Premarin and Premplus are made by Wyeth, which was later bought out by Pfizer. In a statement issued by Pfizer, the drug company said it would fight the charges and argued there was no way to prove HRT causes breast cancer: “It is widely accepted that science cannot determine what caused or contributed to any individual woman’s breast cancer except in rare circumstances where genetics play a role. Wyeth acted responsibly by conducting or supporting more than 180 studies on hormone therapy’s benefits and risks, and including science-based information in Premarin and Premplus’ labels that accurately communicate these benefits and risks to doctors and patients alike.”

Wyeth strongly promoted HRT as a cure-all for symptoms of menopause that not only treated hot flashes and vaginal dryness, but also offered added benefits such as protection from osteoporosis and heart disease. Any negative press about the drugs was quickly overshadowed by articles promoting the benefits of HRT in medical journals written by ghostwriters paid by Wyeth.

Despite the cover up, the public became aware of the dangers of HRT in 2002, when the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) published a five-year study of menopausal and postmenopausal women that demonstrated that HRT increases the risk for cardiovascular disease and breast cancer.

“I never would have taken Premarin if I had been told of the risks,” said the main plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Dianna Stanway of Sechelt, B.C., in a statement issued by her law firm. “I want my lawsuit to help all Canadian women, and their families, who have been harmed by this drug.”

Source: Toronto Sun

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › British Columbia certifies HRT class action lawsuit

The Women’s Health Initiative bought the story to light in 2002, when a trial on the effects of HRT on menopausal and post-menopausal women revealed that women who took the combined hormone therapy were at greater risk of breast cancer. Studies also showed that the HRT elevates a woman’s risk of other conditions such as ovarian cancer, heart attacks, strokes, deep vein thromboembolism, pulmonary embolisms, gallbladder cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Unfortunately, Delores died from what her family says were complications of HRT. Last month, her family filed a lawsuit in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas against HRT manufacturers Wyeth, Pifzer, Pharmacia and Upjohn Co., and Watson Pharmaceuticals claiming the drug companies covered up the risks of HRT. The Whatley family also is alleging assault and battery, as well as negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against the drug manufacturers. They are seeking damages for loss of love, affection, service and support, and medical and funeral expenses, and are requesting a jury trial.

Source: Southeast Texas Record

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Family claims HRT killed their mother

The study was based on data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a research project into the mortality and morbidity of menopausal and post-menopausal women. One aspect of WHI looked into the benefits of HRT, but was halted in its early phases in 2002 when researchers found women on hormone therapy were at substantially higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who did not take HRT. The study also showed women were at greater risk for heart attacks, strokes and blood clots, which contradicted popular HRT-maker Wyeth’s claims that the therapy actually improved a woman’s risk for those and other conditions.

The new study on the connection between HRT use, breast tenderness and breast cancer involved 16,000 women, half of which were given estrogen-plus-progestin and the other half were given a placebo. The women who took the HRT who did not experience breast tenderness prior to therapy were three times more likely to report breast tenderness one year after beginning therapy, than women taking the placebo. Women on HRT who reported breast tenderness one year after beginning hormone therapy had a 48 percent high risk of developing invasive breast cancer than women also taking HRT who did not report new-onset breast tenderness at the one-year mark.

Researchers say more research needs to be done to understand the relationship between new-onset breast tenderness in women on HRT and breast cancer.

Source: Oncology Nursing News

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Women on HRT who experience breast tenderness at greater risk of cancer

“Even though this share seems low, ovarian cancer remains highly fatal, so accordingly this risk warrants consideration,” the researchers, led by Lina Steinrud Morch of Copenhagen University, wrote.

The risk of ovarian cancer from hormone replacement therapy remained steady among variables such as duration of use, formulation of hormones, estrogen dosage, or how it was administered. Earlier studies, however, suggested cancer risk diminished about two years after therapy was stopped.

