Actos® Lawsuit Update: Jurors in Philadelphia Hear Evidence that Takeda Concealed Bladder Cancer Risks, Law 360 Reports
Law 360 reports that jurors in a Philadelphia state court case trial heard evidence from an expert witness who testified that Takeda worked to suppress information about the cancer risks associated with Actos®. Randall Tackett, an expert witness who testified on behalf of plaintiff Frances Wisniewski, testified that Takeda convinced one of its partners back in the 1990s to say that a project was discontinued due to efficacy concerns, rather than safety concerns. Wisniewski, a resident of Philadelphia, filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas alleging that he was diagnosed with bladder cancer after using Actos® for seven years. The case is Frances Wisniewski v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. et al., Case No. 120702272 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas).
Actos® is a medication prescribed to control glucose (blood sugar) in adults with Type 2 diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Actos® in 1999. The drug subsequently became the world’s best-selling diabetes treatment with Actos® sales peaking between March 2010 and March 2011 at $4.5 billion, or 27 percent of Takeda revenue, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News. In June 2011, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Alert warning that the use of Actos® for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. According to Bloomberg, Actos® has generated more than $16 billion in sales since its 1999 release.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP is a unique law firm that aggressively represents its clients injured as a result of dangerous pharmaceutical medications and unsafe medical devices. If you or a loved one developed bladder cancer after taking Actos® for more than one year, please contact the attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.