A recent study has provided further evidence demonstrating a link between the diabetes drug Actos and bladder cancer. The findings were published in The BMJ and involve a study of roughly 146,000 patients treated for diabetes and bladder cancer between 2000 and 2013. According to the Canadian researchers who performed the study, consuming Actos increases the risk of developing bladder cancer by 63 percent.
The study also reported that the risk of developing bladder cancer increases if the patient takes Actos for two years or more, or if the patient consumes a minimum of 28,000 milligrams throughout their life. The researchers have also found a link between patients who have taken Avandia (rosiglitazone), another prescription drug used to treat diabetes that is within the same class of medicines as Actos.
Takeda, the manufacturer of Actos, issued a statement in response to the study, defending the drug and stating that it is confident that the benefits of Actos outweigh the risks.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Takeda, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered injuries, including bladder cancer, as a direct result of taking Actos for diabetes treatment. The lawsuits have been consolidated in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the Western District of Louisiana. An MDL is similar to a class action in that legal and factual issues common to all of the plaintiffs are discussed and negotiated at the global level. When it comes to establishing causation and damages, however, each plaintiff must still prove his or her case.
In October 2015, reports indicated that Takeda settled with two plaintiffs in Nevada who sued the manufacturer, alleging that it caused bladder cancer. And earlier that year, the drug manufacturer indicated that 97 percent of plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against Takeda opted into the $2.4 billion settlement proposal that it posed to the plaintiffs.
A plaintiff who suffers harm from a dangerous drug can recover compensation by showing that the drug was designed or manufactured in an unreasonably unsafe manner, or that the drug was unreasonably unsafe because the manufacturer failed to provide appropriate instructions or warnings. This is referred to as a strict product liability theory, and unlike in a negligence claim, the plaintiff is not required to establish fault, or that the manufacturer acted negligently. Many plaintiffs in dangerous drug cases do also assert a negligence-based claim and a breach of implied warranty claim against the drug maker.
If you or someone you love has been injured as the result of a dangerous drug, you may be entitled to compensation. Claims involving pharmaceuticals can be complicated when it comes to understanding the science and background information, and many plaintiffs find the idea of going up against a large drug manufacturer daunting. At Moll Law Group, we have extensive experience negotiating and litigating dangerous drug lawsuits and are ready to put our team to work for you. Proudly serving clients throughout the U.S., including in Illinois, California, Texas, and Florida, we offer a free consultation to help you learn about the legal options that may be available to you. Call us at 312-462-1700 or contact us online to set up your free consultation today.