OT - Eli Lilly to Face Cymbalta Lawsuits regarding withdraw

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ca/2014/08/eli ... suits.html

Thought it was appropriate to post since many people on this board have either mentioned taking Cymbalta or had horrific withdrawals getting off it. As a disclaimer, I do understand that not everyone has horrific withdrawal symptoms in getting off a med but it does seem like this one has more than the usual share of problems.

49er

Thanks for posting that. Not taking this particular med but have experienced un/under reported side effects on other meds. I had never heard the "brain zaps" described before. I knew some of my neurological symptoms were caused by my abrupt stopping of a med that should have been weaned, but I never correlated the "zaps" both in my head and body as possibly linked to a medication. Very interesting.

I've never taken Cymbalta but did take effexor which is in the same class as a SNRI and when I was on that medication I had these "brain zaps" while actively taking the medication that lead to me eventually moving on to SSRI's which never worked.

It's a shame because Effexor really helped with all my problems, but these "Brain Zaps" were just to much. Thought about looking at Cymbalta but concerned that I will suffer the same side effects.

Thanks for all your help, 49er! I am going to print the blog and send it "anonymously" to my Primary. What a jerk! Thanks for all your help.
Luthie

I hope they get burned really bad for not providing smaller dosages to aid in withdrawal.

However, don't get too happy about lawsuits. These are very often scam class action lawsuits. The lawyers represent a "class" of all the victims of the defendant. The victims get included in the class unless they opt out before the process starts. The lawyers usually "try" to notify the clients they "represent", but a victim may be included even if they didn't get notified.

The defendant and the "plaintiff" lawyers may settle. The lawyers get a tidy sum of money for not a lot of work. The individual victims get a pittance, but they lose their right to sue for their claims. Sometimes, an individual victim may not even ever get a notice that are owed some money. The defendant is no longer responsible for the damages they caused the victims.

My dad had a car that was involved in a class action lawsuit due to an allegedly deadly design flaw. He never asked to join the class. The case was settled. His compensation was a coupon for $xxxx off his next purchase of a DeadlyMotors car. The amount was in the range of the "discount" offers the car dealers run all the time. Strangely enough, the lawyers got paid in cash, not coupons. Dad lost his right to sue in the future.

I am a health care provider and I often prescribe antidepressants (including cymbalta). I go through a HUGE list of do's and don'ts when prescribing these medications and one of the big ones is - DO NOT STOP TAKING THIS "COLD TURKEY" - I tell them that we have to wean them down over a period of several weeks with lowering the dose and/or changing from daily to every other day, etc.... All the antidepressants have withdrawal effects that can be minimized by coming off gradually. Yes, that information should have been known, but providers also have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly.

Arachangle: So sorry to hear about your Dad, I hope he was ok. And so sorry to hear that he lost the case. I was not going to file a class action suit because first of all, I have not withdrawn yet or even close to it. I am sorry to read about your Dad and hope that his damage was not that bad.

Thanks for letting us know Archangle. Funny, my daughters filed a class action suit with Sketcher's Shoes a few years ago and they each received $50 back with their receipt. Probably more than your Dad got!

akodompa wrote:I am a health care provider and I often prescribe antidepressants (including cymbalta). I go through a HUGE list of do's and don'ts when prescribing these medications and one of the big ones is - DO NOT STOP TAKING THIS "COLD TURKEY" - I tell them that we have to wean them down over a period of several weeks with lowering the dose and/or changing from daily to every other day, etc.... All the antidepressants have withdrawal effects that can be minimized by coming off gradually. Yes, that information should have been known, but providers also have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly.

At least you tell people to not stop taking antidepressants cold turkey. That said, providers have a responsibility to know at least as much as their patients about these meds! Changing from daily to every other day does not work for the vast majority of people. I hope you also tell people who want to get off ADs that they should not wean more than 10% of their current dose every 4-6 weeks.

