ZOFRAN


Ohio Product Liability Lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in Pharmaceutical Litigation and drug injury cases
Nationwide Success

Compensation for
What You Have Been Through

Spread Awareness of Drug Risks & Outcomes

During the past decade Zofran and Zuplenz have been increasingly used in the United States for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. The drugs act by  blocking the actions of chemicals in the body causing nausea.  The patent for Zofran expired in 2006 but Zuplenz was then approved in 2010. The main difference between Zofran and Zuplenz is that Zuplenz tablets will dissolve without water.

The drug indication is limited to patients following cancer treatments and surgery. However, the drugs have been routinely prescribed and used “off label” for stomach problems in children and morning sickness in expecting mothers.

It has been estimated that 80 percent of pregnant women consume a version of Zofran or Zuplenz.  In 2012, Glaxo Smith Kline plead guilty to fraud and illegal promotion of several drugs including Zofran and paid a $3 Billion fine as part of the Zofran Lawsuit settlement.

Joe Lyon is an experienced Cincinnati Catastrophic Injury lawyer and Ohio product liability attorney. He has represented hundreds of individuals harmed by pharmaceutical products nationwide. 

For questions related to the Zofran  lawsuit call for a no-cost consultation at (800) 513-2403.


Zofran Birth Defects


Earlier studies on Zofran showed there was no safety issue with the drug. However, fetal safety data was based on less than 200 births.  Newer research has called those conclusions into doubt with many questions related to the methodology applied to the data to reach such conclusions.

In 2013, the prominent New England Journal of Medicine published a study of 2,000 women from a Danish Birth Registry. The study showed that Zofran did not harm the fetus, but the study contained a major flaw in that most of the women took the medication past 10 weeks.  Malformations are not though to be produced beyond 10 weeks gestation, so the paper was severely limited in its application.

Following the NEJM study, the International Society of Pharmacoepidmiology published a paper entitled Ondanestron Use in Early Pregnancy and Risk of Congential Malformations evaluated women in the first trimester.  The researchers found that after exposure to ondanestron, children were more likely to suffer a birth defect. Specifically, the strongest association was related heart defects involving cardiac tissue that failed to develop.  Notably:

  • Atrial septal defects were 2.1 times more likely
  • Ventricular septal defects were 2.3 times more likely
  • Atrioventricular septal defects were 4.8 times more likely

Zofran Studies


In December 2014 , a group of Swedish publish health officials published a paper entitled ” Use of Ondanestron During Pregnancy & Congenital Malformations in The Infant” evaluating a total of 1,349 births.  The authors also concluded that there was a statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular defects associated with Zofran.

A control study by Sloan Epidemiology unit and Centers for Disease Control found a 2 fold increase for cleft palate for Zofran taken in the first trimester [odds ratio = 2.37 (95% CI, 1.28-4.76).

  • In 2012, researchers at Harvard University took a look at common morning sickness treatments and their potential links to fetal harm. The study published in the journal Birth Defects Research found that women who took Zofran were more than twice as likely to birth children with a cleft palate. Cleft palate occurs when the roof of the mouth fails to seal during early fetal development, resulting in a gap on the roof of the mouth that sometimes extends into the throat or nose. It usually requires surgery in the child’s first two years of life. Conclusions were based on data from over 9,000 pregnant women who participated in the National Birth Defects Prevention study. By some estimates, the risk of delivering a child with cleft palate increases by over 200 percent when Zofran is taken by a mother.
  • Studies conducted in Denmark and Sweden have also discovered evidence that Zofran, when taken during the first trimester, may pose a risk to an unborn child’s heart. In two studies, European researchers found that Zofran may double the risk for cardiac septal defects, a condition where the walls of a baby’s heart fail to properly form.
  • Danish researchers from Copenhagen University analyzed national health records to investigate Zofran’s potential effects. Analyzing prescription and birth records, the team discovered an association between Zofran and congenital heart defects.
  • In 2013, a Danish study of more than 900,000 pregnancies found a two-fold increased risk of heart defects in babies whose mothers used the drug while pregnant.
  • study published in BioMed Research International notes Zofran is associated with a 20 percent increased risk of kidney defects and other congenital heart abnormalities.
  • A June, 2014 study conducted in Canada found at least 20 women who took Zofran during pregnancy and had children with birth defects, including 2 infant deaths and multiple cases of heart and kidney malformations.

