for pain patients in particular, our work adds to the argument that cannabis can be effective.”

Medicare Part D, the optional prescription drug benefit plan for those enrolled in Medicare, covers more than 42 million Americans, including those 65 or older. Medicaid provides health coverage to more than 73 million low-income individuals in the US, according to the program’s website.

“Medicare and Medicaid publishes this data, and we’re free to use it, and anyone who’s interested can download the data,” Bradford said. “But that means that we don’t know what’s going on with the privately insured and the uninsured population, and for that, I’m afraid the data sets are proprietary and expensive.”

Republicans Support Legalizing Medical Cannabis

Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences, in a 395-page report, refuted the official US Department of Justice position that cannabis is a “gateway drug” and that using marijuana can lead to opioid addiction and instead found evidence of cannabis having therapeutic and health benefits. Joe Schrank, a social worker who worked at various detox centers and clean houses, is now practicing the report’s findings at High Sobriety treatment center in Los Angeles, where he offers clients medical and therapeutic sessions, and daily doses of marijuana to treat a variety of addictions.

The Opioid Crisis Is Here

The new research comes as the United States remains entangled in the worst opioid epidemic the world has ever seen. Opioid overdose has risen dramatically over the past 15 years and has been implicated in over 500,000 deaths since 2000 — more than the number of Americans killed in World War II.

“As somebody who treats patients with opioid use disorders, this crisis is very real. These patients die every day, and it’s quite shocking in many ways,” said Dr. Kevin Hill, an addiction psychiatrist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the new studies.

“We have had overuse of certain prescription opioids over the years, and it’s certainly contributed to the opioid crisis that we’re feeling,” he added. “I don’t think that’s the only reason, but certainly, it was too easy at many points to get prescriptions for opioids.”

Today, more than 90 Americans a day die from opioid overdose, resulting in more than 42,000 deaths per year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid overdose recently overtook vehicular accidents and shooting deaths as the most common cause of accidental death in the United States, the CDC says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctors must lead us out of our opioid abuse epidemic

Like opioids, marijuana has been shown to be effective in treating chronic pain as well as other conditions such as seizures, multiple sclerosis and certain mental disorders, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Research suggests that the cannabinoid and opioid receptor systems rely on common signaling pathways in the brain, including the dopamine reward system that is central to drug tolerance, dependence and addiction.

“All drugs of abuse operate using some shared pathways. For example, cannabinoid receptors and opioid receptors coincidentally happen to be located very close by in many places in the brain,” Hill said. “So it stands to reason that a medication that affects one system might affect the other.”

But unlike opioids, marijuana has little addiction potential, and virtually no deaths from marijuana overdose have been reported in the United States, according to Bradford.

“No one has ever died of cannabis, so it has many safety advantages over opiates,” Bradford said. “And to the extent that we’re trying to manage the opiate crisis, cannabis is a potential tool.”

Comparing states with and without medical marijuana laws

  • Researchers compared prescription patterns in states with and without medical cannabis laws
  • States with medical marijuana had 2.21 million fewer daily doses of opioids prescribed per year
  • Opioid prescriptions under Medicaid dropped by 5.88% in states with medical cannabis laws

In order to evaluate whether medical marijuana could function as an effective and safe alternative to opioids, the two teams of researchers looked at whether opioid prescriptions were lower in states that had active medical cannabis laws and whether those states that enacted these laws during the study period saw reductions in opioid prescriptions.

Both teams, in fact, did find that opioid prescriptions were significantly lower in states that had enacted medical cannabis laws. The team that looked at Medicaid patients also found that the four states that switched from medical use only to recreational use — Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington — saw further reductions in opioid prescriptions, according to Hefei Wen, assistant professor of health management and policy at the University of Kentucky and a lead author on the Medicaid study.

“We saw a 9% or 10% reduction (in opioid prescriptions) in Colorado and Oregon,” Wen said. “And in Alaska and Washington, the magnitude was a little bit smaller but still significant.”

Cannabis legalization by the numbers

The first state in the United States to legalize marijuana for medicinal use was California, in 1996. Since then, 29 states and the District of Columbia have approved some form of legalized cannabis. All of these states include chronic pain — either directly or indirectly — in the list of approved medical conditions for marijuana use, according to Bradford.

The details of the medical cannabis laws were found to have a significant impact on opioid prescription patterns, the researchers found. States that permitted recreational use, for example, saw an additional 6.38% reduction in opioid prescriptions under Medicaid compared with those states that permitted marijuana only for medical use, according to Wen.

The method of procurement also had a significant impact on opioid prescription patterns. States that permitted medical dispensaries — regulated shops that people can visit to purchase cannabis products — had 3.742 million fewer opioid prescriptions filled per year under Medicare Part D, while those that allowed only home cultivation had 1.792 million fewer opioid prescriptions per year.

“We found that there was about a 14.5% reduction in any opiate use when dispensaries were turned on — and that was statistically significant — and about a 7% reduction in any opiate use when home cultivation only was turned on,” Bradford said. “So dispensaries are much more powerful in terms of shifting people away from the use of opiates.”

The impact of these laws also differed based on the class of opioid prescribed. Specifically, states with medical cannabis laws saw 20.7% fewer morphine prescriptions and 17.4% fewer hydrocodone prescriptions compared with states that did not have these laws, according to Bradford.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is fentanyl: A visual guide

Fentanyl prescriptions under Medicare Part D also dropped by 8.5% in states that had enacted medical cannabis laws, though the difference was not statistically significant, Bradford said. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, like heroin, that can be prescribed legally by physicians. It is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, and even a small amount can be fatal, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“I know that many people, including the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, are skeptical of cannabis,” Bradford said. “But, you know, the attorney general needs to be terrified of fentanyl.”

MAKING CANNABIS AVAILABLE

This is not the first time researchers have found a link between marijuana legalization and decreased opioid use. A 2014 study showed that states with medical cannabis laws had 24.8% fewer opioid overdose deaths between 1999 and 2010. A study in 2017 also found that the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado in 2012 reversed the state’s upward trend in opioid-related deaths.

“There is a growing body of scientific literature suggesting that legal access to marijuana can reduce the use of opioids as well as opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Melissa Moore, New York deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “In states with medical marijuana laws, we have already seen decreased admissions for opioid-related treatment and dramatically reduced rates of opioid overdoses.”

Sessions: DOJ looking at ‘rational’ marijuana policy

Some skeptics, though, argue that marijuana legalization could actually worsen the opioid epidemic. Another 2017 study, for example, showed a positive association between illicit cannabis use and opioid use disorders in the United States. But there may be an important difference between illicit cannabis use and legalized cannabis use, according to Hill.

“As we have all of these states implementing these policies, it’s imperative that we do more research,” Hill said. “We need to study the effects of these policies, and we really haven’t done it to the degree that we should.”

The two recent studies looked only at patients enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare Part D, meaning the results may not be generalizable to the entire US population.

But both Hill and Moore agree that as more states debate the merits of legalizing marijuana in the coming months and years, more research will be needed to create consistency between cannabis science and cannabis policy.

“There is a great deal of movement in the Northeast, with New Hampshire and New Jersey being well-positioned to legalize adult use,” Moore said. “I believe there are also ballot measures to legalize marijuana in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota as well that voters will decide on in Fall 2018.”

Hill called the new research “a call to action” and added, “we should be studying these policies. But unfortunately, the policies have far outpaced the science at this point.”

There are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved painkillers derived from marijuana, but companies such as Axim Biotechnologies Inc, Nemus Bioscience Inc and Intec Pharma Ltd have drugs in various stages of development.

The companies are targeting the more than 100 million Americans who suffer from chronic pain, and are dependent on opioid painkillers such as Vicodin, or addicted to street opiates including heroin.

Opioid overdoses, which have claimed the lives of celebrities including Prince and Heath Ledger as victims, contributed to more than 33,000 deaths in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To follow mass torts and multi-district litigation sign-up for the  Mass Tort Nexus “Free Newsletters” at www.masstortnexus.com/news

For real time case updates and court records on all mass torts visit the Mass Tort Nexus Professional Site at www.masstortnexus.com

Read More

A New Opiate MDL Was Requested For Benefit of Opioid Addicted Babies On September 20, 2018

THE JPML HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO CONSOLIDATE A NEW ADDICTED INFANT MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

By Mark A. York (September 21, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have the most vunerable plaintiffs in the opiate litigation been underserved by firms primarily focused on representing governmental entities in Opiate MDL 2804 and state court consolidations? What about the epidemic of NAS affected babies who have been born addicted to prescription opiates?

Link to Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase Re: OPIOIDS-Children-Born-Opioid-Dependent-(NAS)-JPML-MDL-(PENDING)

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Lawyers representing addicted infants in the opiate litigation have now filed a Motion for Transfer and Consolidation of Children Born Opioid Dependent with the JPML on September 21, 2018. To read the entire JPML Motion and Brief in Support, see our briefcase Re: masstortnexus.com/News/4335/Motion-for-New-Infant-NAS-Opioid-Dependant-MDL-Filed-With-JPML-September-20-2018.

Plaintiffs lawyers have also filed class actions in nine states on behalf of infants, and other “individuals” affected by opiate use and subsequent addiction, with very limited input into the federal litigation process. On May 21, 2018 a coalition of nine law firms filed court papers asking MDL 2804 Judge Dan Polster (USDC ND Ohio) for permission to request a separate discovery and litigation track for the baby cases, which was summarily denied without comment by the court on June 28, 2018.

Lawyers and public health officials have estimated that there could be more than 1 million babies diagnosed with “neonatal abstinence syndrome,” which occurs when infants are born to mothers who used opioids. There is a request seeking a trust of more than $1 billion to help pay for medical monitoring of the children over the next few decades.

“There has been no large-scale attempt to find out what happens to these children, and there are thousands at this time, perhaps over 1 million, progressing now through the school system and growing up,” said Scott Bickford, a principal at Martzell, Bickford & Centola in New Orleans. “Theoretically, these kids are born addicted and may stay addicts for life.”

Treatment and Prognosis for Opioid Addicted Newborns

The course of treatment will be determined by factors such as:

  • Baby’s gestational age, medical history, and health
  • Severity of the disorder and expectation of the effects it will have
  • Baby’s tolerance of the therapies, procedures, or medications
  • Parents’ preference

Immediate treatment for withdrawal effects focuses on comfort and thriving. Babies suffering from opioid withdrawal often have trouble resting and eating, so treatment involves:

  • Swaddling for comfort
  • Adding extra calories to account for energy used through restlessness and increased activity
  • Intravenous fluids for dehydration
  • Medication to relieve discomfort and eliminate symptoms like seizures

Long-term treatment involves treating physical and behavioral effects and can involve:

  • Monitoring and treating vision and hearing impairments
  • Therapy for behavioral problems
  • Language therapy
  • Treatment for chronic ear infections
  • Interventions for cognitive deficits
  • Treatment for sleep disturbance

Babies are the latest segment of the opioid epidemic to attempt to get a front-row seat in the legal case against manufacturers and distributors. More than 1,000 lawsuits have been coordinated in multidistrict litigation in Cleveland before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, who has allowed a limited amount of discovery to go forward, (see Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase OPIOID-National-Prescription-Litigation-MDL-2804-USDC-Northern-District-of-Ohio) for case docket information.

The vast majority of plaintiffs are cities and counties seeking to recoup the costs of medical treatment and law enforcement, but Native American tribes, hospitals and others have elbowed into the case. New plaintiffs are emerging, such as class actions—including eight filed this week—filed on behalf of individuals alleging the opioid epidemic caused their health insurance premiums to skyrocket.

