McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Decision Date | 06 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13 Civ. 3786.,13 Civ. 3786. |
Citation | 58 F.Supp.3d 391 |
Parties | Jesse McDOWELL, Plaintiff, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pogust & Braslow, LLC, by: Harris L. Pogust Esq., Conshohocken, PA, for Plaintiff.
Covington & Burling, by: Phyllis A. Jones, Esq., Michael X. Imbroscio, Esq., Brett C. Reynolds, Esq., Washington, DC, Covington & Burling, by: Laura M. Flahive Wu, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.
Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly” or the “Defendant”) has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment dismissing the failure-to-warn diversity action brought by the plaintiff Jesse McDowell (“McDowell” or the “Plaintiff”). Based upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the Defendant's motion is granted and the action is dismissed.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 4, 2013 alleging that the Defendant's labelling for its anti-depression drug Cymbalta failed to warn adequately about the risk of withdrawal upon continuance and that the Defendant designed the drug defectively, was negligent, breached an implied warranty, made a negligent misrepresentation, committed fraud, and violated state consumer fraud laws.
Discovery proceeded and the instant motion was heard and marked fully submitted on September 17, 2014.
The facts have been set forth in the Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement, the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement and Statement of Facts, and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts. The facts are not in dispute except as noted below.
On August 3, 2004, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Cymbalta (duloxetine ), a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (“SNRI”), for the treatment of major depressive disorder. At the same time, the FDA approved the contents of the U.S. Physician Package Insert, or label, for Cymbalta.
The Cymbalta Physician Package Insert in effect in September 2008 cited the risk of potential discontinuation-emergent adverse events in three sections of the label: Highlights of Prescribing Information, Dosage and Administration, and Warnings and Precautions.
The Cymbalta Physician Package Insert included the following language on the risk of potential discontinuation symptoms in the Highlights of Prescribing Information section:
The Cymbalta Physician Package Insert included the following language on the risk of potential discontinuation symptoms in the Dosage and Administration section:
The Cymbalta Physician Package Insert included the following language in the Warnings and Precautions section:
The Cymbalta Physician Package Insert included the following language in the Warnings and Precautions section:
According to the Plaintiff, the following language contained in Section 5.6 of the Package Insert is deliberately misleading and inaccurate: “Following abrupt or tapered discontinuation in placebo-controlled clinic trials, the following symptoms occurred at a rate greater than or equal to 1% and at a significantly higher rate in duloxetine-treated patients compared to those discontinuing from placebo....” and Defendant has been aware since 2005 at the very latest that approximately 44% of patients who abruptly discontinued Cymbalta after having used the medication for 9 weeks or less experienced withdrawal symptoms, as well as 50% of patients who had used the medication for “longer term” trials.
The American Psychiatry Association's Practice Guidelines For the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder (“APA Guidelines”) state that “[a]s with the S[elective] S[erotonin] R[euptake] I[nhibitors]s, abrupt discontinuation of SNRIs should be avoided whenever possible.” American Psychiatric Association, Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder 40 (2010), available at http://psychiatryonline. org/pb/assets/raw/sitewide/practice_guidelines/guidelines/mdd.pdf. According to the Plaintiff, it does not appear that these “guidelines” are tailored to Cymbalta or its specific risks and these guidelines were approved in May 2010 and published in October 2010 while Plaintiff began his Cymbalta treatment in September 2009.
The APA Guidelines further recommend that “[w]hen pharmacotherapy is being discontinued, it is best to taper the medication over the course of at least several weeks,” and that discontinuation symptoms may occur. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder 20.
In 2005, an article entitled “Symptoms following abrupt discontinuation of duloxetine treatment in patients with major depressive disorder ” was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders (“2005 JAD Article”). David G. Perahia et al., Symptoms Following Abrupt Discontinuation of Duloxetine Treatment In Patients with Major Depressive Disorder, 89 J. Affective Disorders 207 (2005). Two of the named authors David G. Perahia, and Durisala Desaiah, were employees of the Lilly Research Centre and Lilly Research Laboratories, respectively, at the time of the publication of the 2005 JAD Article.
According to the Plaintiff, there were three authors who contributed to the article who were Lilly employees: Daniel Kajdasz is also affiliated with the Lilly Research Laboratories. Further, the fourth author had been “paid by Eli Lilly” for lecturing and consultancy work. Additionally, the article was never circulated to Nurse Practitioner Joan Caruana (“Caruana”) nor other prescribing practitioners, and the Defendant has produced no evidence that in 2008 the information contained in the 2005 article appeared anywhere other than the Journal of Affective Disorders.
The 2005 JAD Article reported data arising from nine clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of Cymbalta in the treatment of major depressive disorder. All of the studies in the article “were funded, designed and conducted by Eli Lilly and Company.” The 2005 JAD Article noted that discontinuation symptoms are “common following antidepressant treatment.” Perahia et al., supra, at 207.
The 2005 JAD Article reported that in the short-term placebo-controlled study “[s]ignificantly more duloxetine-treated patients (44.3%) reported at least 1 DEAE than placebo-treated patients (22.9%), with dizziness being the most common symptom.” Perahia et al., supra, at 208.
The 2005 JAD Article reported that “[o]f the 510 events reported, 203 (39.8%) were mild, 258 (50.6%) were moderate and 49 (9.6%) were severe.” Perahia et al., supra, at 208–09. According to the Plaintiff, the “510 events reported” only account for the events reported in six of the nine studies and therefore do not represent the total number of events reported for the entirety of the studies.
The 2005 JAD Article reported that in the long-term placebo-controlled study “[s]ignificantly more duloxetine-treated patients reported at least one discontinuation-emergent adverse event (“DEAE”) (9.1%) than did placebo-treated patients (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp.
...about the risks associated with use of the Greenfield Filter separate and apart from of any such warnings. See McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 58 F.Supp.3d 391, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("A prescriber’s independent knowledge of the risks of a drug or medical device breaks the chain of proximate ca......
-
Trisvan v. Heyman
...is adequate as a matter of law ‘if it provides specific detailed information on the risks of the drug.’ " McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 58 F.Supp.3d 391, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Martin , 607 N.Y.S.2d at 602, 628 N.E.2d 1308 ). "In making this determination, the [c]ourt should consider ......
-
Chandler v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.
...the 2002 Risperdal label failed to convey "with sufficient intensity the risk involved in taking the drug", McDowell v. Eli Lilly and Co. , 58 F.Supp.3d 391, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), because it merely warned of the possibility of gynecomastia, and not the 2.3% incidence rate. At oral argument, ......
-
Morris v. Biomet, Inc.
...incidence rate or prevalence of a particular adverse reaction. See Ames , 431 F. Supp. 2d at 573 ; see also McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 58 F. Supp. 3d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ; Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc. , No. 8:13-CV-1962-T-36AEP, 2015 WL 3496062, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2015) ; Hurley ......
-
Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation
...− that prescribing [it] to [plaintiff] was the most appropriate medical therapy”) (applying New York law); McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 58 F. Supp.3d 391, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (no causation where prescriber “testified that a different warning containing the information Plaintiff alleges was ......
-
More on Comparative Warnings
...courts have routinely held that competitors have no duty to advertise or sell a competitor’s products.”); McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 58 F. Supp.3d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2014) (applying New York law) (“courts have refused to graft onto the adequacy standard a requirement that a packag......