Prempro Lawsuit: Jury Awards 3 Women $72 Million Over Cancer Claims

A Philadelphia jury has awarded three women $72.6 million in compensatory damages over their use of a hormone-replacement drug called Prempro, and more could be coming when punitive damages are determined.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports the Common Pleas Court jury on Tuesday ordered pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. to pay out the damages over the plaintiffs' claims that Prempro gave them breast cancer. The jury could take two weeks to determine punitive damages.

The three women who sued over the drug live or lived in Pennsylvania. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which is now owned by Pfizer, was hit with dozens of lawsuits after a study found Prempro users had a much higher incidence of breast cancer.

The drug, which was taken by more than 6 million women, is meant to ease menopausal symptoms like mood swings and hot flashes, but a 2002 study showed that the drug might be linked with cancer, Bloomberg News reported.

Bloomberg reported:

"We are obviously disappointed with the verdict in this case," Chris Loder, a Pfizer spokesman, said in a written statement. "Once the verdict is finalized, the company will weigh its legal options to determine how it will continue with the case."

In 2010, USA Today reported on a Journal of the American Medical Association study showing that Prempro not only increases women's breast cancer risk or risk of cancer spread to the lymph nodes, but it also increases the risk of dying from breast cancer.

According to WebMD, Prempro's oral warnings state that Prempro should only be taken for the shortest duration of time, at the lowest dose possible.

Comments

[No death panels]

09:42 PM on 12/07/2011

I bet Pfizer wins on appeal. There's no way to prove any of them got breast cancer from Prempro. Yes it increases the risk but there is no specific test to prove causation.

[annie53]

08:50 PM on 12/07/2011

Big Pharma is the cause of spiraling medical costs. They place emphasis on treatment of disease rather than prevention. Of course, Big Pharma receives thousands of dollars for treatment of cancer via chemotherapy and the drugs that go with that. Where is the money to PREVENT the disease in the first place? There are too many chemicals in the world as it is. Why would anyone want to take chemicals internally? One pill leads to another - that's their game. Good luck to these women, I symphathize with them. I have been following the drug disaster called DES (diethystilbestrol) given to women 40+ years ago. Now their daughters are getting breast cancer. FDA is not doing their job and Big Pharma are just a bunch of drug pushers.

[No death panels]

09:37 PM on 12/07/2011

Tamoxifen, Evista and now Aromasin are all used to prevent breast cancer.

[annie53]

12:29 AM on 12/08/2011

Not one of these drugs have prevented breast cancer recurrence. They are used AFTER breast cancer has been diagnosed. They cause many serious side effects. In some cases the treatment is worse than the disease. But...the Big Pharmas make lots of bucks. Bottom line.

[OverseasVet]

09:44 PM on 12/07/2011

Its not up to pharma to prevent your diseases. Your health is up to you. Take responsibility. And medical costs are going to be high since healthcare is For Profit in the US. Making unsubstantiated stories of DES causing inheritable breast cancer does not help. Neither does the government conspiracy theories.

[annie53]

12:46 AM on 12/08/2011

1. DES is a substantiated fact. Guess you have not read the latest NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) article supporting the scientific view that DES and breast cancer are linked.If you give a women an overdose of synthetic estrogen (DES) while she is pregnant, it will cause massive problems with the fetus. However, the wonderful pharmeucetical companies and the FDA were complicit in withholding evidence or suppressing it. Some of these problems occurred in the 1970's with young girls dying from a very rare form of vaginal cancer from DES. Was that THEIR fault? Only a sanctimonious jerk or an employee of big pharma would think so. The generation of women born to the mothers who innocently took DES have a host of health problems, breast cancer being one of them. Why should women bear the burden of cost to treat a condition they did not cause? Big Pharma gets in on treating the breast cancer, too, so it's a win win situation financially for THEM. Before shooting your mouth off, best check some online sources regarding DES. It's in the news.

I'd be happy with no pharmacies. I am an advocate of natural health, but as long as Big Pharma has anything to say about it, they will never investigate the validity of herbs or natural sources. Why? Because prevention of disease is not on the priority list of B. Pharma and there is no funding to investigate natural sources/herbs that are readily available.

.

[annie53]

02:27 AM on 12/08/2011

Here's for you overseas:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/05/pregnancy-drug-use-decade_n_996977.html?just_reloaded=1

Voila, an article about DES and breast cancer in the Huffington Post.

[APBTLover01]

08:09 PM on 12/07/2011

While I have to say that some lawsuits are warranted people have to realize that all medications have side effects. If most people took out a PDR and read about the side effects of medications they're taking they probably wouldn't take most of them. If the pharmaceutical company knew that this medication made the patients more prone to breast cancer and withheld that information they should be sued. Bad part of it is that most pharmaceutical companies make so much money off of the sales of medications they can afford these law suits. IF nothing else they will raise the price of medications and we will be paying for those law suits.