At least 11 cases have been brought on behalf of babies, many of whom suffer from addiction and learning disabilities. Bickford said the cases are in states that have medical monitoring laws, which include New York and California. According to the case filed in New York Supreme Court for Niagara County, for instance, lifetime medical costs could include treatment of developmental, psychiatric, emotional or behavioral disorders associated with addiction.

THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM

Dr. Shawn Hollinger, neonatologist at Niswonger Children’s Hospital, cradled baby Jayden’s head in an effort to comfort him. After 35 days in the neonatal intensive care unit, Jayden was ready to go home.

The number of children needing intensive treatment for NAS has become so overwhelming that the hospital opened a new ward this year just to care for them. Since 2009, hospital staff have treated over 1,800 babies with NAS. In the past 12 months, Hollinger has seen 351 infants with NAS come through the NICU.

After birth, children exposed to drugs in the womb experience a multitude of symptoms, including tremors and seizures. Even after being released from the hospital, some children may still have to be treated with medication and physical therapy. It can cost upwards of $60,000 to treat one baby.

“The intent would be to construct a trust that would deliver financial assistance directly to the custodians of these children,” he said. Custodians could include other family members, foster parents or birth parents who have kicked the habit, he said.

The defendants in all the baby cases include opioid manufacturers Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Endo Health Solutions and Teva Pharmaceuticals, as well as distributors McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Cardinal Health Inc. The New York complaint also named Insys Therapeutics Inc.

Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Wanda Moebius wrote in an email: “Our actions in the marketing and promotion of these medicines were appropriate and responsible. The labels for our prescription opioid pain medicines provide information about their risks and benefits, and the allegations made against our company are baseless and unsubstantiated. In fact, our medications have some of the lowest rates of abuse among this class of medications.”

Endo spokeswoman Heather Zoumas Lubeski said, “We deny the allegations contained in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend the company.”

Representatives of the other defendants either did not respond or declined to comment.

It’s not the first time the coalition of law firms tried to get Polster to create a separate “baby track.” On June 28, the judge denied an earlier request.

“We’ve asked the court to reconsider our motion for a separate baby track for babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome,” Bickford said. “We don’t think the present MDL and the people in it who essentially represent state and local governments really have the children’s interests at heart.”

The plaintiffs’ executive committee in charge of the opioid MDL has refused to provide information about discovery and depositions, he said. His request described the discovery process as operating under a “cloak of secrecy” and included an attached email exchange in which executive committee member Jayne Conroy of Simmons Hanly Conroy called his request to monitor depositions “not necessary” and “burdensome.”

Conroy said in a statement: “All our legal efforts are directed at the companies who caused the opioid epidemic.  Any success will benefit all victims.”

Earlier this summer, the Judge charged with control over the federal MDL involving government entities’ claims against opioid manufacturers and distributors rejected a request for the inclusion of NAS baby cases within a special litigation track. The request would create a nationwide medical monitoring trust fund for NAS babies within the existing MDL litigation regarding prescription opioid

On May 31, 2018 counsel for the baby/NAS addicted plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Establish a Separate Track for Opioid Baby Claims, with the court denying the request via text order entry below.

06/28/2018 Order [non-document] denying Motion for leave to File Motion for Order to Establish Separate Track for Opioid Baby Claims filed by Melissa Ambrosio, Darren Flanagan, Elena Flanagan, Ceonda Rees, Deric Rees, Virginia Salmons, Walter Salmons, Roxie Whitley, Rache l Wood(Related Doc # 540 ). Judge Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 2804) on 6/28/18.(P,R) (Entered: 06
Court Response to Previous Attempt to Get a Baby Track in Opiate MDL 2804

 Tens of thousands of infants born in the U.S. each year now have NAS, and a recent Centers for Disease Control report said the rate of NAS deliveries at hospitals quadrupled during the past 15 years.

The period of hospitalization for NAS infants averages 16 days and hospital costs for a typical newborn with NAS are $159,000$238,000 greater than those of healthy newborns, according to the attorneys representing the NAS babies.

Dr. Kanwaljeet J. S. “Sunny” Anand, the nation’s foremost expert on opioids in infants and a Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Perioperative & Pain Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, is a medical expert to the legal team. “There is an unprecedented epidemic of opioid addiction sweeping across the U.S.,” said Dr. Anand. “Newborn babies are the most vulnerable citizens, their lives and developmental potential are disrupted by NAS, but arrangements for their short-term and long-term care have been ignored until now. These babies need strong advocacy and legal action to ensure that their rights are protected, and that they urgently receive essential medical care and rehabilitation. On average, one infant with NAS is hospitalized every hour in the U.S.”

Named as defendants in the class actions are an array of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and retailers, all of whom netted billions of dollars due to unfair and deceptive trade practices that preyed on all Americans, including the unborn, say the attorneys.

“A medical monitoring fund would document and address the medical problems these children will have to face for a lifetime,” said Mr. Bickford. The filing today objects to current settlement negotiations engaged by the opioid MDL which ignore the NAS babies’ interests.

“Legal precedent recognizes the difference between present and future claims in negotiations of this magnitude,” said Mr. Bickford. “Without being at the table, the legal representatives of NAS babies and children will not be heard and the due process rights of these infants and children will be denied.”

The filing says only government, hospital and third-party payors are at the table in negotiating a settlement through the MDL, though no agreement has yet been reached. The attorneys representing the NAS babies have raised concerns that outcomes similar to the Tobacco MDL settlement, where money was diverted to state budget deficits instead of the intended victims, might happen here.

 Born to women addicted to drugs, newborns suffer through withdrawal

Babies suffering through opioid withdrawal have a distinct way of crying: a short, anguished, high-pitched wail, repeated over and over. It echoes through the neonatal therapeutic unit of Cabell Huntington Hospital in Huntington, West Virginia. A week-old girl has been at it, inconsolably, since six o’clock this morning. At 10 o’clock Sara Murray, the unit’s soft-spoken, no-nonsense nurse manager, sighs. “This may be a frustrating day,” she says.

The opioid epidemic in the United States is painfully evident in hospital newborn units across the country. In 2012 nearly 22,000 babies were born drug dependent, one every 25 minutes, according to the most recent federal data. As the opioid crisis has escalated dramatically over the past five years, those numbers have surely climbed.

West Virginia, at two and a half times the national average, has the highest rate of deaths from drug overdose—mostly from opioids. Cabell County, which averaged about 130 overdose calls to 911 annually until 2012, received 1,476 calls last year and is on pace to reach around 2,000 this year. Emergency workers saved many of those people, including an 11-year-old, but inpatient treatment programs have long waiting lists. At Cabell Huntington Hospital, one in five newborns has been exposed to opioids in the womb.

“What you’re seeing here is the tip of the iceberg of substance use,” says neonatologist Sean Loudin, the unit’s medical director.

In 2012 the neonatal intensive care unit became so overwhelmed by drug-dependent babies that it had to turn away newborns with other medical needs. The hospital opened this specialized unit to treat withdrawal. It typically has 18 babies. On this day there are 23.

The babies shake, sweat, vomit, and hold their bodies stiff as planks. They eat and sleep fitfully. Swaddled, they lie in bassinets or in the arms of nurses, parents, or volunteers. The place doesn’t have the hustle or beeping machinery of an ICU. Instead there are dim lights and hushed conversations because the babies need calm and quiet. Many also need methadone or other medication to relieve their symptoms. They are weaned from it over days or weeks.

“OK,” Murray whispers to a bleating 41-day-old boy. She gently lifts him to her chest, cradles him firmly, and places a green pacifier in his mouth. He sucks it fast and hard, like a piston.

Opioids pass readily from a pregnant woman’s bloodstream through the placenta and across the fetal blood-brain barrier. When birth abruptly shuts down the flow of the drug, the baby’s nervous system can trigger the agitating symptoms of withdrawal. Studies show that 55 percent to 94 percent of newborns exposed to opioids develop symptoms. Prenatal exposure to other widely used drugs, including benzodiazepines and certain antidepressants, also can lead to withdrawal shortly after birth.

The condition is called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Experts don’t consider it to be addiction, which, by definition, means a person persists in compulsive drug use despite terrible consequences. By the same logic, NAS is also a misnomer—abstaining, or just saying no, is different from experiencing the physical anguish of withdrawal. But medical experts have come to accept the NAS label because it’s less fraught with stigma than words like “addiction” and “withdrawal.”

In some cases the mothers themselves are in recovery. They didn’t misuse opioids during pregnancy but took methadone or buprenorphine, the frontline medications for treating opioid addiction. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends their use during pregnancy despite the risk of NAS, for the obvious reason that sobriety is safer and healthier for a woman than shooting heroin or popping painkillers or trying to go cold turkey on her own. It’s also much better for her child. But encouraging as it is, the growing use of medication-assisted addiction treatment means that even when the opioid crisis eases, hospitals like Cabell Huntington will continue to be swamped with babies in withdrawal.

To manage the condition, most hospitals use an assessment tool developed at the height of the heroin outbreak in the 1970s. Babies are rated every four hours on the severity of 31 symptoms, including excessive crying, sweating, tremors, and frequent yawning. The scores help doctors determine whether to put babies on methadone or other medication. In most cases the scores support drug therapy. Now some researchers are challenging that approach.

“It’s archaic,” says Elisha Wachman, a neonatologist at Boston Medical Center and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine. “What ends up happening is that babies get overmedicated.” Too often, she says, they experience withdrawal from their treatment, which prolongs their misery and their hospital stay.

A handful of researchers around the country are revamping NAS treatment to rely less on medication and more on parental bonding. Wachman has abandoned the old score sheet for assessing the babies. “I couldn’t care less how many times they yawn,” she says. Instead, she evaluates them on just three measures: eating, sleeping, and being consoled. Rather than transfer babies to an ICU or a specialty unit, Boston Medical Center keeps them with their moms throughout their stay. Wachman encourages the women to breastfeed and clutch their babies skin to skin. One hundred fifty volunteers—most of them medical students and hospital employees—put in two-hour shifts as cuddlers. The waiting list to hold babies has 200 names.

Before the hospital changed its approach, 86 percent of the babies with NAS it treated received medication. Now it’s 30 percent. The babies generally spend nine days in the hospital, down from 19 days under the old protocol. The average cost of a hospital stay for a baby with NAS is $19,655 at Boston Medical Center, compared to a national average of $67,000.

Wachman says sound treatment for the babies must go hand in hand with compassionate, comprehensive care for their mothers. The medical center runs a prenatal clinic for women with addiction. The obstetricians prescribe buprenorphine and prepare women for the possibility that their babies will have NAS. The clinic also offers counseling, social services, psychiatric help, peer support, and education about infant care. “When the moms come in to deliver, they’re in the best shape they can be,” Wachman says. In July the medical center opened a clinic that provides pediatric care for babies born with NAS and addiction services for their mothers.

It’s not clear how opioid exposure affects long-term brain development. Surprisingly little research has been done, and most of it predates the current crisis and the widespread use of highly potent synthetics, such as fentanyl. Some studies show subtle cognitive and behavioral differences among children who were exposed to opioids before birth, but the problems are less severe than the intellectual and attention deficits associated with fetal alcohol exposure. The studies don’t answer a key question: Do the neurodevelopment issues stem from drug exposure or poverty or other chronic stresses? Some researchers believe that social factors and a stable environment are bigger influences on a child’s future than NAS.

“We keep hearing about the babies, and that it is important, but there needs to be much more of a focus on women and making sure they’re taken care of well,” says Uma Reddy, a maternal-fetal medicine expert at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Mass Tort Nexus will provide updates on the Infant NAS MDL request to the JPML as well the Opiate Prescription MDL 2804 on a daily basis.