Yes, providers do have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly! My question is why do patients know more about these drugs than their providers? Why would providers not read the same sites on the internet that lay people manage to find? And, not listen to the news or read newspapers? Why do providers not have a clue about how very sick some people have become as a result of not weaning these meds correctly?

ems wrote:

akodompa wrote:
At least you tell people to not stop taking antidepressants cold turkey. That said, providers have a responsibility to know at least as much as their patients about these meds! Changing from daily to every other day does not work for the vast majority of people. I hope you also tell people who want to get off ADs that they should not wean more than 10% of their current dose every 4-6 weeks.

Yes, providers do have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly! My question is why do patients know more about these drugs than their providers? Why would providers not read the same sites on the internet that lay people manage to find? And, not listen to the news or read newspapers? Why do providers not have a clue about how very sick some people have become as a result of not weaning these meds correctly?

Hi, I wrote the original article that started this thread.

Akodompa is quite correct.

I cannot think of any doctor, both present and past, that can give any assurance that their tapering method is the safest and easiest.

For years GlaxoSmithKline disputed that there was a withdrawal problem with Seroxat [known as Paxil in the US].

I have wrote to them on many occasions to ask what the best tapering method is...I have been told to "Talk to my doctor"

I met with the UK medicines regulator, the MHRA, a few years ago. I pointed out that the term "Talk to your doctor" is mentioned almost 40 times on the then current Seroxat patient information leaflet.

Somtime later, the MHRA released an SSRi learning module where they recommended "specialists" to help people wean from SSRi antidepressants. I asked them for a list of these so called specialists... they could not provide me with one single name.

Bizarrely, a lawsuit was filed and settled in the US regarding Seroxat withdrawal problems. Over 3,000 plaintiffs received some form of compensation, it was an agreement made out of court so GlaxoSmithKline didn't have to admit that there was a high risk of withdrawal problems with their antidepressant.

Now, here's the rub.

A lawsuit was filed in the UK regarding Seroxat withdrawal. Glaxo are refusing to settle that one.

Why?

Well, because the law in the UK allows them to. They know that most lawyers in the UK rely of public funding to run cases against them, they also know that that same public funding will be withdrawn the longer the case drags.

The current UK Seroxat litigation has been running for 10 years.

I'll leave it to the readers to work out whether or not the funding has been stopped.

Bob Fiddaman

ems wrote:

akodompa wrote:I am a health care provider and I often prescribe antidepressants (including cymbalta). I go through a HUGE list of do's and don'ts when prescribing these medications and one of the big ones is - DO NOT STOP TAKING THIS "COLD TURKEY" - I tell them that we have to wean them down over a period of several weeks with lowering the dose and/or changing from daily to every other day, etc.... All the antidepressants have withdrawal effects that can be minimized by coming off gradually. Yes, that information should have been known, but providers also have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly.

At least you tell people to not stop taking antidepressants cold turkey. That said, providers have a responsibility to know at least as much as their patients about these meds! Changing from daily to every other day does not work for the vast majority of people. I hope you also tell people who want to get off ADs that they should not wean more than 10% of their current dose every 4-6 weeks.

Yes, providers do have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly! My question is why do patients know more about these drugs than their providers? Why would providers not read the same sites on the internet that lay people manage to find? And, not listen to the news or read newspapers? Why do providers not have a clue about how very sick some people have become as a result of not weaning these meds correctly?

To add to EMS's excellent points, prescribing antidepressants every other day when reducing the dose is putting someone into withdrawal. It is my understanding that when taking antidepressants, that the body needs a daily consistent daily dose.

As a result, if a med can't be reduced by regular means such as getting a reduced dose at your local neighborhood drugs store, the healthcare prescribers should be familiar with compound pharmacies that can write the necessary reduced dose.

For more information, please see this site:

http://survivingantidepressants.org/ind ... -tapering/

49er

Bob,

As a fan of yours, I thank you for visiting.

