Answer Addiction

Tag: pharmaceutical companies

  • Johnson & Johnson Called Opioid "Kingpin" In Oklahoma Lawsuit

    Johnson & Johnson Called Opioid "Kingpin" In Oklahoma Lawsuit

    The lawsuit names the multinational company as a “top supplier, seller and lobbyist” for prescription opioids.

    Johnson & Johnson is being named as a “kingpin” of the opioid epidemic in the first big trial targeting opioid manufacturers, which is set to take place in May 2019.

    The lawsuit, brought by the state of Oklahoma, is naming the multinational company as a “top supplier, seller and lobbyist” for prescription opioids, according to a report by Axios.

    Although Purdue Pharma is the most commonly cited company associated with the opioid crisis, there are several other pharmaceutical companies being targeted by the many hundreds of lawsuits being brought to court by local governments as well as individuals.

    Johnson & Johnson, most often associated with baby powder and lotion products, is classified as a pharmaceutical company. 

    Prior to the Axios report, Johnson & Johnson came under fire when it was discovered that the brand’s baby powder contained asbestos. The company was ordered by a California judge on Wednesday to pay $29 million to a woman who sued based on the claim that the powder was a “substantial contributing factor” in the development of her terminal cancer.

    In addition to everyday home products, Johnson & Johnson “produced raw narcotics in Tasmanian poppy fields, created other active opioid ingredients, and then supplied the products to other opioid makers—including Purdue Pharma,” according to the report.

    The company also allegedly boasted about the high morphine content of its poppies, targeted children and the elderly in its marketing, and funded multiple “pro-opioid groups.” A brochure made by one of the company’s subsidiaries even claimed that “opioids are rarely addictive.”

    The lawyers representing Oklahoma in the upcoming case have asked a court to release millions of pages of Johnson & Johnson’s confidential documents to the public, based on the fact that the company has divested from the opioid business and therefore shouldn’t have to worry about losing trade secrets.

    “The public interest in this information is urgent, enduring and overwhelming,” wrote Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter.

    Johnson & Johnson provided Axios with a statement in the company’s defense, claiming that it “appropriately and responsibly met all laws and regulations on the manufacturing, sale and distribution of APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients) and the raw materials that go into them” and that its “actions in the marketing and promotion of these important prescription pain medications were appropriate and responsible.”

    The company claims that it accounted for “less than one percent” of the total market share for opioid medications.

    However, the Axios report points out that Johnson & Johnson made $1 billion in 2015 by selling the opioid Nucynta and $2 billion from the fentanyl patch Duragesic, which it still sells to this day.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • FDA Has "Cozy Relationship" With Pharmaceutical Companies, Says Adviser

    FDA Has "Cozy Relationship" With Pharmaceutical Companies, Says Adviser

    “The FDA has a lack of transparency. They use the advisory committees as cover,” said the head of the FDA’s opioid advisory council. 

    A Food and Drug Administration adviser says that the agency is putting the needs of pharmaceutical companies above the public by continuing to approve dangerous pain medications. 

    Speaking with The Guardian, Dr. Raeford Brown, head of the FDA’s opioid advisory council, said there are “cozy, cozy relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and various parts of the FDA.”

    Brown has been vocally opposed to the approval of the drug Dsuvia, an opioid more powerful than fentanyl that the FDA recently approved against the recommendation of the advisory committee. (The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of the committee.)

    Brown said that the committee voted to approve the drug while many committee members were away at a professional conference, which he believes was a willful manipulation of the system. 

    “There’s no question in my mind right that they did that on purpose. The FDA has a lack of transparency. They use the advisory committees as cover,” Brown said. 

    He pointed to Dsuvia’s approval as the latest sign that the FDA has allegiances to pharmaceutical companies. 

    He said, “I think that the FDA has learned nothing. The modus operandi of the agency is that they talk a good game and then nothing happens. Working directly with the agency for the last five years, as I sit and listen to them in meetings, all I can think about is the clock ticking and how many people are dying every moment that they’re not doing anything. The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways a willful blindness that borders on the criminal.”

    This approach is fueling the rise in opioid-related deaths, he said. 

    “They should stop considering any new opioid evaluation. For every day and every week and every month that the FDA don’t do the right thing, people drop dead on the streets. What they do has a direct impact on the mortality rate from opioids in this country.”

    Brown pointed out that the FDA relies on pharmaceutical funding for 75% of the budget of the division that approves opioid medication. He explained that this allows pharmaceutical companies to unfairly influence the process, something that the FDA denies. Brown worries that despite the widespread deaths caused by the opioid epidemic and the resulting media coverage, little will change at the FDA.