The findings add fuel to the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study that was halted in 2002 after data suggested the use of HRT put women at a much greater risk for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, strokes and cardiovascular disease. Those findings contradicted the claims of HRT makers, who told physicians the hormones actually warded off such conditions.

Since the WHI findings became public, use of HRT has dropped considerably. Since 2001, drug maker Wyeth has experienced a 50 percent drop in sales of its HRT Prempro, and has been faced with numerous lawsuits from women harmed by the drug.

Sources:
Reuters
New York Times

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Study: HRT puts women at greater risk for ovarian cancer

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals caught wind of the book and its author’s claims that estrogen reduced a woman’s risk for both breast and genital cancers, and began distributing the book to physicians across the country. Soon after, sales of Wyeth’s HRT drug Premarin took off, growing to more than 30 million prescriptions each year.

But the Women’s Health Initiative of 2002 showed dramatically different results, finding the use of hormone replacement therapy linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and blood clots.

This is the basis of at least 22 federal lawsuits that have been filed over a period of two days against Wyeth, according to The West Virginia Record.

“The WHI and NCI studies released in July 2002 changed the way doctors and scientists viewed estrogen – not only does estrogen hormone therapy fail to prevent disease, it substantially increases the risk of causing disease,” the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim they suffered bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish and the loss of their capacity to enjoy life. The suit contends that Wyeth should be held liable because it did not perform adequate pre-clinical testing nor did it conduct post-marketing surveillance to determine the product’s safety. Wyeth also did not provide adequate warnings of long-term use of HRT, instead continuing to market its medication to physicians, according to the lawsuit.

The 13-count lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Wyeth faces more lawsuits for promoting sales despite concerns

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

Prempro and Premarin , along with Provera, which is made by Pfizer, have come under attack in recent years as mounting evidence revealed that the drugs can increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Plaintiffs lodging claims against the drug makers argue that the manufacturers failed to voice sufficient warning about the increased risk of developing breast cancer that the drugs present. Approximately 5,000 women have filed lawsuits against Wyeth, contending that the company’s HRTs (hormone replacement therapies) caused them to develop breast cancer.

A study monitoring 3,400 recipients of Aprela indicated no evidence of increased breast cancer rates, compared with women who received Evista or placebo. Aprela recipients also showed the same relatively lower rates of breast tenderness and pain as Evista and placebo recipients – a significant benefit considering that breast discomfort is the main reason why stop using menopause drugs

Other studies revealed that Aprela recipients experienced better sleep and diminished hot flashes compared to women who were treated with placebo. Increased bone density, improved sexual function, and less vaginal dryness were also evident in late-stage tests of Aprela.

Wyeth will submit Aprela to the FDA for approved use in the second half of 2009. If approved, the drug may provide a better line of treatment for postmenopausal women. Its marketing would also help the company offset continual losses resulting from its Prempro suits.

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Wyeth developing another HRT for menopause

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the first of two cases this term that consumer advocates fear could shut courthouse doors to patients injured by FDA-approved drugs or medical devices.

Legal experts say the cases could also affect lawsuits already filed by tens of thousands of Americans challenging the safety of blockbuster drugs such as Celebrex and Prempro and a host of medical devices.

The case before the court today was brought by the family of a New York man who suffered severe medical complications when a balloon catheter burst during a procedure to clear his arteries. The second case, involving claims for injuries allegedly caused by Rezulin, a now-withdrawn drug used to treat diabetes, will be heard in February.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have long complained that the expense of defending injury claims has slowed research into new medications and driven up costs for patients. Because Congress granted the Food and Drug Administration the authority to determine whether products are safe and effective, manufacturers argue that state judges and juries should not be allowed to second-guess the FDA once a product is approved for use.

State damage claims put pharmaceutical makers in a “Catch-22 between complying with FDA regulations on the one hand and still being subject to state liability on the other,” said Rob Clark, a government affairs director for Medtronic Inc., which made the cardiac catheter.

But plaintiffs’ lawyers and consumer groups say that the FDA has approved some drugs and devices based on sloppy or falsified test data, adding that lawsuits are the only way evidence of drug risks or drug maker fraud has come to light.

