Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the Japanese pharmaceutical giant responsible for the development and marketing of the diabetes drug Actos, concealed the association between Actos and bladder cancer, a jury was recently told in an Actos trial.
ccording to a Bloomberg Businessweek report on the Actos trial being heard in Los Angeles, as early as 2004, Takeda knew about the associated between Actos and bladder cancer. Furthermore, with this awareness, the Japanese pharmaceutical company failed to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to the plaintiffs lawyer in the case, Michael Miller.
Closing arguments in the Actos lawsuit were delivered from Miller on April 15, with the jury moving into deliberation on or after April 16 following closing statements from Takeda’s lawyers.
Due to Cooper’s ailing state, Takeda’s lawyers have pointed again and again to Cooper’s health being to blame for his bladder cancer, not Actos. It will be interesting to see if this argument holds any weight during jury deliberation.
The case is Cooper v. Takeda, and is being heard in a California Superior Court in Los Angeles by Judge Kenneth Freeman. As the plaintiff, Jack Cooper, is in poor health, his Actos lawsuit was given priority in going to trial. Once Cooper’s case is settled, Takeda still faces approximately 3,000 more Actos lawsuits, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek report.
The FDA approved Actos in 1999, and since then has ordered Takeda to continually update the drug’s label in order to provide adequate warnings about various health risks associated with Actos use. The current Actos drug label lists a warning about bladder cancer noting that in patients who have used Actos for longer periods, the risk of bladder cancer has increased considerably.
Carey Danis & Lowe Actos lawyers believe that the Cooper Actos case will be representative of and influence future Actos trials and lawsuits. With the evidence brought before the jury in the Cooper case about the dangers of taking Actos, our Actos lawyers believe that injured parties deserve justice and compensation, especially in cases where patients take a drug believing there to be minimal risks, but in reality, these risks have been concealed, resulting in serious harm and injury.