The Injury Lawyer Directory Blog

The promise of molecular-based targeted cancer drugs has always been that they would attack only the cancer and reduce possible side effects to small effects with a low probability. However, they are proving to come with just as many dangerous side effects as more traditional drug therapies. A recent study showed that Pfizer, Inc's Sutent, approved to treat a variety of stomach cancer and advanced kidney cancer, can damage the heart, leading to high blood pressure and heart failure. This follows last year's revelation that Gleevac, designed to treat leukemia, as well as the previous findings that Herceptin, which targets breast cancer, also cause heart damage.

Although researchers say that these drugs are less toxic to the body as a whole, they admit that many of the molecules that drive cancer are involved in normal cell function. Thus, the so-called targeted therapies may also target normal cells as well.

If you or someone you love is finding that the promises made about your new medication are as much wishful thinking as real science, contact the Texas defective drug lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates today to find help.

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, heart damage, scholarly study

A recent study by the Canadian Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) has increased concerns about Avandia and drugs in its class that are used to treat type 2 diabetes. The study showed patients treated with glitazones had a 60 percent higher risk of heart failure requiring hospitalization compared to patients given another class of diabetes pill. These patients had a 40 percent higher risk of heart attack, and a 30 percent higher risk of dying compared to those on the other drugs. The study was conducted by analyzing data for 160,000 diabetics aged 65 and older from the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) database.

The data represents the most comprehensive figures in the study of Avandia's effects and it raises questions as to why this dangerous drug is still on the market. In human terms, the figures mean that for every 100 patients taking the drugs for the four years covered by the study, there were three additional cases of heart failure, four additional heart attacks, and five premature deaths whose cause might be attributed to the drug. Although Health Canada withdrew approval of the drug for all but patients who could not tolerate other diabetes drugs early in November, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been reluctant to do so, although it did put a black-box warning on the drug.

If the FDA will not protect us from dangerous drugs, who will? If you have been injured by a dangerous pharmaceutical, you cannot undo the damage, but you can make sure your continuing expenses are covered and diminish the profit of those who did you harm. Consult a Phoenix, Arizona-area defective drug lawyer at the firm of Snyder & Wenner, P.C. today to find out what options are open to you.

Labels: Canada, defective pharmaceutical, FDA, scholarly study

Although critics of the tort system for settling medical malpractice claims have long charged that the legal system is nothing more than a lottery system that can hurt good doctors and reward crooked lawyers, the truth is that the tort system works surprisingly well. According to a recent study by the Law School of the University of Missouri-Columbia entitled "What We Know about Malpractice Settlements," published in the Iowa Law Review, the rate of settlement and the settlement amount for medical malpractice claims were actually tied very closely to the merits of the claim.

According to the study, which compiled data from a dozen previous studies over two decades, weak claims received payment in only 10-20% of the cases, while strong cases received payment in 85-90% of the claims. In addition, the average settlement amount for weak cases was much less. Weak cases received an average settlement less than $14,000 in most studies, whereas the strong cases received settlements in excess of $170,000 dollars. Correlating the two statistics highlights the disparity. A claim without merit against a doctor will cost, on average, $1400, while a claim with merit will cost $144000, a disparity of two orders of magnitude, clearly a significant difference. Based on this study, the tort system for managing medical malpractice is definitely a good one for making sure that injured patients receive payment, while fraudulent claims do not.

If this is so, what is the source of the common perception that the system is deeply flawed? That will be tomorrow's topic.

This study gives hope to those facing off against the medical system over medical negligence. It shows that, despite the advantages of defendants in these cases, plaintiffs with merit will receive significant payments most of the time. If you or someone you love has been injured by medical negligence, do not despair, but instead contact the Texas injury lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates today.

Labels: case merit, medical malpractice, scholarly study