The rejected appeal comes on the heels of a Pfizer report that it had put aside $772 million to settle lawsuits from women who claimed the pills caused them to develop breast cancer.

Prempro is a medication containing estrogen plus progestin. It is often prescribed to treat symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes, vaginal dryness, mood swings, difficulty sleeping, and decreased sexual desire. Wyeth, which was later bought by Pfizer, had promoted the drugs as safe and claimed they offered women added benefits such as protection against heart disease and dementia.

However, a study as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) that looked at the effects of HRT in menopausal and post-menopausal women, was abruptly halted after early data showed HRT put women at risk for breast cancer. Since then, about 10,000 Prempro breast cancer lawsuits have been filed.

A large number of the Prempro trials have resulted in multi-million dollar awards against the drug maker after juries found that the drug company knew that the dangers associated with HRT but actively tried to cover up the risks.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Supreme Court rejects Prempro breast cancer lawsuit appeal

Mrs. Smith talked to her doctor, who recommended Prempro, a pill made by Wyeth that contains a mixture of estrogen and synthetic progestin hormones. The pills were also marketed to doctors and women as a miracle drug that tamed not only menopausal symptoms but also had the added benefit of protecting women against heart disease and osteoporosis. HRT became widely prescribed, and Wyeth racked in billions in profits.

Less than two years after starting HRT, Mrs. Smith, an otherwise hormone deficient woman, was diagnosed with a hormone-fed breast cancer. She became part of a staggering statistic that was only just beginning to emerge from the Women’s Health Initiative, research that focused on causes of mortality and morbidity in menopausal and post-menopausal women. The study that focused on HRT was abruptly halted in 2002 when data showed that women who used HRT were at greater risk for breast cancer. They were also at increased risk for ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, heart attacks, strokes and blood clots.

Perhaps even more disturbing is evidence that suggests that Wyeth was aware of the potential for serious health risks associated with its billion-dollar drug, but failed to warn doctors and their patients. As a result, as many as 10,000 women or their family members have filed lawsuits against Wyeth. This August, Mrs. Smith is scheduled to have her day in court.

“We look forward to the trial of this case,” says attorney Ted Meadows with Beasley Allen Law Firm. “Once the jury gets to see the evidence that other juries have seen, we believe they will agree that Prempro caused (Mrs. Smith’s) breast cancer and that doctors were not adequately warned because Wyeth refused to properly test the drug.”

* client’s name has been changed

For more information about HRT litigation, visit www.beasleyallen.com.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › HRT breast cancer trial set for August

This week, Pfizer, which recently acquired Wyeth, the makers of the hormone replacement therapies (HRT) Prempro and Premarin, were hit with more than $100 million in two punitive-damage awards from Philadelphia juries. The two plaintiffs, Connie Barton and Donna Kendall, claimed the drugs caused their breast cancer.

The evidence was startling. Plaintiffs attorneys proved that Wyeth launched a massive campaign to push the benefits of its HRT drugs to doctors and the general public while knowingly dismissing or downplaying other institutes’ data that revealed an increased risk of breast cancer with the use of combination hormone therapy. The company went to such lengths as to hire ghostwriters to write articles for reputable medical journals that minimized the breast cancer risk and exaggerated the benefits of HRT.

It wasn’t until the government-initiated Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) that everything changed. WHI was a 15-year study launched in 1991 that aimed to address the most common causes of death, disability and poor quality of life in postmenopausal women, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporosis. In 2002, WHI halted the estrogen-plus-progestin trial after investigators found that the associated health risks of the combined hormone therapy out weighted the benefits. The 2002 report showed there was a 24 percent increase in the risk for breast cancer due to estrogen-plus-progestin HRT.

Since then, more than 10,000 other product liability suits have been filed over the HRT drugs in across the country, 1,500 of which have been filed in the Philadelphia court. Many of the cases are filed in Philadelphia because Wyeth’s headquarters were located there.

“Wyeth had no concern whatsoever for the health of the patients. They were only concerned about their profits,” says Michael Richmond, a jury foreperson in a Prempro trial.