Regarding tapering safely, I agree there aren't any guarantee but I think Altostrata, the administrator of the Surviving Antidepressants website, has made an excellent case for why the 10% method of tapering every 4 weeks is the safest way to go. Here is a explantion

http://survivingantidepressants.org/ind ... my-dosage/

49er

Bob Fiddaman wrote:

ems wrote:

akodompa wrote:
At least you tell people to not stop taking antidepressants cold turkey. That said, providers have a responsibility to know at least as much as their patients about these meds! Changing from daily to every other day does not work for the vast majority of people. I hope you also tell people who want to get off ADs that they should not wean more than 10% of their current dose every 4-6 weeks.

Yes, providers do have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly! My question is why do patients know more about these drugs than their providers? Why would providers not read the same sites on the internet that lay people manage to find? And, not listen to the news or read newspapers? Why do providers not have a clue about how very sick some people have become as a result of not weaning these meds correctly?

Hi, I wrote the original article that started this thread.

Akodompa is quite correct.

I cannot think of any doctor, both present and past, that can give any assurance that their tapering method is the safest and easiest.

For years GlaxoSmithKline disputed that there was a withdrawal problem with Seroxat [known as Paxil in the US].

I have wrote to them on many occasions to ask what the best tapering method is...I have been told to "Talk to my doctor"

I met with the UK medicines regulator, the MHRA, a few years ago. I pointed out that the term "Talk to your doctor" is mentioned almost 40 times on the then current Seroxat patient information leaflet.

Somtime later, the MHRA released an SSRi learning module where they recommended "specialists" to help people wean from SSRi antidepressants. I asked them for a list of these so called specialists... they could not provide me with one single name.

Bizarrely, a lawsuit was filed and settled in the US regarding Seroxat withdrawal problems. Over 3,000 plaintiffs received some form of compensation, it was an agreement made out of court so GlaxoSmithKline didn't have to admit that there was a high risk of withdrawal problems with their antidepressant.

Now, here's the rub.

A lawsuit was filed in the UK regarding Seroxat withdrawal. Glaxo are refusing to settle that one.

Why?

Well, because the law in the UK allows them to. They know that most lawyers in the UK rely of public funding to run cases against them, they also know that that same public funding will be withdrawn the longer the case drags.

The current UK Seroxat litigation has been running for 10 years.

I'll leave it to the readers to work out whether or not the funding has been stopped.

Bob Fiddaman

Luthie2006 wrote:Thanks for all your help, 49er! I am going to print the blog and send it "anonymously" to my Primary. What a jerk! Thanks for all your help.
Luthie

You're very welcome. I sure would like to be a fly in the wall of that doctor's office.

Regarding brain zaps, I don't think I ever had them. I am sorry that Kteague and Dwolf experienced this.

Archangle, you make some good points about lawyers. But some do good work as far as lawsuits. I do hate the secret settlements because essentially, it gives drug companies permission to do whatever they want since there isn't any public scrutiny. But folks who sue essentially don't have any choice if they want compensation for their suffering.

Altostrata does some great work, I admire her a lot.

I tapered ultra slowly from Seroxat [Paxil] - 0.5 mg per week drop.

After 9 months I'd managed to taper down from 40mg to 22mg per day. In the end I went cold turkey [not recommended]

The story of my withdrawal and search for the truth are in my book.

Hopefully the Cymbalta lawsuit will highlight how Lilly hid the withdrawal risk link. It's one I'll be keeping tabs on

49er wrote:Bob,

As a fan of yours, I thank you for visiting.

Regarding tapering safely, I agree there aren't any guarantee but I think Altostrata, the administrator of the Surviving Antidepressants website, has made an excellent case for why the 10% method of tapering every 4 weeks is the safest way to go. Here is a explantion



49er

Bob Fiddaman wrote:

ems wrote:

akodompa wrote:
At least you tell people to not stop taking antidepressants cold turkey. That said, providers have a responsibility to know at least as much as their patients about these meds! Changing from daily to every other day does not work for the vast majority of people. I hope you also tell people who want to get off ADs that they should not wean more than 10% of their current dose every 4-6 weeks.