zofran lawsuit cincinnati pregnancy discrimination lawyer


Zofran Injuries


  • Heart Defects, including septal defects (holes in the heart)
  • Atrial septal defects
  • Ventricular septal defects
  • Atrioventricular septal defects
  • Cleft Lip
  • Cleft Palate
  • Club Foot
  • Craniosynotosis (skull deformities)
  • Kidney Malformations

Ohio Zofran Lawsuit


  • Glaxo breached its duty to adequately test Zofran before selling the product for use during pregnancy
  • Glaxo failed to warn physicians and patients about the risk of birth defects when taken during pregnancy
  • Glaxo promoted Zofran as safe for use during pregnancy when the FDA had not approved the drug for such use
  • Glaxo failed to properly communicate the results of animal studies that showed signs of abnormal bone growth and toxicity
  • Glaxo failed to properly analyze the available data and safety information on the drug before selling the Zofran for use during pregnancy

FDA Zofran Warnings


In September of 2011, the FDA issued a  warning about possible QT prolongation and torsade de pointes among people receiving Zofran and called for closer monitoring of patients who may suffer QT syndromes, electrolyte imbalances, or congestive heart failure.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) informed consumers and healthcare professionals that a clinical study suggested that a single intravenous dose of Zofran (ondansetron) could affect the electrical activity of the heart and pre-dispose patients to develop an abnormal and potentially fatal heart rhythm known as Torsades de Pointes.

As a result of the study, GlaxoSmithKline announced changes to the drug label. The updated label noted that the drug can continue to be used to alleviate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but at lower intravenous doses.


Zofran Birth Defects


Pregnant women who take the anti-nausea drug Zofran (ondansetron) may be unknowingly exposing their babies to an increased risk for severe birth defects. Side effects linked to use include cleft palate, kidney failure and congenital heart defects.

Zofran is a potent anti-nausea drug designed to treat the most severe forms of nausea and vomiting. The drug is approved to treat patients undergoing cancer treatment, and people who fall ill after receiving surgical anesthesia.

But before the drug was marketed and distributed by GlaxoSmithKline, its use was never studied in pregnant women. Even so, Zofran has become the most common drug treatment for morning sickness in many parts of the developed world.

Parents have been filing civil lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming that their drug Zofran caused birth defects in their children. The first lawsuit was filed in February, 2015, and there are many cases pending review.

If you have a child with a birth defect, speak to your doctor, and contact an experienced pharmaceutical injury attorney. The Lyon Firm has the skills and resources necessary to file a successful birth defect lawsuits against large pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline. Rightful compensation can provide the financial resources for a difficult and costly medical future for your child.

photo of attorney Joe Lyon
A Voice for Those who have suffered 

Why are these cases important?

By taking the initiative and filing drug injury lawsuits, plaintiffs can receive proper compensation and hold a corporation accountable for their negligent actions. Consumer safety depends largely on making sure companies operate within the law and within ethical boundaries.

Give Yourself a Voice

icon-published

Get Justice

Gain Recovery

Generate Awareness

Questions about Pharmaceutical Litigation

What is Pharmaceutical Litigation?

When drug makers and large corporations are negligent and produce dangerous products that lead to serious illness and injury, legal action can be necessary. In the current corporate environment, filing lawsuits is one of the only ways to keep drug companies from selling untested and dubious pharmaceuticals in the name of profit. Pharmaceutical litigation – through a lawsuit against a drug manufacturer- helps bring awareness to these companies as to the necessary changes that need to occur in order to keep people safe a healthy while taking a  certain drug. 

By taking the initiative and filing drug injury lawsuits, plaintiffs can receive proper compensation and hold a corporation accountable for their negligent actions. Consumer safety depends largely on making sure companies operate within the law and within ethical boundaries.

How does the drug label come into play?

In past litigation, it has been discovered that drug companies often delay adding serious side effects to a drug’s label due to concerns about the impact on the sales and marketing. If a drug carries more serious side effects, physicians and patients look for alternative treatments with less risk and the same or similar benefit.  As a result, there is a financial incentive not to strengthen the warning label.

However, the label is the source of information that physicians and patients rely upon when making these important health decisions.  There is no excuse for a company not to update its label when the science is sufficient to show an association with the medication.

How does this related to the FDA?