Sales of Prempro and Premarin exceeded $2 billion a year before 2002. Last year, $1.4 billion in estrogen drugs and $400 million in estrogen-progestin combination drugs were sold in the United States.

More Information
HRT Jury Verdict Chart

Sources:
Beasley Allen Law Firm
New York Times

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Two breast cancer survivors awarded $100 million in HRT lawsuits

According to court documents, ghostwriters for Wyeth wrote 26 articles that appeared in 18 different medical journals between 1998 and 2005 emphasizing that hormones protect against osteoporosis, heart disease and dementia and down-playing the risks. In 2001, Wyeth benefited by reaping nearly $2 billion in sales of its HRT drugs Premarin and Prempro, making them among of the most prescribed drugs in the U.S.

But at what cost did Wyeth benefit?

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a research initiative initiated by the National Institutes of Health to look into some of the major health problems of older women, was abruptly halted after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. One of the thousands of victims is Geraldyne Frambs of Sacramento, Calif.

In the mid-1980s, Frambs was prescribed and began taking HRT. In 2003, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Now she wants justice. This week, attorney Ted G. Meadows with Beasley Allen Law Firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Frambs against Wyeth Inc., Weyth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Pharmacia Corporation, Pharmacia & UpJohn LLC, Greenstone Ltd, Barr Laboratories Inc., Barr Pharmaceuticals and ESO Lederle Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the cancer, subsequent surgery, treatment, injury and damage to Frambs were caused by her use of HRT. The complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent by not assuring that their products did not cause users to suffer from foreseeable unreasonably dangerous side effects and serious health problems, and that they should have known the serious risks women were put under by using drugs that were defective at the time of production. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the defendants willfully deceived the plaintiff by concealing the true facts concerning the hormone therapy drugs, which the defendants, as manufacturers, marketers and distributors of the products, had a duty to disclose to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all monies the plaintiff paid for the products; to be compensated for the cost of medical care as a result of the use of the products including past medical expenses, wage loss, pain, suffering, disability and emotional distress.

Read Frambs’ complaint: Frambs v Wyeth (HRT Lawsuit)

Sources:
New York Times
Beasley Allen

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Wyeth paid ghostwriters to sway doctors to prescribe HRT

Attorneys for the research center argued that the data, which is the most recent information collected in a follow up of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), had not yet been analyzed, peer-reviewed or published and that allowing Wyeth to sort through the raw data was simply “preposterous.” The Cancer Research Center had been resisting Wyeth’s requests for the information through subpoenas but will now have to surrender the data.

WHI, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, was launched in 1991 and consisted of a set of clinical trials and an observational study that involved more than 160,000 generally healthy postmenopausal women. The major 15-year research program was designed to address the most common causes of death, disability and poor quality of life in postmenopausal women – cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporosis.

Preliminary results of the 2002 WHI showed that women who took HRT to relieve symptoms of menopause were at an even greater risk for serious diseases and conditions such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke and blood clots.

As a result of the study, numerous lawsuits have been filed against makers of HRT, including Wyeth. To date, there are about 8,000 plaintiffs with cases pending against Wyeth, of which 7,000 plaintiffs are part of the multidistrict litigation that falls under Wilson’s pretrial oversight.

Source: NWAnews.com

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Judge orders WHI follow-up data be released to Wyeth

According to the story, attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said in a news release, “When drug companies purposefully misrepresent the safety and efficacy of their drugs, or promote their drugs in a deceptive way, everybody loses. We’re confident we have the facts necessary to prove this case, and we hope this lawsuit and its outcome will deter improper drug company practices in Nevada.”

The suit claims that the drug company misled Nevada patients and their doctors about the safety and the effectiveness of the drugs Premarin, Prempro and Premphase, sold by Wyeth; and Provera, sold by Pfizer. That, the suit contends, resulted in the over-prescribing and drastic increase in hormone-positive cancers in women who had taken the drugs. The suit seeks $5,000 to $12,000 in damages for each violation.