For the most up to date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit www.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.

To obtain our free newsletters that contain real time mass tort updates, visit www.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.

 

 

Read More

Motion for New Infant/NAS Opioid Dependant MDL 2872 Filed With JPML on September 20, 2018

A group of plaintiff attorneys have filed a new motion for consolidation of an “Infant/NAS Opioid Addicted Baby MDL” to be separate from the existing Opiate Prescription MDL 2804 due to the lack of “individuals/baby cases” being offered a prominent role in MDL 2804

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 20, 2018 Motion and Brief in Support Filed With the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation:

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: CHILDREN BORN                                                           MDL – 2872

OPIOID-DEPENDENT

 

MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

 

Plaintiffs[1] respectfully move that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel, transfer the actions on behalf of children born opioid-dependent listed in the attached Schedule of Actions and subsequent tag-along actions to a separate MDL before the Southern District of West Virginia.  Alternatively, Plaintiffs request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois.  Transfer is appropriate for the following reasons:

  1. Movants seek transfer and coordination or consolidation of all cases filed on behalf of opioiddependent infants into a separate MDL for the reasons laid out in the Doyle plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398).[2] As discussed therein, the cases of the opioiddependent infants are unique, and further, Movants have grave concerns that the due process rights of opioid-dependent infants are not being protected in MDL 2804 and that the interests of the governmental and corporate parties represented by the MDL leadership are fundamentally in conflict with those of these infants. The question now posed to the Panel, argued in the accompanying brief in support of this Motion, is not whether these cases should be held outside of the MDL as presently structured (they must be), but whether they should be consolidated in a separate MDL.
  2. Presently, there are substantially similar class action suits filed on behalf of opioid-dependent infants pending in the Southern District of West Virginia, the Southern District of Ohio, as well as eight cases currently caught up in MDL 2804 in the Northern District of Ohio. Undersigned counsel anticipates that several more substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits will be filed across the country in the coming months.
  3. The actions on behalf of the opioid-dependent infants assert substantially similar claims and seek substantially similar relief. These suits seek to establish a fund for medical monitoring, damages related to acute neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) treatment and long-term treatment of these innocent victims of the Opioid Crisis.
  4. The convenience of the courts, witnesses, parties, and counsel will all be served by transfer of these cases to the Southern District of West Virginia, or in the alternative, the Southern District of

Illinois.

  1. Absent transfer, the opioid-dependent infants’ unique interests will remain unprotected and these young victims risk losing the opportunity to achieve a productive adulthood.
  2. In support of this Motion, Movants file:
    1. A Brief supporting their Motion;
    2. A numbered Schedule of Actions providing (i) the complete name of each action involved, listing the full name of each party included as such on the district court’s docket sheet; (ii) the district court and division where each action is pending; (iii) the civil action number of each action; and, (iv) the name of the Judge assigned to each action;
    3. A copy of all complaints and docket sheets for all actions listed on the schedule;
    4. Statement Regarding Oral Argument; and,
    5. Proof of Service.

WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully request that the Panel grant their motion and transfer these cases, for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings, to the Southern District of West Virginia. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Scott R. Bickford

MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA

Scott R. Bickford (LA 1165)

Spencer R. Doody (LA 27795)

338 Lafayette Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Telephone: 504-581-9065 Facsimile: 504-581-7635 sbickford@mbfirm.com srd@mbfirm.com

usdcndoh@mbfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

             I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day of September, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which provides an electronic service notification to all counsel of record registered as CM/ECF users.

/s/Scott Bickford___________________________

Scott Bickford

 

[1] Movants are: Deric Rees and Ceonda Rees, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby T.W.B. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Illinois Class); Darren and Elena Flanagan, individually and as adoptive parents and next friends of Baby K.L.F., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Tennessee Class); Rachel Wood, individually and as next friend and adopted mother of Baby O.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Missouri Class); Melissa Ambrosio, individually and as next friend of Baby G.A., and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (California Class); Shannon Hunt, individually and as next friend of Baby S.J., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Maryland Class); Bobbi Lou Moore on behalf of Baby R.R.C., and all other similarly situated (West Virginia Class); Walter and Virginia Salmons, individually and as the next friend or guardian of Minor W.D. and on behalf of all others similarly situated (National Class).

[2] All arguments in Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398) are adopted in support of this Motion.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: CHILDREN BORN                       MDL – _________

OPIOID-DEPENDENT

 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF

ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR

CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs[1] respectfully move that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel, transfer the actions on behalf of children born opioid-dependent listed in the attached Schedule of Actions and subsequent tag-along actions to a separate MDL before the Southern District of West Virginia.; alternatively, Plaintiffs request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois.

I.        Children Born Opioid-Dependent Need A Separate MDL From MDL 2804

Movants seek transfer and coordination or consolidation of all cases filed on behalf of opioiddependent infants into a new MDL for the reasons laid out in the Doyle plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398).[2] As discussed therein, Movants bring unique claims on behalf of opioid-dependent infants, distinct from the claims of the government and corporate plaintiffs in MDL 2804. These suits bring direct claims on behalf of innocent victims for past and future damages suffered, in contrast to claims for reimbursement. Plaintiffs’ claims do not wholly sound in public nuisance but also in state medical monitoring and product liability causes of action. Further, Movants have grave concerns that the due process rights of opioid-dependent infants are not being protected in MDL 2804 and that the interests of the governmental and corporate parties represented by the MDL leadership are fundamentally in conflict with those of these infants.

Movants established in their Motion to Vacate that concerns for due process, conflicts of interest, and the protection owed to children under the law compel this Panel to exclude such claims from MDL 2804 as it is presently structured.  Movants have also established that despite their counsel’s numerous attempts to address these concerns with the leadership of the MDL, the status quo remains.  Absent a structural change within the MDL, the question before the Panel is not whether these cases should be held outside of the MDL (they must be), but whether they should be consolidated in their own MDL.

The prospect of a separate MDL for a non-governmental plaintiff group was explicitly and favorably discussed at this Panel’s November 30, 2017 hearing:[3]

JUDGE BREYER: Well, there’s another option that maybe your colleagues can address for you which is they all go to Judge X. There are common issues. Judge X conducts the discovery with respect to the common issues. And Judge X has the option of addressing the panel, one way or another, or the lawyers do, to create another MDL with this group or that group because the issues aren’t really amenable to the MDL that they are in.

  1. TELLIS: I think that is a fine idea.

JUDGE BREYER: You like that idea?

  1. TELLIS: I like that idea.

JUDGE BREYER: I’m glad you came up with that idea.

JUDGE VANCE: It’s not infeasible to think there could be a personal injury MDL or a third-party payor.

It has become abundantly clear that MDL 2804 is not amenable to the issues affecting opioid dependent infants, making a separate MDL for this group of innocent, injured plaintiffs necessary.

Presently, there are substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits pending in the Southern District of West Virginia, the Southern District of Ohio, as well as eight cases currently caught up in MDL 2804 in the Northern District of Ohio. These state by state class actions filed to date conservatively represent approximately 40% of the children born opioid-dependent in the country. Undersigned counsel anticipates that several other substantially similar opioid-dependent infant class action suits will be filed across the country in the coming months. The actions on behalf of the opioid-dependent infants assert substantially similar claims and seek substantially similar relief.

These suits seek to establish a fund for medical monitoring, damages related to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) treatment and long-term treatment of these innocent victims of the Opioid Crisis.

The medical issues involved in the opioid-dependent infant cases and the relief sought are distinct from those of the governmental and corporate cases of MDL 2804.  The unique issues of these infants’ cases require discovery to be undertaken in areas including the following:

  • Studies regarding the effect of Defendants’ opioid products upon the health of pregnant mothers and their children in utero, and effects after birth.
  • Knowledge regarding the effects of methadone (and other addiction treatment drugs) taken by pregnant mothers on their children in utero.
  • Studies regarding which medications are appropriate for pregnant mothers dealing with opioid addiction.
  • Knowledge of the diversionary opioid market’s impact on pregnant mothers.
  • Discovery relevant to Movants’ products liability claims.

 

To the extent there is overlap of factual allegations and common issues regarding the opioid drug manufacturers’ and distributors’ conduct between the opioid-dependent infant lawsuits and the suits in MDL 2804, Movants envision that discovery in the infants’ MDL would be coordinated with Judge Polster in MDL 2804 in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

Absent transfer to a separate MDL, the opioid-dependent infants’ unique interests will remain unprotected and these innocent young victims risk losing the opportunity to achieve a productive adulthood.

II. The Southern District of West Virginia is the Most Appropriate Forum for Transfer and Consolidation or Coordination

 

The Southern District of West Virginia, where the suit of Bobbi Lou Moore on behalf of Baby R.R.C. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 2:18-cv-01231 (S.D.W. Va.) is currently pending, is the most appropriate forum for Multidistrict Litigation. Southern West Virginia is the epicenter of the Opioid Crisis– where it began and where its most profound impacts are being felt. West Virginia has some of the highest rates of fetal opioid exposure and Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) in the country.

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) recently released data for

2017 showing the overall incidence rate of NAS was 50.6 cases per 1,000 live births (5.06%) for West

Virginia residents, with the rate as high as 106.6 cases per 1,000 live births (10.66%) in one county.[4]  According to the CDC, there are many more opioid prescriptions than people in West Virginia– 138 prescriptions for every 100 people.[5] A congressional investigation revealed that from 2008 to 2012, pharmaceutical distributors sent more than 780 million pills of hydrocodone and oxycodone to West Virginia, a state with only 1.8 million people.[6] Southern West Virginia was especially hard hit: 20.8 million opioid pills were shipped from 2006 to 2016 to Williamson (population 2,900).[7] One pharmacy in Kermit (population 400) ranked 22nd in the U.S. in the number of hydrocodone pills it received in 2006.[8] The grave impact of this flood of prescription opioids on southern West Virginia and the children born there cannot be overstated.

The Courts of the Southern District of West Virginia have a proven track record in administering Multidistrict Litigation, as demonstrated by the Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation. The Southern District of West Virginia provides a well-prepared, well-staffed, and overall top-notch staff and Clerk’s office. As discussed below, the District’s judges have a wealth of experience in complex litigation, particularly pharmaceutical litigation. The convenience of the courts, witnesses, parties, and counsel will all be served by transfer of these cases to the Southern District of West Virginia.

Judge Robert C. Chambers has the requisite experience to manage this complex litigation.  He previously served as Chief Judge for this District from 2012-2017, and has presided over 500 cases involving pharmaceutical companies.  Judge Chambers is currently presiding over products liability actions involving claims against the manufacturer of prescription anticoagulant drugs.[9]  He has also presided over a case featuring complex pharmaceutical litigation, W. Virginia ex rel. Morrisey v. Pfizer, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 476, 479 (S.D.W. Va. 2013).  Prior to being appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, Judge Chambers was in private practice in Charleston for twenty years, and served as legal counsel to the West Virginia State Senate.

Senior Judge David A. Faber, appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, served as Chief Judge at the Southern District of West Virginia from 2002 to 2007. He has served as a Senior Judge in the district since 2008. He has handled 79 cases involving pharmaceuticals, including several opioid cases.[10] Senior Judge Faber also presided over a case involving medical products liability.[11] Prior to becoming a federal judge, Senior Judge Faber worked in both private practice and served in the military as a JAG, and achieved the rank of Colonel. He attended Yale for law school where he was a National Law Scholar, and holds an L.L.M. degree from the University of Virginia.