[SaraWhite]

07:46 PM on 12/07/2011

I'm pro lawsuit if warranted, but have to wonder . . did they do a three, five, ten year controlled study? Did some participants get Prempro, some get placebo? Were the cancer rates higher amongst the group that got the Prempro? How can they possibly prove Prepro caused their cancer?

[bmitche]

07:35 PM on 12/07/2011

What is true about this, these ladies did nothing wrong, they were only following their doctor's orders.

[OverseasVet]

07:53 PM on 12/07/2011

What is also true is women get breast cancer regardless of diet, medication, or any other factor. It was also their decision to take the medication in the first place and all medications carry risk that at the time they were willing to accept.

[ultrawiz]

08:18 PM on 12/07/2011

Oh really? And do you think these woman were informed of the higher risk of breast cancer and dying from it? And do you seriously think ANY woman would go ahead and take it anyway? Think man, think.

[annie53]

02:35 AM on 12/08/2011

Good that you are a breast cancer expert! Women get breast cancer because there are tons of estrogen mimics in the air, food and water. Not to mention in makeup, soaps, shampoo, deodorant, perfume and cleaning products. Guess who uses these products the most?

Hormones are a known breast cancer risk. There is a contraceptive out now called Yasmin or some such thing that is causing blood clots. Don't these drug companies test on mice before giving it to young girls and women?

The truth is there is money to be made handing out drugs and not in finding a cure or preventing the disease in the first place.

[wdjmozingo]

06:02 PM on 12/07/2011

These outrageous awards is what is helping to drive up the cost of health care.

[WILLIEMOJORISIN]

06:13 PM on 12/07/2011

Yes and the lawyers will get most of the money.

[laidbackdude679]

05:38 PM on 12/07/2011

free breast exams

email me :)

[GOODDOC1]

05:48 PM on 12/07/2011

I guy went to prison for that recently. I wonder why no one offers free prostate exams. Never mind.......

[laidbackdude679]

06:03 PM on 12/07/2011

cause they stink when they sweat?

[dperrie130]

04:46 PM on 12/07/2011

Good luck trying to collect, Our family member was awarded 5 mil for a botched surgery that left our loved one dead, J & J keeps getting it overturned. they will spend 10 mil to keep 5 mil, I hope this family has better luck!

[GOODDOC1]

05:48 PM on 12/07/2011

Only the lawyers win.

[FrenchKissed]

05:01 AM on 12/08/2011

Who is J&J? You don't mean Johnson & Johnson do you? They don't perform surgery.

[dperrie130]

09:31 AM on 12/08/2011

They hold the rights to the "staple gun" that is currently being used

[mmbcf]

04:29 PM on 12/07/2011

Hot flashes and mood swings! These drug commercials state that the side effects of these drugs are far worse than the actual symptoms! $$$! Oh by the way, your acne may subside but you may get lymphoma. What a joke

[Lela517154]

08:02 PM on 12/07/2011

Hot flashes and mood swings during menopause geesh Hot flashes last a big 30 seconds. I took nothing, got through it just fine and still got breast cancer after menopause.

[Skhylow]

04:28 PM on 12/07/2011

I feel for these woman. They didnt have the courage to face menopause as did thier ancestors. Too much emphasis is placed on drugs for all our minor problems. Menopause is a natural part of life. Many woman have passed thru this phase in life without drugs. Trick is to accept the fact your body is changing, take a shower, learn to meditate, change your diet no need for drugs. Accpetance is key to the transition.

[bmitche]

07:31 PM on 12/07/2011

Remember, it is not that these women went looking for this drug. They reported problems they were have to their doctor (for some women menopause is almost unbearable) and the doctor prescribed this medication.

[Kirrin]

04:00 PM on 12/07/2011

I find this extremly sad, I am sure these women would give the money back if they could get their health back.( the lawyers might not like this as it seems that they are the only ones who truly profit from these cases). It makes me wonder, our grandmothers and grandfathers did not have these health issues no horrible side effects from all these modern wonder drugs. They delt with the fact that during times of your life you delt with cramps, and then you went from hot to cold faster than the neighbors egg stealing dog. An grandpa knew after a day of tending to the farm his body would hurt, and there would come a day when all he could do is hold grandma in his arms, but he took care of his family and they still considered him a wonderful man

[garylinn]

03:43 PM on 12/07/2011

That is a lot of money...That is too much money...One cannot put a money value on someone's life, but, making them all multimillionaires is a ridiculous decision

[luddite00]

03:50 PM on 12/07/2011

Why? It made the makers of this dangerous drug multimillionaires.