Weyth’s HRT drugs Premarin and Prempro dominated the market for menopausal symptoms. However, since the Women’s Health Initiative of 2002, which found HRT increased a woman’s risk for breast cancer and other serious diseases and conditions, Wyeth has been faced with numerous lawsuits over its drugs Premarin and Prempro.

Last year, three Navada women won $58 million in compensatory and punitive damages after claiming Prempro caused their breast cancer. Wyeth also was ordered to pay $1.6 million in attorney fees. The drug maker has appealed the verdict to the Nevada Supreme Court.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Nevada AG sues companies for misleading about HRT safety

Scharlotte Fitzgerald says she began taking hormone replacement drugs in 1994. In 2001 she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Fitzgerald and her husband Larry filed a personal injury suit against the drug companies in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas on Nov. 2. They are seeking in excess of $75,000 in damages.

“This lawsuit asserts claims for negligence; strict product liability for failure to warn, strict product liability for design defect; and breach of implied warranty against the defendants responsible for the design, manufacture, production, testing, study, inspection, mixture, labeling, marketing, advertising, sales, promotion and/or distribution of those hormone therapy products that caused her breast cancer,” the plaintiffs’ original complaint states.

The plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants had an obligation to provide warnings about risks and side effects of their hormone therapy drugs as soon as it was aware of them. The suit alleges that the drug companies failed to disclose “an increased incidence and risk of strokes, blood clots, heart attacks, breast cancers and ovarian cancer from these drugs.”

Plaintiffs also assert that the defendants made claims regarding health benefits of the drugs and should have known “that these claims were false and misleading.”

The defendants also gave a false impression that adequate pre-marketing clinical testing and research and post-marketing surveillance had been done, the plaintiffs claim.

“Plaintiff would not have ingested the hormone therapy drugs … or would have discontinued their use, or would have used safer alternative methods, had defendants disclosed the true health consequences, risks, and adverse effects, including the increased incidence and risk of breast cancer and other illnesses, caused by their hormone drugs,” the complaint states.

In the first claim against defendants, the plaintiff alleges that the companies were negligent by failing to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, testing and distributing the hormone replacement drugs.

“Defendants knew or should have known that their hormone therapy drugs caused unreasonable harm and dangerous side effects that many users would be unable to remedy by any means,” the petition states. “Despite this, defendants continued to promote and market their hormone therapy drugs for use by consumers, including plaintiff, when safer and more effective methods of countering the negative health effects of menopause were available.”

The petition also includes claims for strict liability through failure to warn and design defect.

“These hormone therapy drugs were each dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchased them,” the suit says. “They were more dangerous than plaintiff contemplated. The risk of each of these hormone therapy drugs outweighs its utility.”

The companies also breached implied warranty, the suit said, because the sold the drugs as being of “merchantable quality and safe and fit for their intended use.”

Scharlette Fitzgerald is seeking damages to exceed $75,000, attorney fees, costs of suit and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Her husband, Larry Fitzgerald is also seeking monetary damages for his loss of spousal services, society and companionship.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Lawsuit filed over HRT drugs blamed for breast cancer

The panel ruled Oct. 12 that the company owed the women $35.1 million in compensatory damages. Jurors in state court in Reno concluded today that Wyeth, the largest maker of hormone- replacement medicines, should also pay Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester punitive damages for concealing the breast-cancer risks of its Prempro and Premarin drugs.

“We got the word out that a lot of women have been injured by this type of behavior by this company,” Rowatt said after the verdict. She said she was “ecstatic” with the award. Lawyers for Wyeth, the largest maker of hormone-replacement therapies, said the company will appeal the verdict.

The three women’s suits, which were combined for trial, are among about 5,300 against Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth over its menopause drugs. As many as 6 million women took the pills to treat menopause symptoms such as hot flashes and mood swings before a 2002 study highlighted the drugs’ links to cancer.