A report issued Friday by three members of the FDA’s own Science Boardfound that the agency was so poorly organized and short of funds that it could not adequately protect the public from dangerous drugs.

A ruling for Medtronic would “take away the last possible safety net against unfettered corporate misbehavior and negligence,” said Karen Barth Menzies, a Newport Beach lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in cases against drug makers.

Menzies sees these “preemption” cases as a new battlefront in the tort-reform wars in the wake of limits imposed by Congress and state legislatures in recent years on class actions and medical malpractice claims.

Charles Riegel sued Medtronic, claiming his injuries were caused by the catheter’s negligent design, manufacture and labeling, despite the fact the device had won FDA approval. Riegel died in 2004 of causes unrelated to the angioplasty, and his widow took over his claim. Her case was thrown out by a U.S. District Court judge and then by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The prospect that the high court may bar injury claims for FDA-approved pharmaceuticals helped precipitate the $4.85-billion settlement of Vioxx claims last month, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations.

Lawyers representing plaintiffs who took the popular painkiller insisted on language that would allow the settlement to close and compensation be paid even if the high court sides with Medtronic. Vioxx maker Merck & Co. took the drug off the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients taking it for more than 18 months.

The question in the catheter case is whether Congress intended to bar state common law claims when it gave the FDA authority to regulate medical devices in 1976. Widespread injuries reported by women who used the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device and other products had earlier prompted California and a few other states to impose some labeling and design requirements in the absence of federal standards.

The 1976 federal statute specifically said that states couldn’t maintain requirements that were different from federal standards. But Congress didn’t specify that those federal standards preempted state common law claims, and device manufacturers didn’t argue that they did until recently, said Allison Zieve, a lawyer with Washington-based Public Citizen Litigation Group who will be arguing for Donna Riegel before the court.

In rejecting the Riegel suit, the lower courts reasoned that if the plaintiffs reached trial and won, the damages would amount to a state “requirement” different from FDA requirements because the complaint depended on state law.

Glenn Lammi, chief counsel with the Washington Legal Foundation, said continuing to allow injury claims under state law could create “a patchwork of rules” governing product design and use that “creates confusion among consumers” and raises costs. The foundation, a group that advocates restrictions on lawsuits, submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the company.

Beyond the issue of whether patients have the right to sue under state law, Medtronic’s Clark insisted the company was not responsible for Riegel’s injuries because his doctor used the catheter improperly, inflating the balloon beyond the pressure specified on the FDA-approved instructions.

Zieve disagrees that the label was adequate, calling the instructions “confusing and misleading.” However, she said the preemption argument was more central to the case, calling it “essentially a get out of jail free card.”

If the court upholds Medtronic’s position, Zieve said, it means that “no matter who messed up, you can’t sue the company.”

December 4th, 2007 by Molly Selvin with Los Angeles Times

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › High court may bar claims for FDA-approved drugs

According to the lawsuit filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Gray used Prempro from Jan. 19, 1998, through Oct. 15, 2005. She was diagnosed with left breast cancer on Nov. 14, 2005.

They claim the drug was defectively designed and that the defendants failed to warn users of its danger.

“…Defendants failed to perform adequate testing and study HRT (hormone replacement therapy) drugs prior to marketing it or properly analyze and warn based upon studies and testing,” the complaint states.

The defendants failed to warn the plaintiff that use of HRT drugs carried a risk of ovarian cancer.

In a claim for loss of consortium, the lawsuit alleges the marital association of the Grays has been altered causing great mental anguish.

November 26th, 2007

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Prempro user claims drug caused breast cancer

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

Minnie Louise Gray and her husband John E. Gray filed an 11-count suit against Wyeth, Inc. over its drug Prempro, which is used by post-menopausal women. The suit also names Walgreen as a defendant for having sold the drug to Gray.