Most experts would agree that the FDA is not designed nor does it have the resources to monitor every product through the post approval process once it has been granted clearance. Very simply, the volume of medical devices that are presented for review is too demanding, so, while the FDA is a good initial step in the process, the responsibility of providing safe and effective pharmaceutical companies remains on the companies that profit from the sales.

While the pharmaceutical companies have yielded more influence over the review process, ultimately, the law is very clear that it is the company’s responsibility to run the appropriate tests, track the data, and to identify the side effects and then warn consumers and physicians adequately and in a timely manner. Government approval is not a shield for liability. The Failure to timely and sufficiently warn of side effects operates as the primary cause of action for pharmaceutical claims.

Most importantly, the FDA and the government do not provide for compensation when someone is injured by a pharmaceutical product.  The civil justice system provides the means for an individual harmed by a pharmaceutical product to obtain justice and recover for the losses suffered.

Without the civil justice system, companies would not be required to pay for the harm they cause, and the public tax system, in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, would have to absorb that loss. In other words, without pharmaceutical lawsuits, the tax payers would pay for corporate malfeasance and neglect.

What are some examples of Pharmaceutical Settlements?

The current opioid crisis is a good example of how over-prescribing medications can lead to a huge public health crisis. Pain medications have been a great tool for physicians in treating a wide variety of conditions, however, the abuse of prescribing and using pain medication has turned into one of biggest areas of pharmaceutical litigation today.

It is not only opioids that have been prescribed in huge numbers. Other drugs that have only been tested in short trials are released to the market each year and injure patients. A few examples of drug injury:

Testosterone: Low T clinics are under investigation after many patients receiving testosterone therapy have reported strokes and heart attacks. Experts say doctors may be pushing the therapy when not every aging man requires testosterone therapy.

AntibioticsAntibiotic injuries are being reported at record rates as the drugs are prescribed more than ever before. Drug resistance and drug injury rates are on the rise, concerning the medical community and consumer protection attorneys.

Diabetes Drug Injury: Severe side effects are being reported by diabetes patients taking Invokana and other diabetes medications. Amputations and gangrene cases have opened the eyes of many taking the drugs, and lawsuits have been filed on their behalf.

Drug Contamination: Valsartan and Losartan contamination cases have raised the risk of patient cancer. Drug companies have failed to control the production process and put consumers at unnecessary risk.

Opioid Painkiller Lawsuits: Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and other large drug companies are deep in pharmaceutical settlement talks many years after the beginning of the opioid addiction crisis. Thousands of Americans die each year in opioid-related overdose deaths, many of which begin with doctors over-prescribing pain medications.

Depo Provera: Confidential settlement from Pfizer to resolve all of the claims currently pending in the New Jersey State coordinated litigation. Joseph Lyon represented 13 females who suffered osteoporosis due to the failure of Pfizer to properly warn them and their physicians.

Seroquel: AstraZeneca resolved claims for $198 Million regarding claims that the company failed to warn about risks of diabetes and excessive weight gain. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement and represented numerous claimants. In addition to the individual claims, Federal prosecutors and authorities from several U.S. states investigated whether AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel off-label, or for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company announced a settlement of $520 million with the U.S. Justice Department over the matter.

Trasylol: Bayer resolved certain claims for $60 Million for patients who suffered heart failure and death as a result of the drug Trasylol.  Trasylol was a drug used to prevent excessive bleeding during heart surgery. The science unequivocally showed Trasylol can cause kidney damage, heart failure and strokes, and greatly increase patients’ risk of post-surgery death when compared to rival treatments.

In 2006, a study by Dr. Dennis Mangano was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluding that the drug more than doubled the risk of renal failure.  After fourteen years on the market, Bayer suspended sales in November 2007. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement.

Vioxx: Merck settled the outstanding Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement.  In 2004, after a study showed Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes, Merck pulled Vioxx from the market. The case was then litigated with 16 trial ultimately going to the jury for a decision. Merck prevailed in 11 of the 16 trials.

Despite the settlement, Merck has not admitted that that Vioxx caused injuries. Each claim under the settlement was analyzed under an protocol that weighed such factors as a user’s age, their length of use, and their health risks such as obesity or hypertension. The individual extraordinary payout for a heart attack case was capped at $600,000.

How are the cases handled?

