LITTLE ROCK — On Tuesday, just five days after a federal jury rejected a Marmaduke woman’s claims that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals failed to issue adequate warnings about the breast-cancer risks associated with Prempro, attorneys sought permission to discuss the trial with jurors.
The motion to contact jurors was filed jointly by attorneys for Wyeth, now a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., and Gloria Jean Curtis, who contended during the 12-day trial in Little Rock that the hormone therapy drug she took for 6 1/2 years caused her to develop cancer in her right breast.
A small, cancerous, hormone-responsive tumor was detected during a routine mammogram in late 2001, when Curtis was 56. She had been taking a low dose of the estrogen-progestin combination pill since age 50 to combat debilitating hot flashes, night sweats and other symptoms of menopause.
The intact tumor was surgically removed, along with about 10 lymph nodes, and that was followed by radiation treatments.
Curtis, a former math teacher at Marmaduke High School, has now been cancer-free for eight years, and doctors say her prognosis for remaining cancer free is good.
The trial was the fifth to be heard in Little Rock since 2006, when U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson, who presided over common pretrial issues for thousands of similar cases across the country, heard the very first Prempro trial.
Of the cases heard in Little Rock, only one has resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In that case, Donna Gail Scroggin of Little Rock was awarded $2.75 million in compensatory damages and an undisclosed amount of punitive damages.
In a statement released last week, just after the verdict was delivered in Curtis’ case, Pfizer spokesman Christopher Loder said it was the sixth verdict issued in Wyeth’s favor in the seven most recent trials across the country.
“While we have great sympathy for Mrs. Curtis and her family, the company is pleased this verdict recognizes the fact that Wyeth acted responsibly by communicating accurately the risks and benefits of its hormone therapy medicines,” the statement said. “Hormone therapy medicines have always carried science-based, [Food and Drug Administration]-approved warnings for physicians and patients.”
Loder noted that out of seven plaintiffs’ verdicts since the trials began, “five are not final, as they are being or will be challenged by the company as legally deficient.”
Scroggin’s verdict was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
Prempro was approved by the FDA in late 1994 and soon was being prescribed to more than 6 million women. Its use plummeted after July 2002, when the government halted its study into the drug’s potential cardiovascular benefits because researchers noticed a higher incidence of breast cancer in women who were taking the drug as opposed to those taking a placebo.
As have other plaintiffs, Curtis contended that Wyeth downplayed the known or knowable risks of breast cancer in its patient and doctor drug inserts, as revealed by internal memorandums. Wyeth disagreed, and argued that more than 99 percent of women who take hormone therapy don’t ever develop breast cancer.
Arkansas, Pages 12 on 10/26/2011