Yes, providers do have a responsibility to practice medicine correctly! My question is why do patients know more about these drugs than their providers? Why would providers not read the same sites on the internet that lay people manage to find? And, not listen to the news or read newspapers? Why do providers not have a clue about how very sick some people have become as a result of not weaning these meds correctly?

Hi, I wrote the original article that started this thread.

Akodompa is quite correct.

I cannot think of any doctor, both present and past, that can give any assurance that their tapering method is the safest and easiest.

For years GlaxoSmithKline disputed that there was a withdrawal problem with Seroxat [known as Paxil in the US].

I have wrote to them on many occasions to ask what the best tapering method is...I have been told to "Talk to my doctor"

I met with the UK medicines regulator, the MHRA, a few years ago. I pointed out that the term "Talk to your doctor" is mentioned almost 40 times on the then current Seroxat patient information leaflet.

Somtime later, the MHRA released an SSRi learning module where they recommended "specialists" to help people wean from SSRi antidepressants. I asked them for a list of these so called specialists... they could not provide me with one single name.

Bizarrely, a lawsuit was filed and settled in the US regarding Seroxat withdrawal problems. Over 3,000 plaintiffs received some form of compensation, it was an agreement made out of court so GlaxoSmithKline didn't have to admit that there was a high risk of withdrawal problems with their antidepressant.

Now, here's the rub.

A lawsuit was filed in the UK regarding Seroxat withdrawal. Glaxo are refusing to settle that one.

Why?

Well, because the law in the UK allows them to. They know that most lawyers in the UK rely of public funding to run cases against them, they also know that that same public funding will be withdrawn the longer the case drags.

The current UK Seroxat litigation has been running for 10 years.

I'll leave it to the readers to work out whether or not the funding has been stopped.

Bob Fiddaman

It seems that drug withdrawal should be an independent medical specialty;
and that manufacturers of the involved drugs should pay for all the expenses
related to withdrawal of the drugs they have created; and when a habituating drug
goes to generic, the original company would NEVER be completely off the hook.

Bob Fiddaman wrote: A lawsuit was filed in the UK regarding Seroxat withdrawal. Glaxo are refusing to settle that one.

Why?

Well, because the law in the UK allows them to. They know that most lawyers in the UK rely of public funding to run cases against them, they also know that that same public funding will be withdrawn the longer the case drags.

There's a very evil law in the UK and many other countries outside of the US.

If you sue a company and lose the lawsuit, you may have to pay the defendant's legal expenses.

It sort of sounds like a fair situation if you don't think about it. Suppose you, an ordinary citizen, have a legitimate lawsuit against MegaPharmCo (MPC). MPC actually did do something wrong with their MegaPlus drug. You have a a 90% chance of getting $100,000 in court to cover your medical expenses caused by MPC's defective drug. MPC decides they are going to fight you to the end. MPC is going to spend $10 million on legal expenses to fight your lawsuit, because if you win, others will follow.

You're an honest, hard working person. You have a 90% chance of getting your money back, but a 10% chance of owing $10 million. You might get some relief after many years, but a 10% chance of being financially ruined. No lawyer will take your case on contingency because they might lose and have to pay the legal fees for MPC themselves.

If you go to court, MPC and their lawyers will use various tactics to increase their own legal fees. They'll do various things to increase the expenses for the plaintiff to try to run the other side out of money. They'll try really hard to get the case decided in their favor on a technicality.

In the US, the losing party doesn't usually have to pay unless the lawsuit was "frivolous." In the UK, even if you had a legitimate case, you have to pay if you lose.

In a "loser pays" legal system, the little guy can't afford to fight the big guy, even if he has a good case.

There's plenty of things wrong with the US legal system. Unfortunately, a lot of the quick fixes that are being suggested end up making things worse, rather than better.