Chief Judge Thomas E.  Johnston in the Charleston Division has over a decade of experience as a federal judge. He oversees some of the suite of cases collected in the MDL related to the Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation.[12]  Chief Judge Johnston has extensive experience presiding over medical cases, including 216 cases involving health care, and 28 cases specifically involving pharmaceuticals, as well as products liability claims.[13] He had previously served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia from 2001 to 2006 before being appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.

In the alternative, Movants would propose transfer and consolidation in the Southern District of Illinois before the Judge Staci M. Yandle. Judge Yandle was appointed to the federal bench in 2014 after an illustrious career in private practice and a distinguished record of public service, including serving on the Illinois Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. This Panel has previously commended the Southern District of Illinois as convenient due in part to its geographically central location.[14]

III.     Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons and the reasons stated in the Motion to Vacate filed by the Doyle plaintiffs, Movants respectfully request that the Panel transfer the actions on behalf of opioid dependent infants recited on the attached Schedule and all subsequently filed tag-along cases for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings in a separate MDL in the Southern District of West Virginia. Alternatively, Movants request transfer to the Southern District of Illinois, and assignment to Judge Staci M. Yandle.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Scott R. Bickford

MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA

Scott R. Bickford (LA 1165)

Spencer R. Doody (LA 27795)

338 Lafayette Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Telephone: 504-581-9065 Facsimile: 504-581-7635 sbickford@mbfirm.com srd@mbfirm.com

usdcndoh@mbfirm.com

 

 

/s/ Celeste Brustowicz

COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC

Celeste Brustowicz (LA 16835)

Barry J. Cooper, Jr. (LA 27202)

Stephen H. Wussow (LA 35391)

Victor Cobb (LA 36830)

1525 Religious Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

Telephone: 504-399-0009 Cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

swussow@sch-llc.com

 

 

/s/ Kevin W. Thompson

THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM

Kevin W. Thompson David R. Barney, Jr.

2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East

Charleston, WV 25311

Telephone: 304-343-4401

Facsimile: 304-343-4405

Kwthompsonwv@gmail.com

 

 

/s/ James F. Clayborne

CLAYBORNE, SABO & WAGNER, LLP

Sen. James F. Clayborne (IL 45627)

525 West Main Street, Suite 105

Belleville, Il 62220

Telephone:  618-239-0187

Facsimile:  618-416-7556

jclayborne@cswlawllp.com

 

 

/s/ Jack W. Harang

LAW OFFICES OF JACK W. HARANG

Jack W. Harang (LA 15083)

2433 Taffy Drive

Kenner, LA 70065 Telephone: 504-810-4734

jwharang@gmail.com

 

 

/s/ Kent Harrison Robbins

THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON

ROBBINS, P.A.

Kent Harrison Robbins (FL 275484)

242 Northeast 27th Street

Miami, FL 33137

Telephone: 305-532-0500

Facsimile: 305-531-0150

Primary: Khr@khrlawoffices.com

Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com

Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com

 

 

/s/ Donald Creadore

THE CREADORE LAW FIRM, P.C.

Donald Creadore (NY 2090702)

450 Seventh Avenue – 1408

New York, NY 10123

Telephone: 212-355-7200

Facsimile: 212-583-0412

Primary: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

Secondary: donald@aol.com

 

 

/s/ Warren Perrin

PERRIN, LANDRY, deLAUNAY

Warren Perrin

251 La Rue France

  1. O. Box 53597

Lafayette, LA 70505

Telephone: 337-233-5832

[1] Movants are: Deric Rees and Ceonda Rees, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby T.W.B. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Illinois Class); Darren and Elena Flanagan, individually and as adoptive parents and next friends of Baby K.L.F., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Tennessee Class); Rachel Wood, individually and as next friend and adopted mother of Baby O.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Missouri Class); Melissa Ambrosio, individually and as next friend of Baby G.A., and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (California Class); Shannon Hunt, individually and as next friend of Baby S.J., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Maryland Class); Bobbi Lou Moore on behalf of Baby R.R.C., and all other similarly situated (West Virginia Class); Walter and Virginia Salmons, individually and as the next friend or guardian of Minor W.D. and on behalf of all others similarly situated (National Class).

[2] All arguments in Motion to Vacate CTO-47 (JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. 2398) are adopted in support of this Motion.

[3] JPML 2804 Rec. Doc. No. 382 at 16-17, Transcript of November 30, 2017 Hearing.

[4] https://dhhr.wv.gov/News/2018/Pages/DHHR-Releases-Neonatal-Abstinence-Syndrome-Data-for-2017-.aspx

[5] CDC, “Opioid Use Disorder Documented at Delivery Hospitalization – United States 1999-2014,” August 10, 2018, at 2. “West Virginia, for example, had a prescribing rate estimated at 138 opioid prescriptions per 100 persons in 2012, suggesting that individual persons might receive more than one opioid prescription per year.”

[6] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-05-08/hill-panel-probing-opioids-abuse-targets-distributorfirms

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Knight v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 2018 WL 3037442 (S.D.W. Va. June 19, 2018).

[10] See, e.g., City of Huntington v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., No. CV 3:17-01362, 2017 WL 3317300 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 3, 2017); The Town of Clendenin, West Virginia v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al., No. 2:18-CV-01284, (S.D.W. Va.

Sept. 10, 2018); Adkins v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al., No. 18-CV-00477, (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2018).

[11] Walker v. Medtronic, Inc., No. CIV.A. 2:07-00317, 2010 WL 4822135 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 24, 2010), aff’d, 670 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2012).

[12] See MDL No. 2187, In Re C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation.

[13] See, e.g., Raab v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 671 (S.D.W. Va. 2015).

[14] In re: Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate) Prod. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1356 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2012) (“The Southern District of Illinois’ geographically central location and accessibility also commend it for this nationwide products liability litigation.”).

Read More

XARELTO STUDIES FAIL IN BAYER/J&J ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND MARKET CONTROL

THE RECENT FAILURE OF TWO XARELTO STUDIES STOPPED BAYER AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE BLOOD THINNER MARKET-SHARE

By Mark A. York (August 28, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two recent Xarelto studies fail to show additional benefits when Bayer and Johnson & Johnson’s attempted to expand the patient group for their heart drug Xarelto.

The recent Xarelto blood thinner “Commander HF” study, (see  https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/Bayer/J&J (Commander AF Study), could not show any statistical improvements in helping heart failure patients after an acute decline in their condition, results from the so-called study showed on Monday. The primary study goal of reduction in the risk of death, heart attack and stroke was unsuccessful.

A second Bayer/J&J study known as “Mariner” also failed to produce clear evidence that Xarelto is able to reduced the rate of blood clots in certain high-risk patients after a hospital release.

Bayer earned $3.84 billion in sales of Xarelto revenues last year, primarily from stroke prevention in the elderly, with projected annual sales to rise above $5 billion in 2019 and beyond.

Bayer retains marketing rights for Xarelto outside the United States while partner J&J sells Xarelto in the U.S., with Bayer being eligible for royalties on U.S. sales of 20 to 30 percent.

Both Bayer and J&J’s Janssen R&D are facing thousands of lawsuits across the country over failure to warn and disclose the significant dangers of being prescribed Xarelto and the inability to stop the bleeding as there hasn’t been an antidote for Xarelto until 2018.

XARELTO MDL 2804 AND PHILADELPHIA COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET

Between the Xarelto MDL 2804 federal docket of 25,000 plus and the 1,700 in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas there seems to be significant concern for the use of Xarelto when a comparison is made to the pre-Xarelto blood thinners i.e. Coumadin and Warfarin which required additional monitoring, are not known as a drug that can kill you.

Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase Re: XARELTO-Case-No-2349-in-Philadephia-Court-of-Common-Pleas–Complex-Litigation-(PA-State-Court)

Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase Re: XARELTO-MDL-2592-US-District-Court-ED-Louisiana

HOW XARELTO WAS APPROVED BY THE FDA

Xarelto was first approved by the FDA July 2011, representing a major advancement in blood thinning (anticoagulant) medication according to Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, developed to prevent serious conditions that sometimes arise after surgeries (such as artificial hip and knee surgeries). As an anticoagulant, it was intended to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and strokes. Xarelto was also intended to help those patients with atrial fibrillation, a group of people more vulnerable to PE, DVT, and stroke after surgery. Eventually, the FDA expanded approval of Xarelto to treat all patients with PE, DVT and atrial fibrillation.

More than one study has shown Xarelto can cause a higher rate of internal bleeding, than other anticoagulant drugs and there is no available “antidote” for stopping internal bleeding in patients taking Xarelto. With warfarin, vitamin K has been shown to stop bleeding, but there is no vitamin K “parallel” for people taking Xarelto. For Xarelto, it can take 24 hours for a dose to get out of the body. That means that if internal bleeding starts, the patient may simply have to wait it out and hope it stops on its own.

 MAYO CLINIC XARELTO STUDY RESULTS NOT POSITIVE

In the journal Gastroenterology, a team of physicians and researchers from the Mayo Clinic studied thousands of patients who took Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Pradaxa (dabigatran), and Eliquis (apixaban). The goal was to figure out which of these three anticoagulant drugs had “the most favorable GI safety profile,” which is medical-research-speak for “which one of these drugs is least likely to hurt patients.”

This is how the study worked: The researchers studied health insurance administrative claims information on thousands of patients between October 1, 2010 and February 28, 2015. These patients had atrial fibrillation, or Afib, which is a heart arrhythmia, a quivering or irregular heartbeat. Afib can lead to serious health problems such as stroke, blood clots, heart failure and other health complications. The researchers looked at the incidents of gastrointestinal bleeding among the thousands of patients who took Xarelto or Pradaxa or Eliquis.

MAYO STUDY SHOWS NEGATIVE RESULTS

Patients who took Xarelto had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding patients who took Pradaxa or Eliquis. The statistics show that patients taking Xarelto may have a 20% greater risk of internal bleeding than with those taking Pradaxa or Eliquis, with the rates of GI bleeding increased in patients over seventy-five (75) years old. Turns out, Eliquis “had the most favorable GI safety profile among all age-groups.” While clearly showing Xarelto, unfortunately, had the “least favorable” safety profile among the three prescription anticoagulant drugs.

FDA Investigation of Xarelto Trials

The approval history for Xarelto was actually pretty controversial. FDA reviewers originally said that they recommended against approval, then there was an FDA advisory committee (independent group of key opinion leaders) and they voted in favor, so the FDA approved the drug. Their concern was with how the Phase III trials were run and whether Xarelto had really proved its efficacy. The tests compared patients on warfarin to patients on Xarelto, but the patients on the warfarin run had poor TTR. That means the patients weren’t well controlled on warfarin to begin with, which skews the data in favor of Xarelto.

During the approval process, Xarelto actually wanted a superiority label, which would say that the drug was better than warfarin and other blood thinners. Because of the concerns with the Phase III data, the FDA only gave them a non-inferior label, which says they’re essentially the same in terms of effectiveness.

One of the clinical trials that played a key role in its approval for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation is now under investigation by the FDA. This trial compared Xarelto’s performance to warfarin’s, but it used a device called INRatio to test the warfarin patients.

The INRatio device was the subject of two FDA warning letters about inaccurate readings just as the trial was starting in 2005 and 2006. In 2014, the device was recalled. The use of the INRatio device may have skewed the results with inaccurate readings, making Xarelto look better in comparison with warfarin.

The FDA’s medical experts originally recommended against improving the drug due to concerns about its efficacy. They found that Xarelto was not as effective as warfarin. However, a review board eventually approved the drug over the objections.

