IBJNews

Lilly hid Zyprexa's diabetes risks, family’s lawyer argues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. hid the diabetes risks of its Zyprexa antipsychotic medication to protect sales, a lawyer for the family of a patient who died while taking the medicine told a jury in the first case to go to trial over the drug.

Cody Tadai, a 20-year-old college student, took Zyprexa to battle mental illness without either him, or his doctor, being properly warned about the drug’s link to diabetes, Ronald Makarem, a Los Angeles-based lawyer, said in closing arguments in the trial of a lawsuit filed by members of Tadai’s family. They contend the student died of diabetes-related ailments in March 2007 and that the drugmaker put profits ahead of the safety of Zyprexa users.

“They chose money over safety,” Makarem told jurors in state court in Los Angeles Wednesday. A verdict on behalf of Tadai’s family would remind Lilly executives to ensure “safety comes first and money second,” he added.

Indianapolis-based Lilly, which lost patent protection on Zyprexa last month, has paid out about $2.9 billion to resolve government and individual claims over its marketing of the antipsychotic drug.

Lilly agreed in 2009 to pay $1.42 billion to settle federal prosecutors’ allegations that it illegally marketed Zyprexa for unapproved uses. The drugmaker also agreed to pay more than $260 million to resolve similar state claims. The company also has agreed to pay more than $1.2 billion to settle about 31,000 suits by former users of the drug.

Stefanie Prodouz, a Lilly spokeswoman, declined to comment Tuesday on why the drugmaker decided to let the Tadai family’s Zyprexa suit be the first to go to trial after more than eight years of litigation over the medication. The drug was Lilly’s top seller last year, racking up more than $5 billion in sales.

The drugmaker still faces about 40 Zyprexa suits that include claims from about 110 former users of the drug, Lilly executives said in an Oct. 28 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Tadai’s family contends Lilly officials withheld information about the side effects of Zyprexa, such as diabetes and weight gain, and encouraged sales of the drug for unapproved, or off-label, purposes.

They also contend Lilly trained its sales force to “neutralize” any questions or concerns about Zyprexa’s links to weight gain or diabetes in users and to tout its superiority to competing drugs that required blood monitoring.

Seven months after Tadai’s death, FDA officials ordered Lilly to strengthen Zyprexa’s diabetes warning, Makarem noted.

The psychiatrist who prescribed Zyprexa in 2003 to control Tadai’s aggression wouldn’t have agreed to the off-label use of the drug if he’d known it could lead Tadai to develop diabetes, Makarem added.

The psychiatrist wouldn’t have prescribed Zyprexa or he would have immediately taken “Cody off the drug,” the family’s lawyer told jurors.

Makarem asked jurors to award the family a total of $40 million in compensatory damages over the loss of the college student to diabetes-related illnesses.

Lilly’s lawyers countered that Tadai’s family had a history of diabetes and said Zyprexa played no role in his development of the disease. They also argued the company adequately warned doctors and patients about Zyprexa’s diabetes risk in 2003, the year the student began taking the medication.

Tadai battled with weight problems throughout his life and his parents and his doctors should have done a better job of monitoring his diabetes risks, Andrew Rogoff, one of Lilly’s lawyers, told the jury Wednesday in his closing statement.

“Lilly fulfilled its responsibilities,” Rogoff said. “Everyone else in this world has responsibilities, too.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Mitch Daniels
    Eli Lilly Zyprexa Olanzapine issues linger.
    PTSD treatment for Veterans found ineffective.
    Mitch Daniels Governor of Indiana was Lilly's president of corporate strategy during the *viva zyprexa* sales push campaign.
    I was given Zyprexa 1996-2000 actually took it as an experimental drug 6 months before FDA approval 96.
    Have all my records and so does Lilly.
    January 2000 I got a sudden onset A1c of a whopping 14.9.
    No question it was Zyprexa that ruined my pancreatic beta cells.
    The warning black label did not go on till 2003
    I am classic case for compensation never signed on with the original 8,000 claimants because payout too small.
    Instead I do blog and commentary have made over 150,000 pages exposing the danger of Zyprexa.
    --
    Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT