Pull diabetes drug Avandia off market, FDA reports say

Hundreds of people taking the diabetes drug Avandia needlessly suffer heart attacks and heart failure each month, according to confidential government reports that recommend that the drug be removed from the market.

The reports, obtained by The New York Times, say that if every diabetic now taking Avandia were instead given a similar pill named Actos, about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure would be averted every month because Avandia can hurt the heart.

Avandia, intended to treat type 2 diabetes, is known as rosiglitazone and was linked to 304 deaths during the third quarter of 2009.

“Rosiglitazone should be removed from the market,” one of the reports, written by Drs. David Graham and Kate Gelperin of the Food and Drug Administration, concludes. Both authors recommended that Avandia be withdrawn.

The internal FDA reports are part of a fierce debate within the agency over what to do about Avandia, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

Some agency officials want the drug withdrawn because they believe there is a safer alternative; others insist that studies of the drug provide contradictory information and that Avandia should continue to be an option for doctors and patients.

The battle has been brewing for years but has been brought to a head by a fierce disagreement over a new clinical trial and a Senate investigation that concluded that GlaxoSmithKline should have warned patients earlier of the drug’s potential risks.

Avandia was once one of the biggest-selling drugs in the world. Driven in part by a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, sales were $3.2 billion in 2006. But a 2007 study by a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist suggesting that the drug harmed the heart prompted the FDA to issue a warning, and sales plunged.

The bipartisan, multiyear Senate investigation — whose results are expected to be released publicly today but which werealso obtained by the Times — sharply criticizes GlaxoSmithKline, saying it failed to warn patients years earlier that Avandia was potentially deadly.

What Our Clients Say

I would recommend The Traub Law Office first and foremost to any person with a Personal Injury case. I was told by two Personal Injury lawyers prior to Andrew that I should just drop my case because I would never win against American Access Causality because my case wasn't cut and dry. We've all heard of the ability to turn "water into wine" associated with Jesus and I'm not equating Andrew Traub to Jesus but my case against American Access Causality was a hard lead to nowhere because of outdated Texas Law and Andrew made a way for my dead-end case, turning nothing into something or a settlement. Andrew was professional, patient, and worked tirelessly to help me. Both he and his staff are dedicated to being the people in your corner when its you versus the law.

5/ 5
Vanessa B - google

Contact Us

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
Please let us know what's on your mind. Have a question for us? Ask away.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Some of our Awards

Super LawyersTop One PercentLawyers of DistinctionMillion Dollar Advocates ForumNational Trial Lawyers Top 100Avvo 10/10 ratingTop 100 Verdict

Address

8701 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 401, Austin, TX 78757
Get Directions

Hours

Office: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday

Appointments available: All days and hours.

Phones answered 24/7

Contact

5.0 / 5 over 38 reviews

See Reviews

Leave a Review

Connect

Navigation

While most of our clients hail from Austin, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, and Pflugerville in Travis and Williamson Counties, we have also worked with clients in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Other clients have come from Lakeway, Jollyville, Anderson Mill, Kyle, and Leander. If your accident was in Texas, we can help you. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
Back To Top