The FDA has issued a number of warnings about Xarelto and has required the makers of the drug to change its labeling multiple times. Specifically, the FDA warned about the risks of uncontrolled bleeding. It also added a black-box warning, its most serious kind of warning, about the increased risk of stroke when patients prematurely stop taking Xarelto and about the increased risk for swelling and damage associated with the use of epidural anesthesia while taking Xarelto.

The makers of Xarelto recently applied to the FDA to expand the approved uses of the drug to include treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). For the third time, the FDA unanimously denied the expansion. Johnson & Johnson and Bayer are expected to continue to apply for approval due to the high value of that market. More than 1 million patients are hospitalized with ACS each year. That offers serious potential for growth for Xarelto, which already earns almost $1 billion in sales annually.

Johnson & Johnson also is claiming that Xarelto helps patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) in reducing their heart attack and blood clot risks.

WHAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION SAYS ON XARELTO USE

“The good news is you now have an alternative to warfarin … The bad news is you can kill a patient as easily with the new drug as you could with the old drug.”Dr. Alan Jacobson, Director of anti-coagulation services at the VA in Loma Linda, Calif.

The makers of Xarelto say it takes time for doctors to get up to speed on new types of treatments and how to best administer them outside the controls of clinical trials.

“This is a shift in medical practice,” said Dr. John Smith, senior vice president for clinical development at Boehringer. “Individual physicians have to determine what the follow-up plan will be, to use common medical-sense judgment.”

XARELTO MAKERS SAY NO FOLLW-UP CARE REQUIRED

Dr. Peter Wildgoose, a senior director of clinical development at J&J, said the company has not provided special advice on follow-up care for patients on Xarelto.

“There’s nothing more than for any other drug that people regularly take,” he said, adding that most atrial fibrillation patients probably see their doctors on a regular basis. “These drugs have been tested long term, for several years at a time, with very good outcomes.”

Johnson & Johnson officials stressed there was far less evidence in trials of brain bleeding – the most worrisome side effect of anti-coagulants – in patients taking Pradaxa and Xarelto than those taking warfarin.

WAS XARELTO EVEN NEEDED?

Even though warfarin (Coumadin) has been the standard in anticoagulant (blood thinner) drugs for more than 50 years, it lacked perfection, making way for a new generation of blood thinners, including Xarelto. In clinical studies, Xarelto was shown to be more effective than warfarin in treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at an increased risk for stroke. And while Xarelto had less cranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain) incidents than warfarin, it was shown to have a similar overall number of bleeding incidences when compared to the number of bleeding events in patients taking warfarin.

Despite this finding, and – until recently – its lack of antidote (reversal agent) for serious bleeding, Xarelto rose to popularity, making up a significant portion of the billion-dollar anticoagulant drug industry in the United States. Even after an investigation into into the clinical trial ROCKET-AF study, upon which its U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval hinged, the drug continues to be prescribed by doctors to patients with AF and as a prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which can lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) after total hip and knee replacement surgeries.

But as more evidence surfaced regarding the drug risks for patients taking Xarelto, including an increased risk of wound complications following surgical procedures, severe bleeding with no easily available antidote to stop its serious consequences, as well as reports of platelet deficiencies, hepatitis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) (a severe skin reaction), some heart doctors are becoming a bit more cautious with the blood thinner.

Xarelto and Internal Bleeding?

Janssen and parent company Johnson & Johnson market its anticoagulant drug Xarelto as a safe and more convenient choice in blood thinners compared to warfarin. But pre-market clinical studies and post-marketing reports have shown that taking Xarelto leaves many patients vulnerable to internal bleeding that can result in death for some users.

In a 2017 annual report issued by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), it was stated that oral anticoagulant drugs, including Xarelto (rivaroxaban), showed “unacceptably high risks,” according to two government data sources, the FAERS adverse events reports for 2016 and a new systematic study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

XARELTO ACCOUNTS FOR 75 PERCENT OF ALL AE’s IN ANTI-COAGULANTS

Of the 22,000 reports of serious injuries resulting from anticoagulant drugs, Xarelto accounted for 15,043 cases alone, the FDA said.

“According to an analysis of 2016 FDA adverse event data conducted by the ISMP, anticoagulant (blood thinner) drugs accounted for nearly 22,000 reports of serious injuries in the United States, led by Xarelto, which accounted for 15,043 cases alone. These numbers also included 3,018 reported deaths, with most injuries being the result of hemorrhages, making bleeding one of the most adverse events.”

Gastrointestinal hemorrhages made up the MOST INJURIES, followed by cerebral hemorrhages. From early testing, hemorrhage has always been an apparent increased risk associated with lowering the risk of strokes from blood clots.

In late 2016, the CDC released a separate study that found that “anticoagulant drugs accounted for more emergency department visits for outpatient adverse effects than any other class of drugs currently in therapeutic use, including opioids (non-abuse visits), antibiotics and diabetes drugs.” Most of these adverse events were severe, with nearly 50 percent requiring a hospital stay. The ISMP estimated in its QuarterWatch report that just over 6 percent of patients using anticoagulants for one year will need to visit the emergency room, with about half of those patients requiring hospitalization. That is a major number of injuries that can be attributed to a drug that is advertised as life saving and designed to prevent injuries.

Overall, the CDC found in its systematic study that the FDA’s FAERS voluntary reporting underestimates anticoagulant drug-related injuries. The CDC discovered that approximately 228,600 emergency department visits occur each year due to the use of blood thinner drugs, including Xarelto, which is 10 times more than the FAERS total number of voluntary reports.

The Symptoms of Internal Bleeding

At its onset, unless it’s a severe hemorrhage, internal bleeding may not cause any symptoms apparent to the patient taking Xarelto. However, dependent on where the bleed is located in the body, the patient will soon begin exhibiting signs and symptoms that will be their indication to seek immediate medical attention. Patients who are in poor health or are over the age of 64 and the targeted audience seem more likely to suffer serious, potentially life-threatening bleeding complications.

The end result of Bayer and J&J’s attempts to secure the blood thinner market may continue unabated until the more than 25,000 lawsuits over the injuries and deaths that are affiliated with taking Xarelto will force both companies to come to either the settlement table or begin trying the Xarelto MDL 2592 lawsuits being remanded back to original courts for trials and blocks of 1200 cases at a time. Xarelto MDL Judge Eldon Fallon, USDC Eastern District of Louisiana has already started the remand process for 23,000 cases pending in his federal court, due to the lack of progress in settlements and cooperation by Bayer and Johnson & Johnson.

Read More

Johnson & Johnson Latest Baby Powder Cancer Trial Continues In Missouri

J&J’s Facing Latest Baby Powder Cancer Trial Alone In Missouri Court

By Mark A. York (July 6, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOTHER J&J BABY POWDER OVARIAN CANCER TRIAL

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) The case of Gail Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1522-CC10417, Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Judge Rex Burlison

Johnson & Johnson is flying solo in their latest baby powder cancer trial underway in St. Louis City Circuit Court, in front of Judge Rex Burlison, who has refused the many attempt by J&J to dismiss, remove and simply evade another ovarian cancer trial linked to J&J’s baby powder. This time they’re standing alone, after co-defendant Imerys Talc settled claims with 22 plaintiffs right before the trial began. The US unit of French minerals company Imerys SA settled claims by women for at least $5 million, related to Imerys mined talc supplied to Johnson & Johnson for making baby powder that’s been linked to ovarian cancer in several previous trials across the country.

The question becomes, just when did J&J become aware of the many adverse events and dangers of using its baby focused Talcum Powder products that have also been used by millions of adults worldwide?

See Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase: J&J Talcum Powder Litigation-St-Louis-County-Missouri

At the start of the trial, plaintiff trial attorney Mark Lanier told jurors about a study of infants who had been born dead. “They took biopsies and all of them had asbestos that had migrated from the womb across the placenta.”

Then Lanier showed the jury an internal J&J email where someone at the company recommended moving the product from the baby aisle or replacing talcum with corn starch.

Lanier has stated he’s uncovered stacks of new evidence showing J&J officials knew by the 1960s its baby powder was tainted with at least trace amounts of asbestos and hid the product’s cancer risks to protect its reputation.

Why would Johnson & Johnson be sending internal e-mails of this type, if there weren’t known risks associated with the talc products?

J&J USE OF FRONT COMPANIES AND LOBBYING GROUPS

With J&J at the helm, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), now the PCPC, formed a talc lobbyist group in response to the first epidemiologic studies that discovered an association between ovarian cancer and genital talc use in the early 1980s. J&J and Luzenac, now Imerys Talc, were the primary actors and contributors to the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). J&J and Imerys coordinated all the activities of the talc lobbyist group in the District of Columbia.

The stated purpose of the TIPTF was to pool financial resources of primarily J&J and Imerys to collectively defend talc at all costs and prevent regulation of any type over the cosmetic ingredient. The talc lobbyist group hired scientists to perform biased talc safety research studies. Members of the lobbyist group edited research reports by scientists on their payroll prior to submitting them to governmental agencies. Furthermore, TIPTF members knowingly released false information about the safety of talc to the public and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies to prevent any intervention.

PCPC coordinated the defense of talc and acted as a mouthpiece for TIPTF members, including J&J and Imerys. PCPC’s revenue is generated through a dues system based on its members’ annual sales. $76.5 billion in annual sales puts J&J in the top hundred of the highest grossing companies in the world, and the highest revenue generator in the PCPC. Consequently, the PCPC had an extremely vested interest in protecting J&J’s products and financial interests.

J&J SUPPRESSED ADVERSE FINDINGS ON TALC

According to scientific evidence, there have been studies showing a direct link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer that started emerging close to 50 years ago. How as this kept from public view? Starting in 1971, Dr. W.J. Henderson and other notable researchers in Cardiff, Wales conducted the first study that suggested an association between talc and ovarian cancer.

In 1982, the first epidemiological study on talc powder use in the female genital area emerged. This study found a 92 percent increased risk of developing ovarian cancer in women who reported genital talc use. Shortly after the study’s publication, Dr. Bruce Semple of J&J spoke with lead researcher Dr. Daniel Cramer. Dr. Cramer advised Dr. Semple that J&J needed to place a warning on its talcum powder products about ovarian cancer risks so that women could make informed decisions about their health. Since 1982, there have been more than 27 additional epidemiological studies indicating a significant link between talc and ovarian cancer.

In 1993, a U.S. National Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc that determined that there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Consequently. researchers concluded that talc was a carcinogen, with or without asbestos contamination. Then, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition notified J&J’s CEO that studies as far back as the 1960s “…show conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in the genital area poses a serious health risk of ovarian cancer.”

The coalition further indicated that 14,000 women die from ovarian cancer each year and that this type of cancer is very difficult to detect and has a low survival rate. The coalition begged the company to withdraw its talc products from the market or at least provide safety information.

Since then, the World Health Organization, the Canadian government, and various other cancer organizations have classified talc as a carcinogen.

The Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson Missouri Trial

The current case before Judge Burlison is at least the fifth ovarian cancer trial held in his court in the last two years. In previous trials, plaintiffs from across the country have been awarded substantial judgments totaling more than $300 million. One of the first talc trials resulted in a $72 million verdict for Jacqueline Fox, of Birmingham, AL which was vacated by a state appeals court last October, based on the US Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) v. Superior Court of California decision of June 2017 related to non-resident plaintiffs in state court actions.

This current case filed by Gail Ingham of O’Fallon, Mo. was removed to federal court last year by J&J, but US District Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh remanded it back to Judge Burlison’s court in July.

On May 15, 2018 Burlison told parties to get ready for trial and ruled that he would not sever, transfer or stay claims, finding sufficient contacts between Johnson & Johnson in Missouri to invoke a long arm statute.

WIDELY DIFFERENT VIEWS

Johnson & Johnson has defended lawsuits alleging its baby powder caused ovarian cancer in women in the past, as several trials across the country have linked their illnesses to exposure to asbestos in the company’s talc.

The talc cases which now number close to 10,000 in state and federal courts, with claims that the company sold talc in its iconic white Johnson’s Baby Powder bottles knowing it either caused ovarian cancer or was tainted with asbestos and failed to warn consumers to protect the brand.

A J&J representative, said in an emailed statement “The talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause ovarian cancer and we will continue to defend the safety of our product,”

J&J FACING OVER 9,000 SUITS

Last month, jurors in California awarded a woman who said she routinely used talc on children and herself $25.7 million over her mesothelioma diagnosis. A South Carolina jury couldn’t reach a verdict on similar claims the same week as the California ruling.

Those decisions followed a New Jersey jury’s finding in April that J&J and a unit of talc supplier Imerys SA must pay $117 million to a banker who claimed his cancer was tied to baby powder use.

J&J still faces talc lawsuits by more than 9,000 plaintiffs, primarily focused on ovarian cancer, according to a May securities filing. That number has grown from 1,200 in 2016. An unknown number of consumers claim that J&J’s talc products caused mesothelioma. See J&J Talcum Powder MDL 2738 USDC New Jersey Briefcase.

 WHEN AND WHAT DID J&J KNOW ABOUT TALC DANGERS?

In opening statements, Lanier said the “big fight” in the case was whether there’s asbestos in J&J’s talc products and whether J&J knew it and hid it.

He then offered that multiple studies by universities, companies, agencies and even J&J itself found asbestos in talc, but that J&J had “manipulated the science in more ways than I can count” to obscure the facts. The company was compelled to protect its baby powder brand as its “sacred cow,” based on the millions of dollars earned every year.

“To say that J&J rigged test results is false,” Peter Bicks, J&J’s lawyer  told jurors. “J&J always went above and beyond in testing for asbestos.”

Most of the women in St. Louis trial used baby powder, but others used Shower-to-Shower, another of J&J’s talc-based products which J&J sold the product to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. in 2012 and Valeant now faces asbestos suits over that body powder product.

The women, whose jobs range from school bus driver to executive director of a job-retraining program, come from states across the country, such as Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and New York. Six of the women have died, so their families are pressing wrongful-death claims against J&J.

When Krystal Kim, one of the women suing, learned testing by her lawyers of the Johnson’s Baby Powder she used showed it was laced with asbestos, she felt sick. “I was scared and mad at the same time,” said Kim, a 52-year-old former computer consultant now battling ovarian cancer. “It certainly wasn’t what I expected to have in my house or to be putting on my body every day.”

Kim traveled to St. Louis for the trial and she’s banking on jurors holding J&J accountable for her cancer after hearing Lanier’s evidence. “I’m hoping this jury says no more little girls should be harmed by this powder,” she said. “I’m hoping it stops here.”

The trial is expected to last another week to 10 days and we will provide updates until a verdict is returned.

The case is Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1522-CC10417, Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Judge Rex Burlison

Read More

Purdue Pharma Executives and the Sackler Family Named in Massachusetts Opioid Crisis Lawsuit

Oxycontin Founding Family Are Now Forced to Defend Profits In Court

Complaint: “State of Massachusetts vs. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family” June 13, 2018

By Mark A. York (June 20, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) As more states and federal agencies continue to scrutinize the opioid drug manufacturers across the country, a clear high value target is emerging in Purdue Pharma, L.P.  and the Sackler family that founded the company. The family has profited to the tune of about $13 billion to date, and have somehow avoided the legal spotlight for the last 10 years. The Sackler family have always been protected by the company shield, even though their most profitable selling opioid drug Oxycontin and its boardroom coordinated marketing campaign was the brainchild and a direct result of the Purdue Pharma company founders, the Sackler brothers and their tried and true business model.

Complaint: “State of Massachusetts vs. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family” June13, 2018

That is now changing, as the State of Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family as well as various Purdue executives over the prescription painkiller OxyContin. Oxycontin is now recognized as the opioid fuse that ignited America’s opioid crisis. This is the first time where Purdue’s leading executives and members of the multibillionaire Sackler family, now known to be feuding over the opioid crisis have been named in civil litigation.

The Sacklers named in the lawsuits include Theresa and Beverly, widows of Purdue founders, brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler and Ilene, Kathe and Mortimer David Alfons Sackler, three of Mortimer’s children; Jonathan and Richard Sackler, Raymond’s two sons; and David Sackler, Raymond’s grandson. The Sackler family is worth conservatively, an estimated$13 billion, according to Forbes, which has been generated from sales of OxyContin.  As is normal procedure by the Sackler family and the company itself, the Sackler family feuding members always decline requests for comment on the catastrophic opioid crisis and avoid discussing any Purdue Pharma links to how the crisis came about.

PURDUE PHARMA NAMED IN 600 OPIOID LAWSUITS

Dozens of states, counties and local governments have independently sued opioid drugmakers in both state and federal courts across the country, (see OPIOID-CRISIS-BRIEFCASE-MDL-2804-OPIATE-PRESCRIPTION-LITIGATION by Mass Tort Nexus) with claims alleging all opiate drug makers, distributors and now the pharmacies engaged in fraudulent marketing to sell the powerful painkillers. They also failed to monitor and report the massive increases in opioid prescriptions flooding the US marketplace. Which has now resulted in fueling the nationwide epidemic, that’s reported to have killed over a quarter million people. The now organized approach steps up those efforts as officials sift evidence and are now holding not only the companies, but the executives and owners culpable in the designing the opioid crisis.

Purdue Pharma is facing a legal assault on many fronts, as cities, counties and states have either filed suit or are probing the company for an alleged role in the United States’ opioid and addiction epidemic. Now, a lawsuit from Massachusetts’ attorney general Maura Healey is the first to bring the company’s current and former execs into the mix, including the billionaire family with sole ownership of Purdue.

At a news conference this week, Healey said she’s filing suit against the drugmaker, plus current and former executives and board members, “for their role in creating and profiting from this epidemic that has killed so many.” The suit alleges Purdue downplayed risks and overstated benefits of opioid painkillers, including OxyContin. It seeks to link the deaths of 670 Massachusetts residents to actions at the company.

A Purdue spokesman said the company shares concern about the opioid crisis. Purdue is “disappointed, however, that in the midst of good faith negotiations with many states, the Commonwealth has decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process,” he said.

Purdue is no stranger to litigation, in 2007 Purdue agreed to pay $19.5million in civil penalties, but did not admit wrongdoing, to settle lawsuits with 26 states – including Massachusetts – and the District of Columbia after being accused of aggressively marketing OxyContin to doctors while downplaying the risk of addiction. This is a consistent pattern, including the 2007 criminal indictment and plea of senior Purdue Pharma executives, where they agreed to pay over $600 million and plead guilty to a greatly reduced charge of “mislabeling drugs” which seems to have set the stage for the Purdue legal strategy of throwing money at all claim of abuse, thereby setting the Purdue Pharma marketing model loose on the US consumers and the healthcare industry, see USA vs. Purdue Criminal Plea “Oxycontin” usdc.virginia.gov/OPINIONS July 2007

PURDUE PHARMA FIRES ENTIRE SALES FORCE

In what is either an amazing coincidence or a look at corporate political maneuvering, just a week after the Sacklers and company executives were named individually in the latest Purdue Pharma opiate lawsuit, the OxyContin maker laid off its entire sales force.  This puts an end to an era for Purdue that at one point, was the top-selling opioid drug in the country, and became synonymous with the nation’s opioid crisis, while the Sacklers collected billions in profits from Oxycontin sales.

Purdue, had already laid off half of its 600 sales reps in February 2018, as part of the corporate political maneuvering to curry favor with the numerous state and federal investigation that were taking place, when it announced that it would no longer be promoting OxyContin to doctors. On July 19, 2018 six days after the State of Massachusetts filed a complaint naming the company, the founding Sackler family and the executive suite as defendants in a an opioid litigation complaint,  Purdue Pharma confirmed that they had terminated the the remaining 220 employees in its sales force.

While Purdue still manufactures Oxycontin, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the company’s, they will be shifting its focus away from the highly lucrative opiate painkiller market, according to company sources.

PURDUE PHARMA DENIES ALL CLAIMS

We vigorously deny the Commonwealth’s allegations and look forward to presenting our substantial defenses to these claims,” Purdue’s spokesman said in a statement.

Executives named in the suit are current and former Purdue CEOs Craig Landau, John Stewart and Mark Timney, as well as current and former members of the Purdue board of directors, including members of the Sackler family. Dr. John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Bingham founded the company in 1892, and Mortimer and Raymond Sackler purchased Purdue in 1952, which is now owned solely by the Sackler family,.

The lawsuit alleges the company violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute, created a public nuisance, and that it was negligent. It seeks restitution, damages and penalties related to the alleged actions, plus injunctive relief. The company has generated more than $500 million in revenue in Massachusetts since 2008, the AG says.

“Time after time, in doctor visit after doctor visit—and there were thousands of doctor visits made to hundreds of doctors around this state—there were misrepresentations,” Healey said at a news conference. “There were lies about the efficacy, about the safety, about the supposed nonaddictive nature of their product.”

The State of Massachusetts lawsuit is the latest in a wave of complaints against the company and Big Pharma opiate drug makers involved in making and distributing opioids. Hundreds of cities and counties have filed lawsuits, and the cases are now grouped in federal court in Cleveland in MDL 2804, Opiate Prescription Litigation in front of Judge Daniel Polster. Early this year, the judge in the multidistrict litigation indicated that the sides might be able to reach a settlement, but the negotiations later hit “barriers.” The judge charted a course for a few cases to go to bellwether trials.

Aside from cities and counties, dozens of state officials and the feds have gotten involved. Attorneys general from 41 states are investigating and discussing a possible settlement with the company. Last month, six states sued Purdue over its role in the epidemic, according to USA Today. The U.S. Department of Justice is also backing cities and counties in their legal efforts.

The Sackler family name graces some of the nation’s most prestigious bastions of culture and learning — the Sackler Center for Arts Education at the Guggenheim Museum, the Sackler Lefcourt Center for Child Development in Manhattan and the Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology at Columbia University, to name a few.

Now for the first time since the opioid crisis came to the attention of America, the Sackler name is front and center in a lawsuit accusing the family and the company they own and run, Purdue Pharma, of helping to fuel the deadly opioid crisis that has killed thousands of Americans.

Congratulations to the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey took the unusual step of naming the eight members of the Sackler family listed above as part of the conspiracy that profited from and cause the catastrophic opioid crisis that’s gripping the USA to this day.

The 80-page complaint (Complaint: “State of Massachusetts vs. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family” June13, 2018) that accuses Purdue Pharma of spinning a “web of illegal deceit” to boost profits.

While prosecutors in more than a dozen other states hit hard by the opioid epidemic have sued Purdue Pharma, Healey is the first to name individual Sackler family members, along with eight company executives.

(The Sackler family regularly notes that Arthur Sackler, whose philanthropy got his name on the Smithsonian’s Sackler Gallery in Washington and other cultural institutions, died before Purdue began selling OxyContin. Several of his nieces and nephews help run the company.)