    “Nothing is fundamentally being done to effect change in the regulation of opioids,” he said. “If the FDA continues to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to turn out opioid after opioid after opioid, and the regulation of those opioids is no better than it was in 1995, then we’ll be cleaning this up for a long time.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • New Jersey Sues One Of Its Largest Employers Over Opioids

    New Jersey Sues One Of Its Largest Employers Over Opioids

    The lawsuit alleges that Janssen Pharmaceuticals minimized the risk of opioids and targeted older patients who were less aware of the dangers of the drugs.

    The pharmaceutical industry is a major economic driver for the state of New Jersey, but that did not stop the state’s attorney general from launching a lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, one of the state’s largest employers, over its marketing practices around opioids.

    “It is especially troubling that so much of the alleged misconduct took place right here in our own backyard,” New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said at a news conference, according to the New York Times. “New Jersey’s pharmaceutical industry is the envy of the world, with a long history of developing vital, lifesaving drugs. But we cannot turn a blind eye when a New Jersey company like Janssen violates our laws and threatens the lives of our residents.”

    The lawsuit alleges that Janssen minimized the risk of opioids, targeted older patients who were less aware of the dangers of the drugs, and made an effort to “embed its deceptions about the viability of long-term opioid use in the minds of doctors and patients.”

    The lawsuit focuses on the eight-year period that Janssen marketed two opioid products — Nucynta and Nucynta ER — before selling the rights to those medications for more than $1 billion in 2015. 

    Grewal said that the company intentionally fostered misinformation about those drugs. 

    “They funded bogus research,” he said. “They pushed bogus theories like pseudo-addiction, things that have been debunked. They positioned Nucynta and Nucynta ER as the safer alternative to other more powerful opioid drugs and, as the director mentioned, in fact, they were the same types of opioid drugs.”

    The lawsuit points out reportedly egregious prescribing practices, including one patient received 125 prescriptions for two opioids in just one year, totaling a 2,700-day supply of opioid pills. The doctor who wrote those prescriptions had taken hundreds of visits from Janssen representatives, the lawsuit said. 

    The pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey has shrunken slightly amid the opioid crisis, but still makes up about 8% of jobs in the state. However, Grewal said that did not factor into his decision over whether or not to pursue a lawsuit. 

    “We’re not shying away from holding folks accountable,” Mr. Grewal said. “If they’re culpable, we’ll hold them accountable.”

    This is the first time that New Jersey has taken legal action against a company based in the state, the New York Times reported. However, it’s not the first opioid-related lawsuit in the state. Former Governor Chris Christie’s administration launched legal action against Purdue Pharma and Insys Therapeutics, another opioid manufacturer. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Massachusetts Sues Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Crisis

    Massachusetts Sues Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Crisis

    Sixteen individuals are named in the lawsuit, including a few members of the Sackler family.

    The state of Massachusetts is suing 16 current and former Purdue Pharma board members and executives for their alleged role in the continuing opioid crisis.

    Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says this is the first lawsuit brought on by a state that directly names executives and directors in connection with opioid-related deaths. 

    The BBC reports that Judy Lewent, a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, is named in the charges for her involvement with the board of Purdue Pharma until 2014.

    Lewent currently serves as a director in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), one of the six largest British pharmaceutical companies. In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to promotion of drugs for unapproved uses, failure to report safety data, and kickbacks to physicians in the United States. The company was sentenced to pay a $3 billion settlement—the largest settlement for a drug company at that time.

    Sixteen individuals are named in the Massachusetts lawsuit, including a few members of the Sackler family.

    Purdue Pharma is owned by the descendants of Raymond and Mortimer Sackler who earned their fortune off of the drug OxyContin, which their company, Purdue Pharma, still produces.

    The Massachusetts lawsuit claims that Purdue Pharma “created the [opioid] epidemic and profited from it through a web of illegal deceit.”

    Judy Lewent was tagged as one “who oversaw and engaged in a deadly, deceptive scheme to sell opioids in Massachusetts.”

    AG Healey addressed the lawsuit in a press conference, “We found that Purdue misled doctors, patients, and the public about the real risks of their dangerous opioids, including OxyContin. Their strategy was simple: The more drugs they sold, the more money they made—and the more people died.” 

    Purdue Pharma “vigorously denies the allegations,” while GlaxoSmithKline declined to “comment on legal matters faced by another company,” according to the BBC.

    Purdue told the BBC, “The Attorney General claims Purdue acted improperly by communicating with prescribers about scientific and medical information that FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has expressly considered and continues to approve. We believe it is inappropriate for the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA.”

    The company added that it shared “the Attorney General’s concern about the opioid crisis,” and that its “opioid medications account for less than 2% of total opioid prescriptions.”

    The state of Minnesota also recently filed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma over the marketing of OxyContin.

    Purdue Pharma has recently stopped the marketing of opioid-based drugs in Canada, Westfair reported. Purdue already pulled marketing for these drugs in the U.S. back in February. Canada has asked drug companies to suspend marketing and advertising of opioid-based drugs.

    View the original article at thefix.com