corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11802

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Feeley J.
Wyeth Menopause Drug Caused Women's Cancer, Jury Says
Bloomberg News 2007 Oct 10
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRs7gAVuVivw&refer=news


Full text:

Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) — Wyeth’s Prempro menopause drug helped cause three Nevada women’s cancers, and they deserve a total of $134.5 million in damages, jurors found in the drugmaker’s fourth loss at a trial over the medicine.

A state court jury in Reno, Nevada, deliberated 12 hours over two days before finding Prempro, a hormone-replacement drug, contributed to the development of breast cancer in Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester. Wyeth is the largest maker of drugs designed to relieve menopause symptoms.

``This verdict raises the stakes in Prempro litigation to a new level for Wyeth,’‘ said Brian Turner, a Birmingham, Alabama- based lawyer who represents women suing the drugmaker over the medicines. ``This verdict should get the attention of Wyeth’s board and its shareholders.’‘

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, which include Prempro and Premarin. 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 their links to cancer.

Wyeth lawyer Heidi Hubbard and Zoe Littlepage, the women’s lawyer, declined to comment on the verdict, the largest so far in Prempro litigation. Jurors are scheduled to return Oct. 12 to consider whether to assess punitive damages against Wyeth.

$2 Billion Sales

Annual sales of Wyeth’s hormone-replacement drugs topped $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.

Lawyers for Rowatt, Scofield and Forrester argued in the Reno case that Wyeth officials turned a blind eye to 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 company has won two federal-court suits over Prempro as well one case filed in state court in Philadelphia since litigation over the drug began in August 2006.

Three other Philadelphia juries have found the drugs 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 because of flaws in the cases.

Prempro Combination

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, 66, Scofield, 69, and Forrester, 64, all used Wyeth’s hormone replacement drugs for different lengths of times, according to court records.

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

Jurors awarded Forrester a total of $47.5 million in compensatory damages, $43.5 million to Scofield and $43.5 million to Rowatt.

The panel also found that ``Wyeth concealed a material fact about the safety of the product’‘ from all three women and ``acted with malice or fraud,’‘ according to court records.

The case is Arlene Rowatt, et. al., v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., 04-01699, Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, Washoe County (Reno).

To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Reno, Nevada at jfeeley@bloomberg.net .

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








As an advertising man, I can assure you that advertising which does not work does not continue to run. If experience did not show beyond doubt that the great majority of doctors are splendidly responsive to current [prescription drug] advertising, new techniques would be devised in short order. And if, indeed, candor, accuracy, scientific completeness, and a permanent ban on cartoons came to be essential for the successful promotion of [prescription] drugs, advertising would have no choice but to comply.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963