Filed on behalf of 670 Massachusetts residents who were prescribed OxyContin, became addicted to opioids and later died, the suit alleges that Purdue deceived doctors and patients about the risks, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs and aggressively targeted veterans and the elderly.

The civil suit doesn’t name a dollar figure, but Healey asked a judge to order the Sacklers and Purdue to “pay full and complete restitution to every person who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reason of their unlawful conduct.”

Mike Moore, the former Mississippi attorney general who took down Big Tobaccotwo decades ago and is now going after Big Pharma, called Healey’s move “a brilliant legal strategy.”

“It pulls up the corporate curtain of protection that these people hide behind,” Moore said in an email to NBC News. “The Sacklers personally made billions of dollars while tens of thousands of overdose deaths were occurring as a direct result of their lies about the addictiveness and effectiveness of OxyContin, the drug they created and marketed. Just as these folks like to be honored when they write big checks to museums and have their names inscribed on plaques for their contributions to so many causes, they should be held accountable for how they made that money in the first place.”

SACKLER FAMILY KNOWN FOR PHILANTHROPY

Juliet Sorensen, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who is now a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, said that the Sacklers are known for their philanthropy — “not for being the driving force behind the opioid epidemic through which they gained their billions.”

“The Sacklers’ collective silence signals a lack of remorse for their role in the opioid epidemic,” she said in an email. “The complaint is a form of exposure.”

“If the Sacklers were not actually defendants that were sued, but rather named and discussed in the body of the complaint, that would be naming and shaming but without legal consequences,” she said. “In this case, however, they are named as defendants, so the naming and shaming ‘pitiless publicity’ effect comes along with potential legal liability.”

The Sacklers named in the complaint are now used to defending thensleves individually and when asked to cooment, the standard Purdue reply was offered by Purdue Pharma spokesman Bob Josephson in an email not a personal quote, “Not at this time.”

Purdue Pharma denied the allegations in the lawsuit, saying it was “disappointed” that, amid negotiations with other states that have sued, Massachusetts “decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process.”

“We will continue to work collaboratively with the states towards bringing meaningful solutions,” the company said.

MASSACHUSETTS HOLDS SACKLERS LIABLE

Emalie Gainey, a spokeswoman for Healey, said the attorney general’s intent in naming the Sacklers was “to hold them individually liable for the role we allege they played.”

“Not only did we name the company today, but we’ve also chose to name executives and directors,” Healey said when the lawsuit was announced. “Ours is the first lawsuit in the country to name those executives personally and tell the story of how they contributed to this deadly crisis.”

Mississippi was the first state to sue Purdue Pharma and the other big pharmaceutical companies, and the state’s attorney general, Jim Hood, said he approved of the message Massachusetts is sending.

“No individual should be above the law and allowed to hide behind corporate protections to shield them from personal responsibility,” Hood said via a spokeswoman. “That includes the Sackler family. Mississippi applauds the efforts of Massachusetts in joining our efforts and seeking accountability wherever it lies.”

In Ohio, the second state to go after the drug companies, including Purdue Pharma, Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Attorney General Mike DeWine, said individual Sackler family members “would certainly be covered” by the state’s action.

The Sackler family is the 19th richest in the nation, with an estimated fortune of $13 billion, according to Forbes.

The Sacklers involved with Purdue Pharma are the descendants of brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. Their eldest brother, Arthur, died in 1987, well before Purdue began making and selling OxyContin. Arthur also worked in pharmaceuticals and developed a reputation for cleverly marketing new drugs directly to doctors, convincing them to prescribe medications including tranquilizers to their patients.

Arthur was inducted into the Medical Advertising Hall of Fame after his death, but he has also been criticized for originating “most of the questionable practices that propelled the pharmaceutical industry into the scourge it is today,” as Allen Frances, the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, told the New Yorker last year.

Arthur’s family has made a point of noting that he was not involved in the sale of OxyContin and would prefer him to be remembered for his philanthropy, including funding the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of Chinese Stone Sculpture at The Metropolitan Museum in Manhattan and the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University.

“None of the charitable donations made by Arthur prior to his death, nor that I made on his behalf after his death, were funded by the production, distribution or sale of OxyContin or other revenue from Purdue Pharma,” his widow, Jillian Sackler, said in a February statement. “Period.”

Seven of the Sacklers named in the suit have been on the Purdue board since the 1990s, according to the suit, while David Sackler, the grandson, has served since 2012.

The board met on a weekly — sometimes daily — basis while the company was being investigated by 26 states and the Justice Department from 2001 to 2007, according to the lawsuit. In 2007, the board settled and agreed to pay a $700 million fine after the company’s CEO at the time, Michael Friedman, and two other high-ranking company officials pleaded guilty to misleading doctors and patients about opioids.

KENTUCKY LEGAL FIGHT TO KEEP SACKLER TESTIMONY SEALED

In an example of the past coming back to haunt the present, in 2015 Purdue Pharma agreed to pay $24 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Kentucky, December 22, 2015 Purdue Pharma Settlement With State of Kentucky,  which Purdue thought would end that problem by paying a fine and moving on, which isn’t the case it seems. See Purdue Pharma settles with Kentucky over Oxycontin claim(statnews.com/pharmalot) for information on the claims in Kentucky.

That state court litigation is now subject to an ongoing legal battle in the Kentucky courts where Purdue is fighting to keep the original court records from that settlement sealed, due to the only deposition testimony of one of the Sackler brothers is known to be located. The Purdue court records were unsealed by Pike County Judge, Stephen Combs in May 2016 and Purdue immediately appealed with oral arguments taking place June 26, 2017 in front of a three judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which as of June 20, 2018 has not issued a ruling on releasing the records. The original Kentucky vs. Purdue docket information is case no. 07-CI-01303, Judge Stephen Combs, Pike County Circuit Court of Kentucky.

OxyContin was hailed as a medical marvel when it debuted in 1995. Pitched as balm for people suffering from moderate to severe pain, it reportedly generated more than $35 billion in revenue for Purdue Pharma.

But its chief ingredient is oxycodone, a cousin of heroin. And prosecutors say Purdue played down the dangers of addiction while getting hundreds of thousands of Americans hooked on opioids.

Purdue has argued that OxyContin is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and accounts for just 2 percent of the opioid prescriptions nationwide.

There are now more than 600 lawsuits naming Purdue Pharma, LP as a defendant in both federal and state court actions, this does not include the potential criminal indictments of not only the company but the Purdue family members that may be emerging. Damages are expected to easily exceed $100 billion versus the company and now that the Sacklers and company executives have been named individually the whole scope of litigation may be changing for the better, as those who profited most from the opioid crisis are now being held accountable.

 

Read More

HOW CAN WE SOLVE THE OPIOID CRISIS STARTING NOW? With An Opioid Crisis Summit Like No Other

A Definitive Opioid Crisis Solutions Event

By Mark A. York (May 29, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) It’s been called the most perilous drug crisis ever in the United States, the epicenter of the opioid epidemic, overdose deaths have quadrupled since 1999, killing more than 100 people every day. Pharmaceutical opiate pain relief is an essential clinical tool, but with physicians writing over 240 million opioid prescriptions to Americans every year, the potential for catastrophe is enormous. Now it seems to be coming into realization that the opioid crisis is here and the damage is catastrophic, gauged against the devastating impact on families and communities across the United States.  How can we get the message out that addiction is now  recognized as a medical, not a criminal problem, and new treatments are on the horizon. How do we protect the population from misusing opioids? An Opioid Crisis Summit featuring national leaders who are involved in the day to day efforts to fight this opiate crisis on all levels, including Ohio Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor, Dr. Rahul Gupta, West Virginia Director of Public Health and others who are involved in providing real time solutions to the opiate epidemic as well as treating physicians and legal professionals who are active in offering solutions.

The Definitive Opioid Crisis Summit For All of America:

July 21-22, 2018

www.opioidcrisissummit.com

OPIOD CRISIS SUMMIT

By Mass Tort Nexus

Fort Lauderdale, FL

 How did the opioid crisis happen?

In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to prescription opioid pain relievers, and healthcare providers began to prescribe them at greater rates. This subsequently led to widespread diversion and misuse of these medications before it became clear that these medications could indeed be highly addictive. Opioid overdose rates began to increase. In 2015, more than 33,000 Americans died as a result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and illicitly manufactured fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.1That same year, an estimated 2 million people in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers, and 591,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder (not mutually exclusive).

 What do we know about the opioid crisis?

  • Roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain misuse them.
  • Between 8 and 12 percent develop an opioid use disorder.
  • An estimated 4 to 6 percent who misuse prescription opioids transition to heroin.
  • About 80 percent of people who use heroin first misused prescription opioids.
  • Opioid overdoses increased 30 percent from July 2016 through September 2017 in 52 areas in 45 states.
  • The Midwestern region saw opioid overdoses increase 70 percent from July 2016 through September 2017.
  • Opioid overdoses in large cities increase by 54 percent in 16 states.

Quarterly rate of suspected opioid overdose, by US region
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This issue has become a public health crisis with devastating consequences including increases in opioid misuse and related overdoses, as well as the rising incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome due to opioid use and misuse during pregnancy. The increase in injection drug use has also contributed to the spread of infectious diseases including HIV and hepatitis C. As seen throughout the history of medicine, science can be an important part of the solution in resolving such a public health crisis.

 The Opioid Crisis Summit Agenda

An unprecedented group of elected officials, political and medical experts, and academic leaders from around the country are set to examine the crisis and offer insight and solutions.

On July 21-22, 2018, the definitive Opioid Crisis Summit presented by Mass Tort Nexus will convene a symposium to present a firsthand account as to the depth and severity of the crisis. The research team at Mass Tort Nexus has brought together influential speakers including the Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, Mary Taylor; State Attorney for Palm Beach County Florida, Dave Aronberg, Esq.; Director of Public Health, State of West Virginia, Rahul Gupta, MD; Executive Director, Novus Medical Detox Centers, Kent Runyon; The Amy Winehouse Project Addiction Recovery Center, Susan Anderson and Blades Williamson; Opioid Crisis Advocate, Stephen Gelfand, MD and Opioid Crisis Expert, John Ray.  These speakers are coming together to give our attendees a firsthand look at just how dramatic the impact of the opioid crisis is within our communities.

Summit attendees including attorneys, elected officials and healthcare officials will be giving specific information regarding the legal aspects of the Opioid Crisis as well. This relates to the Opiate Prescription MDL 2804, where hundreds of counties, states and cities across the country have filed lawsuits against the opiate pharmaceutical industry as a whole. This includes key MDL 2804 leadership counsel who will discuss signing of both entity and individual cases, regarding case criteria, damage models and estimated timeframes for settlement. See MDL 2804 Opiate Prescription Litigation US District Court of Ohio, for the National Prescription Opiate Litigation docket information.

This level of professional expertise and real time awareness of the issues regarding the opioid crisis in the United States has never been assembled on a scale such as this and if you are wanting to get the most critical and complete information, please contact someone at Mass Tort Nexus before all seats are taken.

Media Contact: media@masstortnexus.com 954.870.7323, Mark A. York

Event Contact:

Barbara Capasso

Jenny Levine

954.530.9892

barbara@masstortnexus.com

Read More

Johnson & Johnson Liable For Talc Mesothelioma Verdict Of $21.7 Million In Actual And $4 Million In Punitive Damages

Will Industrial Talc Litigation Become Another Asbestos? The Litigation Is Moving That Way!

By Mark A. York (May 24, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Industrial Talc Litigation The Next Major Mass Tort?

