In a Safety Announcement published in June 2011, the FDA warned that the patients using Actos were at an increased risk of bladder cancer. Long-term use of Actos is linked to a number of serious health complications, including bladder cancer that led to lawsuits against Takeda.
More than 10,000 lawsuits were filed against the drug maker Takeda Pharmaceuticals for their drug Actos, which caused life-threatening side effects. Takeda settled about 9,000 Actos-related lawsuits for $2.4 billion in 2015 without admitting any guilt and continue to believe the benefits of Actos outweigh the risk of cancer and became one of the largest Big Pharma settlements in U.S. history. The settlement followed eight Actos jury verdicts.
Nearly 4,000 federal cases were a part of the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) group in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lafayette, Louisiana before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty (In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 11-MD-02299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana. About 4,500 cases were filed in various state courts, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, California and West Virginia.
On April 28, 2015, the U.S. District Court, overseeing Actos injury cases in the federal court nationwide issued an order recognizing that Takeda has agreed to settle all bladder cancer claims made against the company by Actos users provided three conditions are met:
- they took Actos at some time prior to December 1, 2011,
- they were diagnosed with bladder cancer on or before April 28, 2015, and
- they are represented by counsel or retained counsel by May 1, 2015
The settlement amount was increased from $2.37 to $2.4 billion, because the percentage of the claimants who decided to participate exceeded 97% before the opt-in deadline of September 11, 2015. Average payments per person will be increased for more severe injuries, and reductions will occur where an individual had other likely causes of bladder cancer, such as smoking.
Scoring Actos Cases
- A meticulous review of plaintiff's medical and pharmacy records of the entire treatment duration; and
- A thorough comparative analysis in light of risk and adjustment factors is needed to achieve the desirable and most appropriate compensation.