[garylinn]

03:58 PM on 12/07/2011

Are you arguing just to argue? :-) I know they made millions; all pill companies do

[GOODDOC1]

05:51 PM on 12/07/2011

They won't get nearly that amount after all the fees are paid. But maybe it will make another company pause before they sell medications known to cause cancer. I think that's the idea of these settlements.

[Dave503]

03:38 PM on 12/07/2011

Legitimate studies have shown that taking PremPro for 5 years doesn't increase breast cancer risk and in women who have taken it for much longer periods have a ~25% increased risk (the study that showed harm appeared many years after the drug was introduced). Since a large number of women get breast cancer, and some have taken PremPro, the courts have apparently decided that EVERY case of breast cancer in a woman who has taken PremPro must have been caused by it. Since PremPro was used to prevent fractures from osteoporosis (and 1/3 of the seniors who fall and fracture a hip don't survive for 12 months, are the makers going to adjust for the lives PremPro may have saved?).

And you wonder why your prescription costs are so high!

[JoanneRM]

05:46 PM on 12/07/2011

Drug companies spend more in advertising than research and development. And unfortunately, that's the truth.

[Dave503]

07:00 PM on 12/07/2011

So does GM, Ford, General Mills, and every other corporation. Perhaps we should prohibit any new drug until we know EVERYTHING about it. If we follow that logic, NO new drugs will ever be discovered, and we can stop research on HIV/AIDS, vaccines, antibiotics, diabetes treatments and possible cures, etc. The jury award is absurd in its degree. Would Pfizer be awarded $75M for saving three lives? How many lives has Lipitor saved? How many spine and hip fractures did PremPro save. Remember, estrogen and progesterone have been in use for over 50 years, long before Pfizer put them together in a single pill, and the best medical knowledge of the time suggested benefits for the combined use.

Then again, this is America, and our country is operated by attorneys.

[FrenchKissed]

05:52 AM on 12/08/2011

That is not the truth.

Pfizer uses the category name "Sales, Informatio­­n and Administra­­tive costs" which includes, among other things, the costs of marketing, advertisin­­g, shipping and handling, informatio­­n technology and the associated employee compensati­­on. Their total advertisin­­g costs for 2010 were approximat­­ely $4B. Their total Sales, Informatio­­n and Administra­­tive costs were $19.6B. Their total R&D costs were $9.4B http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2010/financial/financial2010.pdf

Roche spent for the first six months of this year 2,665 million Swiss Francs on Sales & Marketing costs and 3,442 million Swiss Francs for research and developmen­t http://www.roche.com/investors/annual_reports.htm

Gilead Sciences spent 1,072,930,000 on R&D and 1,044,392,000 on "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in FY 2010 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTEyOTQ5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
It's the same thing with many other companies though it's hard to see because of the way they break down their categories on their stock reports often make advertising costs seem bigger by combining it with sales and administrative costs. But when you have sales in 190 countries worldwide, you're going to need a lot of employees to cover that kind of territory.

[Honest Babe]

03:37 PM on 12/07/2011

Our present system of reviewing drugs before release to the public is inadequate. All drugs should receive a provisional approvall that can be revoked or suspended after a longer term period of 2-3 years, and with a requirement that doctors and patients report annually about any changes in health status. Too often the assumption is that drugs are safe after it has been determined that there is not an immediate negative response. Too often we are learning after two - three years of use by the public that there are health risks that have been inadequately assessed or would not show up in a relatively short term trial run by a manufacturer. Some Doctors unfortunately are so willing to buy into the drug reps speil that even when problems surface there is denial. In addition, it does not appear that in all cases the medication does what it is intended to do or makes no difference in outcomes for the patient. This makes medication not much different than snake oil in too many cases.

[joeypad]

03:33 PM on 12/07/2011

the award is ridiculous it the jury must be stupid no one should be awarded that sum..how do we know it was the drug that caused it

[JoanneRM]

05:54 PM on 12/07/2011

YOU don't, because YOU didn't hear the evidence. The JURY heard the evidence and the defence evidence. The drug company had access to the best lawyers in the country, so they were able to show the best evidence that their drug didn't cause the unfortunate reuslt. After weighing the evidence, the JURY decided it was more likely that the injured women's evidence was correct, than the drug company's evidence.

Most of these cases are found by the JURY for the defendant, and not for the people who claim to be injured. If a JURY finds for the injured people, YOU can rest assured that that drug caused the injury.

[OverseasVet]

08:46 PM on 12/07/2011

The problem being that JURIES are made of people untrained in science and medicine and only see a company with money. JURIES and courts do not determine science facts. YOU cannot rest assured that an untrained JURY can comprehend the science facts presented to them.