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Johnson & Johnson lost another talcum powder cancer trial, when a California jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages on top of $21.7 million in compensatory damages on Wednesday May 23, 2018 to Joanne Anderson and her husband, Ms. Anderson is a 68-year-old woman who sued J&J alleging that he cancer was caused by asbestos in the company’s baby powder. The case is Anderson v. Borg Warner Corp., BC 666513, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (West Covina).

The jury found that J&J (JNJ.N), was 67 percent responsible for her mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Anderson’s lawyers said she was exposed to baby powder laced with the carcinogen when she used it on her children and while bowling.

The verdict against J&J was linked to company documents produced in the trial, “When jurors are given the opportunity to see internal documents and conduct of J&J — things the FDA and government haven’t seen — there is only one choice in how to rule.” According to Chris Panatier, plaintiffs’ lawyer.

Anderson and her husband had sued J&J, a unit of Imerys SA (IMTP.PA), Cyprus Amax Minerals, a unit of Brenntag (BNRGn.DE), Honeywell International (HON.N) and other local talc suppliers, which are now becoming targets more and more in the emerging talc litigation exploding across the country.

J&J’s lawyers have stated that Anderson’s mesothelioma may not have been caused by asbestos in talc, but could have occurred “spontaneously.’’ They also said the woman had a family history of lung and breast cancer. Even though there has been ample evidence shown in court after court, both state and federal that J&J’s talcum powder products are known to be cancer causing. J&J and others have been diligent in suppressing the research and scientific studies showing the cancer links, going so far as to pay “ghost writers” to submit company sponsored “talc is a good product” papers as legitimate scientific materials to recognize medical journals. This conduct dates back to at least the mid-10970’2 when internal J&J consultants working on Talc R&D projects raised red flags on the dangers of talc and the link to cancer.

Hiding Data That Showed Potential Dangers: The standard complaints utilized in the prior trial allege that J&J knew about the risks of ovarian cancer as early as 1971. The complaints allege that “nearly all” of 23 known epidemiologic studies on cosmetic talc reported an associated risk with ovarian cancer, and assert alleged instances in which J&J “knowingly released false information” about the safety of talc in coordination with the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Media reports suggest that, in post-trial interviews, jurors indicated that these allegations were part of the motivation for the large punitive damages award.

This is the second jury in less than two months to conclude J&J sold its iconic baby powder knowing it contained at least trace amounts of asbestos and posed a cancer risk to users. In April, jurors in J&J’s hometown of New Brunswick, New Jersey, ordered the company and a unit of Imerys SA, a talc supplier, to pay a total of $117 million to a banker who showed his cancer was tied to baby powder use. See For J&J $37 Million Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Verdict—Add $80 Million In Punitive Damages.

Litigation over J&J’s baby powder is accelerating. The company is facing claims by more than 9,000 plaintiffs, primarily connecting talc to ovarian cancer, according to a May 1 securities filing. J&J didn’t break out the number of ovarian cancer cases versus the number of mesothelioma cases allegedly tied to talc. See Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation MDL 2738 (USDC New Jersey).

In MDL 2738 J&J is facing more than 6,000 cases claiming its baby powder caused ovarian cancer, but the talc litigation has taken a new focus in recent months with plaintiffs claiming the widely used product causes mesothelioma due to alleged asbestos contamination.  These casese are being in in US District Court of New Jersey, in front of Judge Freda Wolfson, who has not been perceived as a plaintiff friendly judge so far. But science is science and as more of the data is released and becomes accepted, J&J’s home court advantage in New Jersey courts will continue to

J&J, talc supplier Imerys  and retail seller incuding Rite-Aid pharmacy (RAD.N) are currently facing similar claims in a trial underway in South Carolina over asbestos talc allegations.

Anderson argued she used J&J’s talc products on her children in the 1970s and on herself in the 1980s and 1990s when she would powder her hands and feet while bowling. She claimed at one point, she went through two bottles a month.

Notable Cosmetic Talc/Asbestos Contamination Verdicts

Two recent verdicts for asbestos contamination demonstrate the risk to cosmetic talc defendants. In October 2016, a Los Angeles County jury awarded $18M to Philip Depolian against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels finding it 30% responsible for his mesothelioma due to his alleged exposure to various cosmetic talc products used at his father’s barbershops that contained asbestos. The jury apportioned liability against various cosmetic talc defendants that had settled and several other cosmetic talc product defendants that sold products including Old Spice, Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc.

In 2015, another Los Angeles jury awarded Judith Winkel $13M against Colgate-Palmolive for mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to talc in its baby powder. The jury rejected Colgate and its experts’ claims that the cosmetic talc at issue was not contaminated by asbestos and that the talc in question were non-fibrous “cleavage fragments” unlikely to be inhaled or embedded in the lungs. Although details of the trial are not readily verified, at least one report indicated that evidence presented at trial showed that the talc contained 20% asbestos fibers.

These cases are particularly important because the defendants were held responsible for cosmetic talc containing asbestos and for having caused mesothelioma and not ovarian cancer as in the J & J cases. Further, both juries found that the defendants acted with malice. However, the cases were confidentially settled before the respective punitive damage phases.

 Talc History

There are two types of talc: industrial talc which is used most frequently in rubber, plastics and ceramics; and cosmetic talc which is of a higher grade and is used in conjunction with products that involve direct human exposures such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food additives.

Talc manufacturers and companies that have incorporated talc into their products have been, and continue to be, sued. Industrial talc defendants have been involved in litigation for decades. In lawsuits involving industrial talc, plaintiffs generally allege that the talc is contaminated with asbestos. The injuries alleged are mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. To date, there have been no claims against industrial talc defendants alleging that asbestos in the talc caused ovarian cancer. Industrial talc defendants have aggressively defended the cases and, although suffering some adverse verdicts, they won more cases than they have lost. However, will thousands of new industrial talc claims result in acceptance of litigation and pressure to settle as a suddenly arising “cost of doing business’, such as the view taken by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers who incorporate “litigation costs” into corporate filings and simply classify it as an expense of doing business?

Cosmetic talc cases fall into two distinct categories: 1) cosmetic talc alleged to cause ovarian cancer; and 2) cosmetic talc alleged to cause mesothelioma. The J & J verdicts were ovarian cancer cases. There was no claim that the talc was contaminated with asbestos.

While the J & J St. Louis verdicts received significant attention in the national media, cases alleging that asbestos-containing cosmetic talc caused an asbestos-related disease such mesothelioma have been percolating, and some recent notable verdicts have been obtained. In 2015, a Los Angeles jury awarded $13M to a woman who alleged talcum powder sold by Colgate-Palmolive was contaminated with asbestos causing her to contract mesothelioma.  These cases, if they emerge as viable litigation, could make cosmetic talc defendants targets by substituting them for insolvent asbestos defendants and anyone else who may be named, which would present an extreme and unforeseen threat to cosmetic talc defendants and affiliated industry.

Cosmetic Talc Litigation – Ovarian Cancer

Cases alleging injury from cosmetic talc are relatively new, as best exemplified by the recent high-profile J & J verdicts. These cases did not depend on asbestos contamination, nor did they allege mesothelioma. Instead, they alleged that talc itself causes ovarian cancer. The ovarian cancer talc cases indeed represent an entirely new class of toxic product liability litigation. The approximately 14,000 ovarian cancer deaths a year, in conjunction with the widespread use of talc in everyday products such as baby powder, renders these cases a serious threat to certain defendants and their insurers.
According to the National Institute of Health, there are 22,280 new ovarian cancer diagnoses each year in the U.S. and 14,240 women die of the disease every year. This is seven times the number of annual mesothelioma diagnoses.

The American Cancer Society estimates that there are only 3,000 new mesothelioma diagnoses a year,  with mesothelioma lawsuit filings being stable and not increasing. Like any other business, plaintiffs’ firms are always looking to maintain and grow revenue. Litigation against cosmetic talc defendants alleging ovarian cancer offers a way to substantially increase their bottom line. Indeed, “do you have ovarian cancer?” and “did you use talcum powder?” ads are commonplace on television.

Because everyone can credibly claim exposure to cosmetic talc, the primary issue that will be litigated is the science underlying the causal connection between talc exposure and ovarian cancer. While plaintiffs prevailed in the St. Louis actions, Imerys Talc and J & J persuaded a New Jersey trial court in 2016 to dismiss with prejudice two ovarian cancer cases after granting their motions to bar expert testimony due to inadequate science supporting their opinions. Apparently pressing their advantage, the defendants persuaded the federal talc MDL in New Jersey to conduct a “science day” in which the litigants would attempt to generally demonstrate that cosmetic talc does or does not cause ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ bar quickly responded with their own proposed “science day” in California state court, presumably where they perceive a jurisdictional advantage. The “science” of whether cosmetic talc causes ovarian cancer will be the field of battle on which the sustainability of these claims will live or die.

The sustainability of ovarian cancer talc cases will depend on how the courts resolve the science questions surrounding causation. This will depend in large part on the plaintiffs’ bar’s ability to persuade courts outside jurisdictions traditionally favorable to asbestos claimants of the merit of their claims.

Cosmetic Talc Cases Alleging Asbestos Contamination

In addition to the emergence of ovarian cancer cases, cosmetic talc defendants are also at risk of becoming responsible for mesothelioma cases alleging that their products were contaminated with asbestos. If plaintiffs can meet their burden of proving asbestos contamination in their products, the issue of product identification will largely be moot due to the ubiquitous use of talc in everyday products to which any plaintiff can presumably credibly claim exposure.

Allegations of asbestos contamination in talc have a long and disputed history. The FDA launched an investigation in 2010 based on reports that talc from South Korea and China contained asbestos. After extensive testing of various U.S. consumer products, the FDA found no asbestos contamination in the products. However, it described its results as inconclusive and only “informative” because it was unable to secure samples from all of the common talc suppliers.

The issue of whether cosmetic talc is contaminated by asbestos is disputed by the plaintiffs’ bar. The cosmetic talc defendants present an attractive target, especially given the declining pool of solvent asbestos defendants. In addition, while mesothelioma case filings have been relatively flat, the expected decline of mesothelioma claims has failed to emerge.

If mesothelioma cases do trend upward, plaintiffs’ lawyers will have additional incentive to identify new solvent defendants to satisfy the potential liabilities. Cosmetic talc defendants, generally not burdened by years of asbestos liabilities, make attractive defendants. In addition, because the traditional asbestos defendants that used and sold asbestos products have gone bankrupt, plaintiffs’ lawyers have increasingly struggled to demonstrate proximate cause against individual defendants and have been forced to make ever-more tenuous arguments that even de minimus exposures to asbestos caused their clients’ mesothelioma. The widespread use of cosmetic talc overcomes most traditional product identification, proximate cause defenses. Instead, the principal issue becomes only whether a particular product was contaminated with asbestos.
The plaintiffs’ bar will attempt to meet its burden of demonstrating asbestos contamination in cosmetic talc by arguing that traditional testing methods are not precise enough to detect it at low levels and that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. In previous cases, plaintiffs have employed experts to challenge defendants that maintained talc samples. As these cases are being litigated in the same jurisdictions that handle most asbestos cases, these allegations will  be difficult for defendants to rebut.

Question: Will industrial and cosmetic “personal care” products made with talcum powder and the emerging confirmed links to “asbestos” and “mesothelioma” become the new long term mass tort resulting in thousands of complaints against nontraditional and unsuspecting defendants? Such as the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court lawsuits where a 2015 “cosmetic talc” trial resulted in an $18 million verdict award based on “cosmetic talc exposure in a barbershop” against Old Spice, Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc, as well as a prior 2015 trial verdict of $13 million against Colgate-Palmolive for exposure to talc in its baby powder.

 

Read More