Takeda, Lilly may face thousands of suits over Actos claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Asia’s biggest drugmaker, may face as many as 10,000 lawsuits in U.S. courts over allegations that its Actos diabetes drug causes bladder cancer, and a group of judges is preparing to decide where those suits should be consolidated.

The drug was marketed for Takeda in the United States by Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. from July 1999 to March 2006 and in several other countries until this year.

U.S. regulators found in June that an analysis of a company-sponsored study showed some users of Actos, the world’s best-selling diabetes medication, faced an increased risk of developing the potentially fatal disease.

The evidence linking Actos to bladder cancer “is unusually strong and clear,” Paul J. Pennock, a New York-based lawyer representing former users of the drug, said in a telephone interview. He said his firm, Weitz & Luxemberg, represents 1,200 former Actos users and that total cases may reach 10,000.

“We are getting calls every day about Actos,” he said.

Pennock was set to appear Thursday before a judicial panel in Savannah, Ga., to argue that federal court suits over the drug, whose chemical name is pioglitazone, should be gathered for pretrial proceedings in Louisiana or Ohio.

Takeda officials this year pulled Actos, its top-selling drug, off the market in Germany and France after it was linked to an increased cancer risk. The medication had sales of $4.8 billion in the last fiscal year, 27 percent of the Osaka, Japan-based company’s revenue.

The drugmaker declined to comment on the impact of the lawsuits to its earnings or whether it plans to set aside money for the litigation.

“Takeda already revised the information on risks regarding bladder cancer on leaflets in the U.S. and Japan and is in the process of updating in Europe,” Mitsuo Oguri, a Takeda spokesman in Tokyo, said. “Takeda remains confident on the efficacy of pioglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes, while it continues to monitor the safety profile of the medicine.”

The company’s lawyers said in a September court filing that so far it had been sued 54 times over Actos in federal courts around the U.S.

Terrence Allen, a warehouse worker, filed one of them, against Takeda and Lilly. He took the drug over a five- year-period starting in 2006 and was diagnosed with bladder cancer in January.

Stefanie Prodouz, a spokeswoman for Lilly, didn’t return calls for comment on the Actos suits naming the drugmaker as a defendant.

Allen, of Attica, N.Y., said he’s had two surgeries to remove cancerous tissue from his bladder and may be facing another after the Christmas holiday.

“If somebody had told me I could get cancer from Actos, I never would have taken it,” he said. “There were other products out there that could have helped treat my diabetes without putting me through all of this.”

Allen, 57, said he sued the drugmaker to help alert other diabetics that Actos poses serious health risks. He’s also hoping the litigation will force Takeda to take responsibility for his injuries, he said.

“To some degree, I would like my pound of flesh from the company,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say they expect thousands more former Actos users to join Allen in suing Takeda over the drug given its rise in popularity after GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s Avandia diabetes drug was found to pose an increased heart-attack risk.

Glaxo officials pulled the drug from European markets and curtailed sales in the U.S. in 2007 after studies found Avandia posed greater risk of heart attacks and strokes than Actos.

The London-based drugmaker has paid more than $6 billion for legal costs tied to Avandia and other medicines. In the wake of Avandia’s problems, Actos’s sales rose from about $3 billion in 2006 to almost $5 billion last year.

Will Kemp, a Las Vegas-based attorney representing former Actos users, said the suits will differ from Avandia cases because the alleged injuries are more distinctive.

“Bladder cancer is considered to be a signature injury because there aren’t a lot of other things that cause that particular illness,” he said. “With a heart attack or stroke, you’d have a slew of other potential causes to deal with.”

Turner Branch, a New Mexico-based plaintiffs’ lawyer, said Takeda also will face claims that Actos caused heart attacks and strokes like Avandia. “I think this is going to be very large litigation with a large number of cases,” he added.

Before corralling the litigation in one court, judges on the so-called Multi-District Litigation panel will hear arguments Thursday on which federal court should be selected.

Similar cases in courts across the U.S. can be consolidated before one judge for pretrial exchange of information. The consolidation is intended to save money by streamlining document exchanges and avoiding duplication.

Lawyers for Takeda and some of the plaintiffs are arguing in court papers that the Actos suits should be consolidated in federal court before U.S. District Judge James Zagel in Chicago or before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in Lafayette, La.

Other plaintiffs’ attorneys are suggesting the cases be collected before U.S. District Judge Daniel Polster in Cleveland, according to court filings. Another group of lawyers seek to have the suits consolidated in federal court in Birmingham, Ala.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.