What Oklahoma's victory against Johnson & Johnson means for the opioid trials
Oklahoma delivered a stinging blow to the drug manufacturing firm Johnson & Johnson on Monday, a landmark victory for the state that may help decide more than 2,000 lawsuits targeting opioid makers and distributors around the US. [CNN / Jacqueline Howard and Wayne Drash]
The company was ordered to pay $572 million for its “false, misleading and dangerous” sales campaign that contributed to the massive opioid crisis, as J&J supplied 60 percent of the opiate ingredients used for drugs like oxycodone. The amount, though short of the $17 billion Oklahoma hoped to secure in the trial, could pay for a year's worth of epidemic relief services in the state. [NYT / Jan Hoffman]
According to Oklahoma's attorney general, Johnson & Johnson contributed to 6,000 deaths in the state alone since 2000, with the crisis en route to becoming the "deadliest" man-made epidemic. The pharmaceutical firm has already said it will appeal the judge's decision. [Guardian / Chris McGreal]
The victory comes after two other drugmakers, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals, settled their respective cases earlier this year for $270 million and $85 million, respectively, bringing Oklahoma's net wins close to $1 billion. [Washington Post / Lenny Bernstein]
The surge in lawsuits comes after a string of evidence helped tie the companies' malicious sales tactics to the opioid epidemic. According to Vox's German Lopez, manufacturers promoted opioid-based painkillers as "safe and effective, with multiple studies tying the marketing and proliferation of opioids to misuse, addiction, and overdoses." This also led to other waves of drug overdoses, as the use of heroin and, later, illicit fentanyls grew in response to people losing access to opioids or seeking more potent, cheaper highs. [Vox / German Lopez]
Lopez further writes that the growing number of opioid cases is not just for states to receive money in damages but also to elicit changes like restricting companies' opioid marketing, seeking payment for patients' treatment, and inciting regulation on the federal level. [Vox / German Lopez]
The first federal trial on opioids is scheduled for October 21. Its presiding judge, Cleveland-based Dan Polster, oversees most of the ongoing opioid cases, and, according to the Associated Press, is "pushing the parties to settle." [AP / Geoff Mulvihill]
The province of British Columbia launched its own class-action lawsuit a year ago against dozens of pharmaceutical companies in a bid to recoup the health-care costs associated with opioid addiction. Purdue Pharma has said it followed all of Health Canada's regulations, including those governing marketing. [CBC / Mark Gollom]
Source: Vox Sentences
I'm trying to remember those legacy days in the 1990's.. Portenoy had published an academic article and there were clinical presentations on the need to treat pain appropriately Portenoy had found overall addiction to be small. Even recently ICES report noted an addiction rate of 1% or so and more in those with past abuse issues for pain therapy. Portenoy has recanted from his original position.
One thing I do not remember is any plug by presenters or ads that oxycodone was less addictive. I knew it was a narcotic with the same possibilities. My patient contract did not cross out addictions. The main reason I used it was Percocet was effective when codeine was not,, few side effects and in those whose pain required larger doses , the conversion to long acting oxycontin was not difficult.. Much of the reason for conversion was to avoid acetaminophen hepatotoxicity.
Undoubtedly there is withdrawall on sudden cessation, but those of us on this forum know that is not addiction
Thanks to all for all your comments and advice. What are your recollections. Are the pharmaceutical companies at fault or was it the change in approach to chronic pain that convinced many to attempt to help patients with chronic pain.
Hi Simon,
I'm sure that the drug companies must be arguing that there is very little overlap between those whose opioid addictions are creating enormous social costs and premature deaths and the doctors' patients ultimately benefitting from their advertising, which for those patients has led to proper, effective and crucial pain relief. I'm not suggesting that the drug companies' advertising isn't actually misleading, and that it doesn't have very real negative consequences in some cases (for which they must assume responsibility), but are two issues which are only somewhat related being entirely conflated here, at possible risk to those patients for whom opioids have been a godsend?
Apparently Oklahoma courts didn't think so, but possibly the reasons for their decision deserve further public clarification?
Ralph West
I totally understand and recognize that there are multiple complex layers to this crisis. I think my only comment is this:
It started innocently enough as a prescribed treatment from his doctor for his gastric-intestinal flare-ups. The only problem being is that the medication not only took care of his physical pain BUT it also medicated and temporarily alleviated his mental and emotional pain. ..and deep into the abyss did he fall with this addiction.
In my family of three sisters, we have two young people dead already and another who has destroyed his life as a result of opioid pain medication. These three young adults were all in their mid 20’s. All of them were dealing with anxiety, depression and self esteem issues. All had genuine chronic pain issues and all were initially prescribed these medications legally from a doctor. And they all got hooked from there.
The losses are staggering and the collateral damage is still reverberating 18 years after Pete's death. It is just so sad. (sigh)