Annual sales of Wyeth’s hormone-replacement drugs exceeded $2 billion before the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative study, sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, suggested women using the medicines had a 24 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The drugs, which are still on the market, generated more than $1 billion in sales in 2006.

Ignored Risks

Lawyers for Rowatt, Scofield and Forrester argued in the Reno case that Wyeth officials ignored Prempro’s health risks and failed to properly warn doctors and consumers about the drug’s cancer link to boost profits.

Wyeth’s lawyers insisted the company conducted extensive safety tests on the drugs and warned of the risks through prescription labels and information sheets. The Reno verdict is the company’s fourth trial loss in suits over the drugs.

“The verdict is an extreme aberration,” said Heidi Hubbard, an attorney for Wyeth. “It is inconsistent with the end result of all other hormone-therapy cases tried to date, and is inconsistent with the evidence. We are confident the Nevada Supreme Court will give the flawed verdict careful scrutiny.”

Jurors considered ordering Wyeth to pay more than $1 billion in punitive damages before settling on the lower number, said Emery Pierce, 22, a supervisor for United Parcel Service who served on the panel.

Pierce said jurors were upset that Wyeth used misleading information on its labels for the Premarin and Prempo menopause drugs.

‘Care Enough’

“There’s no way they provided an adequate warning,” the Reno resident said. “They didn’t seem to care enough that breast cancer kills people.”

Having a jury find Wyeth’s conduct warrants a punitive- damage award should be a concern for the company, said Michael Kelly, a Wilmington, Delaware-based lawyer who represents drugmakers in product-liability cases.

“The punitive award shows that the jury found there was a conscious indifference to patient safety,” Kelly said. “That’s not the kind of reputation a pharmaceutical company wants to have.”

The Reno verdict was the fourth loss for Wyeth since lawsuits over the menopause drugs began going to trial in August 2006. It’s the largest verdict so far in the hormone-replacement therapy cases and the eighth-largest verdict of any kind in the U.S. this year, according to Bloomberg data.

Prempro Trials

The company has won two federal-court suits that have come to trial over Prempro and Premarin as well one case filed in state court in Philadelphia. Three other Philadelphia juries found the medicines contributed to the development of breast cancer in women and ordered the company to pay a total of $3 million in damages. Judges later threw out those verdicts.

Until 1995, many menopausal women combined Premarin, Wyeth’s estrogen-based drug, with progestin-laden Provera to relieve their symptoms. That year, Wyeth combined the two hormones in its Prempro pill after winning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the treatment.

Rowatt, 67, Scofield, 74, and Forrester, 64, all used Wyeth’s hormone replacement drugs for different lengths of time, according to court records. Rowatt was awarded $31 million in punitive damages by the Reno jury, Scofield $33 million and Forrester $35 million.

Rowatt, a retired Defense Department worker, used the drugs for more than seven years. Forrester, a former administrative assistant, used them for more than nine years. Scofield, a homemaker, was on hormone-replacement therapies for 15 years.

‘Deserved This’

All three women sat through the entire five-week trial. After the initial verdict was handed down last week, the trio cried as they hugged Zoe Littlepage, one of their lawyers. “You so deserved this,” the lawyer told them.

The jury initially awarded the plaintiffs $134.5 million, or more than $43 million each. The panel had to reconsider that verdict after Judge Robert Perry learned part of the figure was intended to punish Wyeth for its mishandling of the drugs.

Jurors cut that award to a total of $35.1 million in compensatory damages for the three women after spending several hours reconsidering their verdict on Friday.

Wyeth lawyer Dan Webb today asked Perry to throw out the punitive-damage verdict because of the jury error. The judge refused.

The jury told these three women “that their lives and suffering have value,” Littlepage said. The decision shows “what a courageous Nevada jury thinks of what Wyeth has done.”

According to a company-funded study presented today in Washington, Wyeth’s drug Pristiq, the first non-hormone menopause pill, reduces symptoms such as hot flashes more effectively than placebo. Pristiq was delayed by regulators for additional safety tests.

October 16th, 2007

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Wyeth must pay $134.1 million in menopause drug lawsuit