Glaxo loses Paxil lawsuit

Drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline was ordered this morning to pay $2.5 million (US) to the family of a young boy born with heart defects after his mother took the anti-depressant Paxil during pregnancy.

“The first win is always huge, especially when you get a jury saying the drug caused the injury,” Sean Tracey, Kilker’s lawyer, said in an interview after the jury reached its decision.

 It’s the first time a jury has considered claims that Glaxo, the U.K.’s largest drugmaker, knew Paxil caused birth defects and hid those risks to increase profits. The drug, approved for U.S. use in 1992, generated about $942 million in sales last year, or 2.1 percent of Glaxo’s total revenue.

“We’re disappointed with the verdict and I think we’ll be filing an appeal,” Joseph O’Neil, one of Glaxo’s lawyers, said in an interview.

Lyam Kilker, who turns four next week, was born with a rare heart deformity. During the trial, the first of some 600 filed against Glaxo, Tracey argued the company failed to warn doctors and patients about possible side effects to the drug.

Company lawyers presented studies and experts arguing that the drug is safe, despite warnings added to its label in 2005 (after Lyam was born) about the possibility of birth defects. Tracey countered by arguing before the jury that such researchers had close ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

The jury deliberated for seven hours. The Kilker case, brought by his mother Michelle David, was considered a test case for future lawsuits. The next will be heard in about a month -- also in Philadelphia, home to Glaxo's US headquarters.

Lawyers for many of those cases have been in Philadelphia monitoring the progress of the Kilker suit as part of their preparation for going to court.

Comments

[Alysha]

I think this creates a bad spot for pharmaceutical companies. I am certain the later addition of the label of potential birth defects worked against Glaxo in this court case - they are clearly admitting that their research shows a potential for birth defects. So if the pharma co. Is doing research and after release of a drug, wishes to add such a label, they are basically admitting to knowing of certain problems, opening them up for lawsuits. The problem with this is that they may know, and hold out for months or years until they are "for sure". This means that more people will take the drug, when they could have been warned earlier and saved themselves the heartache. I am not defending Glaxo, or other pharma co's but one has to consider how many babies could have avoided birth defects if they label had been attached sooner if Glaxo was not so fearful of a lawsuit.

[Bill Bond]

My son was born with 3 birth defects due to my wife being prescribed Luvox an SSRI to treat her non life threatening OCD condition. We blame the drug makers and the doctors for prescribing this class c drug that may cause defects. We were never warned of these possible side effects. Genetic testing was done at Cleveland Clinic to rule out any genetic or chromosomal defects and family history. Our family has endured much pain as our son has been through countless heart surgeries and more on the way. I want to bring in these drug companies to his next 12 hour heart surgery

[Cederick]

First let me start by saying that I am not defending the drug companies at all. I am a firm believer that the pursuit of financial gain will cause people to do unethical actions. But I also believe that Americans as a whole typically desire medication over self discipline or self control. Taking drugs for things such as depression and other emotional issues is equivalent to going in for elective surgery; the possible rewards are there but come with some assumed risk. This judgment has opened up drug companies to lawsuits anytime someone does not like a side effect they have experienced. This goes right along with ordering coffee that is too hot from McDonald’s.

[Allison Anderson]

I am starting to wonder what comes next. Will Glaxo and Troy will be arguing that all Glaxo product safety issues are due to the physicians and other health care professionals who prescribe Glaxo drugs, the pharmacists and techs who dispenses them, and the patients who take them?

Think about all of the money that Glaxo could be spending on research and development. Instead, these Glaxo execs and their associates are spending other peoples money on these types of legal fees and on spin doctors to fix their reputations.

Too bad Glaxo and other pharma stockholders cannot force these company execs and their associates to foot their own bills. On second thought, this might be good for Glaxo execs and attorneys because it might give them an excuse to whine some more and revisit their ‘blame your stockholders’ legal strategy.

[anton]

Most comments on this site dignify the unscrupulous actions under discussion with attempts at reasoned argument and lame, cliché comebacks. There is just not enough fire being shown in response to the bad people who kill or harm others in their experiments to make money.

This Canadian-type response (found in Canada and elsewhere) is why these crimes are perpertrated here. I mean, the population really does not care! And those who do care aren't published on this site when they impolitely (un-Canadian) point out the nitty-gritty.

[Anne Marie]

I am in disgust after reading the comment about people just want to medicate instead of using self disciplne or control, what kind of cold person would say that. All that I can think of is ignorace because if they had any idea what its like to go through some of these condtions they would not be making a comment like that!!!!And comparing it to hot coffee.If things were that simple Im sure thats we would be doing it.In this day and age not to have common sense is a terrible thing.I cant even imagine how many people that read that took offence.

[linda]

We have to be careful of the thin line between legitimate and frivolous lawsuits. The top priority has to be protect patients' interests. However, we have to watch out for litigants who are in pursuit of financial gain and will indulge in unethical actions.