Posted On: March 26, 2010

FDA Warns Patients That Cholesterol Drug Zocor Can Cause Muscle Damage

The FDA issued a warning to patients that Zocor (simvastatin) can cause muscle injury, or myopathy, to those who take the drug at its highest approved dose. Zocor, a statin drug, is used to control cholesterol levels and to prevent cardiovascular disease. Simvastatin is sold as on its own as Zocor or in generic form, as well as in combination with ezetimibe as Vytorin and with niacin as Simcor. Since Zocor has been a popular drug for over two decades, as a pharmaceutical liability attorney, many people could have experienced the more severe forms of myopathy that the FDA is warning us about.

The FDA's statement pointed out that "Although muscle injury ... is a known side effect with all statins, the warning highlights the greater risk of developing muscle injury, including rhabdomyolysis, for patients when they are prescribed and use higher doses of this drug." Rhabdomyolysis, the most serious kind of myopathy, involves the breakdown of muscle fibers and release of the protein pigment myoglobin into the bloodstream. It often can result in severe kidney damage, kidney failure, and even death. People suffering from this condition can also experience weakness, fatigue, joint pain, seizures, and weight gain. The FDA advises patients not to stop taking Zocor unless their doctors advise them to, and to talk to their doctors if they have questions.

The data that the FDA considered in issuing this warning also calls into question whether Zocor is more likely than other statins to cause muscle injury. Simvastatin has been on the market since the late 1980s, so it is somewhat surprising that it has taken this long for the FDA to recognize the seriousness of the problems Zocor can cause. In fact, the statin Baycol (cerivastatin) was withdrawn from the market in 2001 precisely because it was found to carry an extremely high risk of rhabdomylosis -- up to 80% higher than other statins. Before its U.S. patent expired in 2006, Zocor was Merck's best selling drug, and the second-best selling cholesterol-lowering drug in the world, netting $4.3 billion in sales in 2005. Since then, Merck has tried hard to avoid losing its share of the Zocor market to generics, lowering the price for brand-name Zocor so that it could compete with the generics. As a drug defect lawyer, I wonder if Merck knew about these problems, but didn't want to jeopardize the huge profits Zocor brought in while it was still under patent. After all, it was the FDA that brought the muscle injury risk to the public's attention -- not Merck.

The FDA says that rhabdomyolysis is a rare adverse effect of Zocor. But those patients who do develop the condition will have to contend with not just their original heart and cholesterol problems, but painful and debilitating muscle and kidney problems as well. In extreme cases, kidney failure from rhabdomyolysis could mean death or a need for a kidney transplant. If Merck was aware before now of the problems with higher dosages of Zocor, but neglected to warn the FDA and the public, patients who have been adversely affected by the drug could hold Merck legally responsible. Drug manufacturers have a responsibility to warn doctors and patients of adverse effects that their drugs cause. When they fail to do so, the law makes them responsible for all of the injuries to patients that result. This includes all of patients’ medical costs as well as the personal cost of a new and permanent disability.

Continue reading " FDA Warns Patients That Cholesterol Drug Zocor Can Cause Muscle Damage " »

Posted On: March 19, 2010

FDA Adds Black Box Warning About Effectiveness to Label of Blood Thinner Plavix

According to the popular health information Web site WebMD, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has ordered a “black box" warning for Plavix (clopidogrel), a blood thinning drug. That is the strictest safety warning the FDA issues. The move comes after research showed that the drug’s effectiveness at normal doses is substantially reduced in people who carry certain genes. This is bad news, because Plavix is prescribed to help prevent heart attacks, strokes, blood clots in patients with stents and other serious cardiovascular problems. Plavix is the second-best-selling drug in the world, so the number of patients affected could be very large. Patients who fall into this genetic group without realizing it are at risk for any or all of these problems, and as a pharmaceutical liability attorney, I hope that Plavix-taking patients talk to their doctors about this as soon as possible.

The FDA said 2% to 14% of patients have a gene that makes it harder for their livers to metabolize the drug, which means less of it gets into their bloodstreams. That was true for about 2% of white patients, 4% of black patients, and 14% of Chinese patients, the agency said. Doctors can find out whether a patient is a poor metabolizer of Plavix by using a genetic test. This test can also show if a patient will be an "intermediate responder" or a "hyper-responder" to the drug. Unfortunately, the test costs about $500, and the amount of time it takes to get the results varies from a few hours to several weeks. For patients who are at imminent risk of having a second heart attack or stroke, waiting for several weeks to find out whether Plavix will be able to help them is "not a good idea," said the director of FDA's office of medical policy, Dr. Robert Temple. PBS' NewsHour blog The Rundown says that doctors do not typically order the genetic test before prescribing Plavix.

This is not the first time Plavix's effectiveness has come under scrutiny. In November of 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported on studies that showed Plavix's effectiveness was reduced when it was taken with some heartburn medicines. Use of heartburn medicines with Plavix is common because stomach bleeding and ulcers are common side effects of the drug. Ironically, the study found that taking a heartburn drug to treat Plavix's side effects causes it to stop working properly and raises patients' risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%. Earlier, in May of 2009, the FDA had warned patients and doctors about Plavix's poor metabolizer problem by changing information on the drug's label. The black box warning comes after the agency reviewed more data. The label asks doctors to "use the best information possible to treat their patients" and consider alternative treatments. Patients are cautioned not to stop the drug without talking to their doctors first.

As a dangerous prescription drug attorney, I am concerned that it took so long for this information to result in a serious warning. Plavix has been on the market for over a decade, and is a best-selling drug. With so many users, scientists have had a lot of opportunities to spot problems, so it would be interesting to know how much Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, the companies that market Plavix, knew about these problems before the label changes. Would Plavix have become the second-best-selling drug in the world if patients and doctors knew they needed a $500 genetic test to find out whether it’s effective? How many people have had heart attacks or strokes while taking Plavix, thinking that they were taking the best medication available for their condition? If Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis knew of these problems and did not warn doctors and patients appropriately, they could be held responsible for harm suffered by patients who took their drug.

Continue reading " FDA Adds Black Box Warning About Effectiveness to Label of Blood Thinner Plavix " »

Posted On: March 11, 2010

Radiation From CT Scans Poses a Special Cancer Risk to Children

Several months ago, I wrote about the discovery of an increased risk of cancer for patients who undergo CT scans. As a defective medical device attorney, I am particularly concerned to hear about the discovery of new risks from medical technologies that were thought to be safe. The radiation to which patients are exposed in CT scans -- in many cases unnecessarily, since many patients do not even benefit from them -- turned out to be at a much higher level than previously thought. According to a National Cancer Institute study, the radiation from CT scans performed in 2007 was likely to cause 14,500 fatal cancers.

This is a frightening figure. It becomes even more so in light of a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about the effects of CT scans on children. Children are even more endangered by CT scan radiation than adults are, and about 19,000 children undergo CT scans each day in the U.S. Because their bodies are smaller, their organs are closer together than adults', so a CT scan of particular tissues or organs of the body is more likely to expose other tissues or organs to the radiation as well. Cancer can develop slowly, and since kids have more years of their lives ahead of them than adults do, they have more years during which cancer can grow from damaged cells. And while children's bodies are more sensitive to radiation, they are often scanned at adult levels.

Despite all of this, studies of children arriving in emergency rooms have found that up to a third of CT scans are performed unnecessarily, or even repetitively. Children with head trauma, but with mild symptoms that did not indicate serious injury, were sent for CT scans even though they did not need them. Variation in how CT scans are performed, within and across institutions, also increases the amount of radiation to which patients are exposed, according to a University of California at San Francisco study. Different machines use different doses, and technicians are not always able to understand the machines' manuals or keep up with new technologies. The machines could be programmed incorrectly as well, exposing patients to even higher levels of radiation than planned, as a recent New York Times article about radiation therapy for cancer reports. In fact, a California CT scan facility encountered a problem like this in 2009, when more than 200 patients were exposed to eight times the proper level of radiation, resulting in hair loss and skin problems.

While CT scans are an important diagnostic technology, clearly there is work to be done to ensure patients' safety. Dr. Steven Don, a pediatric radiologist at St. Louis Children's Hospital, advises parents to discuss with their pediatricians why any recommended CT scan is necessary, and to ask the CT scan technician what they are doing to make sure the radiation is at the proper dose.

As a dangerous medical device lawyer, I feel that parents without any special medical knowledge should not bear all of the responsibility for making sure that their children are not injured by unnecessary radiation. A parent whose child is in the emergency room is unlikely to be in a state of mind to have a careful discussion with his or her child's doctors in order to evaluate the risks of CT scan radiation. Rather, the machine's manufacturer has a legal responsibility to ensure that the machine is safe for patients, and that the machine's manual is comprehensible to technicians. (Decision-makers at a hospital may also share some blame.) If the manufacturer fails to ensure that its product is safe, people who have been seriously harmed by the product can sue to recover money for their medical costs and financial losses, as well as compensation for their physical and emotional injuries.

Continue reading " Radiation From CT Scans Poses a Special Cancer Risk to Children " »

Posted On: March 4, 2010

Dialysis Machine Recalled for Potential for Death or Serious Injury

Over the past two years, Baxter International Inc. has received reports of serious injuries and one death linked to its dialysis machines, and as of January 8, 2010, the company initiated a recall of the machines. These automated peritoneal dialysis (PD) systems, marketed as Home Choice and Home Choice PRO, treat both adults and children with severe chronic kidney failure by removing waste products and extra fluid from their blood. The defective machines have put too much of the dialysis solution used for this process into the patients, leading to increased intraperitoneal volume (IIPV), or overfill of the abdominal cavity. Unfortunately, this has led to at least one death, and serious injuries such as heart failure, hernias, and breathing problems. Children and nonverbal patients are at particular risk from these machines because they are unable to clearly communicate when something's wrong. Patients who already suffer from heart or lung problems also face special risk, since the defective machines can further damage these organs.

As a dangerous medical device attorney, I am concerned that Baxter International Inc. has chosen to continue marketing these machines in the face of this Class I Recall. According to the FDA, a Class I Recall is "the most serious type of recall" that involves "situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death." Baxter says that it will add alarms, messages, and software modifications to the device so that patients and caregivers will be able to stop fluid accumulation in time. Patients and caregivers who continue using the machines, as Baxter suggests, should be aware of danger signs such as vomiting, difficulty breathing, or feeling bloated. Children treated with this machine should be monitored as well, and danger signs for them include crying during therapy or reporting a "funny feeling" in the abdomen.

This is not the first time Baxter's products have been under scrutiny as dangerous medical devices or dangerous drugs. Most recently, in 2008, Baxter came under fire for failing to make obvious the difference between adult and children's doses of its anticoagulant drug heparin, resulting in overdose and death for a number of babies in several states. This included the newborn twins of actor Dennis Quaid, who eventually sued Baxter. The company did make the adult and children's labels more distinct from one another, but not before these terrible tragedies occurred. And in 2001, Baxter's dialysis machine caused several deaths.

Continue reading " Dialysis Machine Recalled for Potential for Death or Serious Injury " »