In a recent article (“Seroquel Diabetes Lawsuit”), I discussed how AstraZeneca grossly misrepresents or minimizes the potential weight loss associated with the use of Seroquel in the treatment of diabetes. In that article, I also explained why Seroquel is one of the most extensively used antipsychotic medications in the country, and how the drug company’s profits are tied closely to the continued use of this dangerous medication. This article examines another potential downfall associated with Seroquel Diabetes Lawsuit, its side effects. Specifically, I’ll examine whether Seroquel can be used to treat borderline hypertension without increasing the patient’s heart rate. I will conclude by discussing whether other non-drug therapies including hypnosis and behavioral modification therapies may help patients suffering from borderline hypertension.
- 1 Seroquel Diabetes Class Action Lawsuit
- 1.1 According to the complaint, the defendants failed to properly warn Ms. Miksell Bound that taking part in a clinical study using seroquel could significantly increase her heart rate, which ultimately caused her death.
Seroquel Diabetes Class Action Lawsuit
In a recent Seroquel diabetes lawsuit, plaintiff Tracy Miksell Bound filed suit against the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) and several other pharmaceutical companies. According to the complaint, in September 2021, Miksell Bound was working at her job at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) when she developed an oral motor skills impairment as a direct result of taking part in a clinical study involving Seroquel, an anti-psychotic drug. After experiencing an increase in her heart rate and blood pressure, her physician informed her that she had moderate to severe congestive heart failure.
According to the complaint, the defendants failed to properly warn Ms. Miksell Bound that taking part in a clinical study using seroquel could significantly increase her heart rate, which ultimately caused her death.
This case is distinguishable from a previous Seroquel diabetes lawsuit in which the plaintiff was awarded $1 million by the United States Federal District Court on a technicality relating to the manner in which the drug was prescribed. The plaintiff in that case, identified only as Jane Doe, was able to successfully argue that the FDA did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter because it was intended to be used in medical treatment for those with cardiovascular disease and who were not under the authority of the FDA at the time. The FDA found that a reasonable person would think that the use of the seroquel diabetes lawsuit, which is intended to treat congestive heart failure in such persons, was a condition that required a prescription. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and granted her damages on a default judgment basis, which means that the jury would not be allowed to ask for damages unless and until it was proven that the manufacturers knew about the risk of prescribing the drug for use in treating congestive heart failure in persons who were not appropriate patients.
Seroquel is marketed as a “bio-identical” anti-psychotic drug. It is also known under various names, including Yerba Mate, Miraplex, and Lexapro.
It was marketed by GlaxoSmithKline, the company that developed it, as a drug to treat schizophrenia, but was soon seen by other companies as having substantial benefits as an anti-psychotic. Because many of the studies that backed up these claims had been sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline itself, and because the data was deemed to be reliable, the drug was put into this class of drugs known as “orphan” medications. The FDA has since recognized those benefits and has limited the use of seroquel diabetes lawsuits class action lawsuits to only those related to the well-known, much less well-known side effects of seroquel.
The use of antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenic patients was controversial from the time of its inception.
Proponents of the drugs maintained that there was no increased risk of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in those who took them. Opponents of the drugs maintained that the increased risk of diabetes was unwarranted. While the two sides maintained essentially the same positions throughout the years, the FDA slowly began allowing more drugs containing the bromine compound to be approved for use in treating patients with diabetes.
By the time of Seroquel’s release, GlaxoSmithKline faced intense pressure from the medical community and political leaders urging them not to market the medication to patients with type diabetes who were already at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease or stroke. At first, GlaxoSmithKline defended their decision by asserting that their studies had been misinterpreted by the FDA reviewers. However, after a second Seroquel Diabetes lawsuit, the FDA finally released a report confirming that Seroquel did increase the risk of diabetes in diabetic patients.
Seroquel Diabetes lawsuits are based on the FDA’s failure to protect consumers from unsafe side effects of this medication.
The plaintiffs argue that GlaxoSmithKline presented patients with an inadequate safety disclosure, failed to warn them of the potential for serious adverse reactions to the chemical compounds contained within the pill, failed to warn of the potential for an addiction, and continued to allow the drug to be sold despite the evidence that it was harmful. The Class Action lawsuit also charges GlaxoSmithKline with failing to provide adequate warnings about the serious and life-threatening side effects that could result from using the drug. Further, it is alleged that GlaxoSmithKline created a dangerous double-bill with its Seroquel Diabetes lawsuit, promoting the medication for use in combination with a different diabetic drug called Phentermine, intended to treat hypertension.
Plaintiffs contend that the danger presented by the two drugs was adequately disclosed to patients prior to their authorization by the FDA. If successful, these class action lawsuits will force GlaxoSmithKline to reimburse the expenses previously associated with introducing Seroquel Diabetes to the diabetes community, as well as compensate patients suffering from diabetes caused by the drug. In addition to compensating plaintiffs, the FDA must determine the cause of Seroquel’s increased risk for diabetes before scheduling it for sale. As such, it is highly unlikely that GlaxoSmithKline will receive any monetary compensation. This lawsuit, if successful, could set a precedent for other attorneys to charge higher fees when considering cases similar to Seroquel Diabetes. However, the potential financial benefit to patients filing their own class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline may sway the court in favor of plaintiffs.