According to the lawsuit filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Gray used Prempro from Jan. 19, 1998, through Oct. 15, 2005. She was diagnosed with left breast cancer on Nov. 14, 2005.

The lawsuit claims the drug was defectively designed and that the defendants failed to warn users of its danger.

“…Defendants failed to perform adequate testing and study HRT (hormone replacement therapy) drugs prior to marketing it or properly analyze and warn based upon studies and testing,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn the plaintiff that use of HRT drugs carried a risk of ovarian cancer.

In a claim for loss of consortium, the lawsuit alleges the marital association of the Grays has been altered causing great mental anguish.

October 23rd, 2007

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Prempro user claims drug caused breast cancer

The company won 15 of the 18 lawsuits that have been tried, according to company information. Two others were settled, and one was in the plaintiff’s favor.

Lawyers for the three women who were awarded more than $120 million in jury awards in Reno have disputed Wyeth’s claims.

Nevada residents Jeraldine Scofield, Arlene Rowatt and Pamela Forrester testified that they developed breast cancer after taking Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, a combination estrogen, and progestin to offset the symptoms of menopause.

They claimed in their lawsuit that Wyeth produced a dangerous product, failed to adequately test the drugs and failed to provide warnings about the drugs’ risks.

After two days of deliberations, the jury agreed with the women’s claims and ordered Wyeth to pay $43.5 million each to Scofield and Rowatt, and $47.5 million to Forrester.

The jury will deliberate at 10 a.m. today about punitive damages.

October 12th, 2007

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Wyeth fights more than 5,000 hrt lawsuits nationwide

The jury also must decide whether Wyeth failed to adequately test their drugs Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, a combination estrogen and progestin, before putting them on the market and whether it failed to warn doctors about the drugs’ risks.

“Wyeth didn’t do (breast cancer) studies because the results could be embarrassing and could be costly,” Zoe Littlepage, a lawyer for Jeraldine Scofield of Fallon, Arlene Rowatt of Incline Village and Pamela Forrester of Yerington, told the jury.

The company’s decision to produce, market and sell a dangerous product affected thousands of women, and the company should be held responsible, Littlepage said during her closing argument in Washoe District Court.

Wyeth lawyer Heidi Hubbard said microscopic analysis showed the cancers each of the three women suffered are different, and no one can say why they developed. But each woman had a list of risk factors that could have contributed to their diseases.

“So many women get breast cancer, and we don’t know to this day what causes it; and researchers are trying to find the cause so they can find the cure,” Hubbard said.

“This case is about a medication that’s an appropriate treatment option for many women,” she said. “To this day, (the drugs) are the most effective available for menopausal symptoms.”

Scofield, 75, Rowart, 67, and Forrester, 64, began taking hormone replacement drugs years ago to offset hot flashes and other discomforts associated with menopause. But when each developed breast cancer, they stopped the drugs and underwent treatment.

The lawyers for the three women, who have sat in the front row of the courtroom every day of the trial, said Wyeth knew there were links between their drugs and the cancers but ignored the dangers in favor of skyrocketing sales.

The warning labels the company put on the drugs sounded more like reassurances than alarms, Littlepage said. Doctors testified if they knew then what they know now about the breast cancer risks, they never would have prescribed the drugs long-term as the company promoted them, she said.

Dan Webb, another Wyeth lawyer, challenged those claims.

Wyeth helped sponsor or participated in 63 studies to look at whether hormone replacement drugs increased the risk of breast cancer, he said. When the results came in, the company followed a directive from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and created warning labels that detailed the risks, he said.

“The FDA knows more about research on drugs than the plaintiffs,” Webb said. “When (the women) say we didn’t properly test, it’s not true. Wyeth clearly understood the breast cancer risk and put it on the label.”

The women’s civil lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, but Littlepage told the jurors that they should look at how the company spent its money to promote the drugs when considering an appropriate amount. Those totals were in the millions of dollars.

October 10th, 2007

SOURCE: Hormone Replacement Therapy › Prempro lawsuit goes to the jury