Pharmaceutical litigation is a complex area of law that combines dense regulation, developing science, and multi-jurisdictional questions of law. Most cases involving claims of drug injury and pharmaceuticals become centralized in the federal multidistrict litigation process. Pharmaceutical litigation involving injury claims are not in most cases not class action lawsuits, but they are very similar.

Due to the volume of cases and number of similar issues, most pharmaceutical cases are handled through Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The multidistrict litigation procedure is guided by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, where the case is centralized before one federal Judge for the purposes of pre-trial discovery.

The MDL process is appropriate where there are one or more common questions of fact in multiple cases pending in different federal district courts.  While there often are parallel state consolidated proceedings, the federal MDL process is generally supported by both Plaintiff and Defendants in these cases.

The MDL process allows for efficiency where there are millions of pages of documents, many expert witnesses across multiple disciplines from epidemiology, pharmacology, toxicology and the specific discipline for the relevant mechanism of injury.

Although 28 USC 1407 does not specify a specific number of cases required before the formation of an MDL is appropriate, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation reviews the Motions and conducts a hearing to determine whether consolidation is ripe given the number and location of the pending cases.

What is an MDL?

Most people understand what a class action lawsuit is, and fewer are aware of what an MDL refers to. It is important for a claimant to know, however, that an MDL is not a class action, as the term is often misapplied in this context, and the original court (home or transferee jurisdiction) retains the authority to present the case at trial.

In most MDL settings, the case is resolved by way of settlement or a summary judgment motion on the questions of science (i.e., Daubert Motion). If either settlement or dismissal on Motion occurs, the case is not remanded to the originating court. If the case is not resolved at the MDL, then the case may be remanded to original jurisdiction for additional discovery on the case specifics and ultimately trial.

Why Hire the Lyon Firm?

Our Firm will help you find the answers.  The Firm has the experience, resources and dedication to take on difficult and emotional cases and help our clients obtain the justice for the wrong they have suffered. 

 Experience:  Joe Lyon is an experienced Cincinnati Pharmaceutical Lawyer. The Lyon Firm has 17 years of experience and success representing individuals and plaintiffs in all fifty states, and in a variety of complex civil litigation matters. Pharmaceutical lawsuits can be complex and require industry experts to determine the root cause of an accident or injury. Mr. Lyon has worked with experts nationwide to assist individuals understand why an injury occurred and what can be done to improve their lives in the future. Some cases may go to a jury trial, though many others can be settled out of court.

Resources/Dedication: Mr. Lyon has worked with experts in the fields of accident reconstruction, biomechanics, epidemiology, metallurgy, pharmacology, toxicology, human factors, workplace safety, life care planning, economics, and virtually every medical discipline in successfully representing Plaintiffs across numerous areas of law. The Lyon Firm is dedicated to building the strongest cases possible for clients and their critical interests.

Results:  Mr. Lyon has obtained numerous seven and six figure results in personal injury,  automotive product liability, medical Negligence, construction accidents, and auto dealership negligence cases.  The cases have involved successfully litigating against some of  the largest companies in the world 

Our Victories

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a drug to obtain just compensation under the law. 

IN RE: VIOXX

Nationwide Consolidation in U.S. District Court, E. Dist. of LA. 

This pharmaceutical case involved claims that the blockbuster painkiller was causing heart attacks and strokes in consumers. The FDA ultimately recalled the medication. Merck settled the outstanding Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion following multiple trials in both state and federal courts. Joe Lyon was co-counsel in a number of individual claims that were successfully resolved in the federal MDL. The funds received for Lyon Firm clients helped several elderly clients with additional medical and home health care.

IN RE: TRASYLOL

Nationwide Consolidation in Civil Complex Litigation Center Philadelphia, PA. 

A pharmaceutical case involving claims that a popular surgical medication was causing kidney failure and death. The FDA recalled the medication in question, but not before thousands of patients died due to related complications. Bayer resolved certain claims for $60 Million for patients who suffered kidney failure and death as a result of using the drug Trasylol. Joseph Lyon represented a widow from Kentucky whose husband died due to kidney failure following the administration of Trasylol. The recovered funds assisted the surviving family members in resuming farming operations.

Request A Free Consultation


 

    • Answer a few general questions.
    • A member of our legal team will review your case.
    • We will determine, together with you, what makes sense for the next step for you and your family to take.
powered by Typeform

© 2020 The Lyon Firm. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED