Dayton Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective Drugs

Unique Funding Program for Vioxx Attorneys

Richard Schulte — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:03:13 GMT

Counsel Financial Services (CFS), the nation's largest provider of working capital credit lines exclusively to attorneys, announced today that it will provide loans to litigators representing Vioxx plaintiffs, in the wake of Merck & Co.'s recent announcement that it has established a $4.85 billion victim fund to settle thousands of lawsuits.

Together with one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Counsel Financial Services offers flexible four-year credit lines exclusively to attorneys based on their contingent case portfolio. Lines range from $50,000 to $25 million and CFS has pledged to avail its experienced staff attorneys to work 24/7 to ensure loan applications from Vioxx litigators are processed quickly. CFS is also waiving the standard $500 application fee for loans associated with the Vioxx cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Schulte

Avandia Linked to 42% Greater Risk of Heart Attack

Richard Schulte — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:21:59 GMT

Users of Avandia, appear to be at increased risk for a heart attack or heart failure. Regulators should seriously consider whether the drug should be allowed to remain on the market.

The pooled data from the trials indicated that Avandia, compared with controls, significantly increased the risk of heart attack by 42 percent (94 of 6,421 patients who received Avandia vs. 83 of 7,870 patients who received control therapy) and doubled the risk of heart failure (102 of 6,421 patients vs. 62 of 7,870 patients). Use of Avandia was not associated with a significant increase in risk of cardiovascular death.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Schulte

Vioxx class action rejected by top N.J. court

Richard Schulte — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:46:52 GMT

New Jersey's Supreme Court yesterday rejected a class-action lawsuit against painkiller Vioxx maid by Merck & Co.

The ruling is a huge legal victory for the drug maker, which faces nearly 27,000 individual lawsuits from people claiming Vioxx, once a widely used arthritis treatment, caused heart attacks and strokes.

The state's highest court, reversing two lower-court decisions, ruled that a nationwide class was not appropriate for the lawsuit. The suit had been brought by a union health plan on behalf of all insurance plans that paid for Vioxx prescriptions - roughly 80 per cent of all Vioxx sold.

A lawyer for the union said because New Jersey's consumer fraud law allows for triple damages, the case could have cost Merck $15 billion (U.S.) to $18 billion. The company's annual revenues last year were $22.6 billion.

Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the thousands of Vioxx lawsuits individually. Of the cases that have reached verdicts, Merck has won nine and lost five; a new trial was ordered in another case and two others ended in mistrials this year.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Schulte

Drug stents worse on heart attack victims

Richard Schulte — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:17:51 GMT

Heart attack victims given drug-coated stents after an acute heart attack are nearly five times more likely to die six months to two years later than those with bare metal forms of the arterial scaffolding, research showed on Tuesday.

Drug stents remain highly controversial in the cardiology community and fears about late stent thrombosis have led to a slump in sales in the past year.

Eckhart Fleck, director of cardiology at the German Heart Institute in Berlin and a spokesman for the European Society of Cardiology, said the findings were serious and showed that doctors should not be indiscriminate in use of drug stents.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Schulte

Strattera patent challenged

Richard Schulte — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:53:02 GMT

The patent on hyperactivity-disorder drug Strattera is being challenged by Novartis AG's Sandoz unit. Novartis is seeking a pre-emptive ruling that its proposed generic version of Strattera won't infringe a Lilly patent that expires in 2017, or that the patent is invalid.

Icelandic drugmaker Actavis Group hf is already being sued by Lilly to block a generic version of Strattera, which generated $282.2 million in sales for the first half of the year for Lilly. In view of the Actavis suit, "Lilly has created an actual case or controversy against Sandoz with respect to infringement," Sandoz said in its complaint.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Schulte

Avandia Linked to Increased Heart Attack Risk

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:38:29 GMT

The FDA has issued a safety warning relating to the drug rosiglitazone maleate, marketed under the brand name Avandia. Safety data pooled from controlled clinical trials shows a significant increase in the risk of heart attack and heart related deaths in patients that use the drug Avandia, to help control type-2 diabetes.

Other published data from long-term clinical trials of Avandia provide contradictory evidence regarding the risk of heart problems in patients taking Avandia. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) review of all available data is still ongoing.

The FDA has not yet confirmed any clinical significance of the reported increased risk of heart related problems in the context of other studies. Myocardial ischemic events are described in the warning section of the rosiglitzsone label.

The FDA is unsure whether other approved medications in the same class or other drugs used for treating type-2 diabetes have less, the same or greater health risks. The FDA is providing this information to prescribers so they and their patients can make informed treatment decisions.

This information reflects FDA's current analysis of available data concerning this drug. Posting this information does not mean that FDA has concluded there is a causal relationship between the drug product and the emerging drug safety issue. Nor does it mean that FDA is advising health care professionals to discontinue prescribing the product. FDA is considering, but has not reached a conclusion about, whether this information warrants any regulatory action.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole