Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuit Alleges Atopic Dermatitis Drug Led to Mycosis Fungoides Diagnosis

Lawsuit claims woman received Dupixent for less than six months before developing CTCL.

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging the manufacturers of Dupixent knew that she and other patients could develop a rare form of cancer after only a few months of injections.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Juliana Perez in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 12, naming Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Genzyme Corporation as the defendants.

Perez claims the manufacturers are aware Dupixent represents a danger to patients, but are more concerned about their bottom lines than an increased risk of death or the potential need for life-long monitoring and cancer treatments.

Dupixent Lymphoma Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was initially approved in 2017 as a treatment for a form of eczema known as atopic dermatitis. However, in recent years the manufacturers have convinced federal regulators to add additional approvals for the drug, allowing the medication to be promoted for the treatment of a variety of different skin and respiratory conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other health problems caused by overactive immune systems.

While the manufacturers have maintained the drug is safe, a series of Dupixent side effects have been linked to the drug, including a rare type of cancer known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), the most common form of which is mycosis fungoides.

Complicating matters even more is that the symptoms of CTCL, such as rashes, patches of scaley skin, plaques and tumors often resemble the very skin conditions Dupixent was designed to treat. This increases the risk of a potential cancer misdiagnosis.

As a result, Perez joins an increasing number of similar Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential risks but failed to provide an adequate warning to the medical community or patients. Plaintiffs say they may have been able to avoid a cancer diagnosis and the need for life-long medical treatments if the manufacturers had done their due diligence.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the complaint, Perez was prescribed Dupixent in August 2023 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. The plaintiff indicates neither she nor her doctor were warned at the time about potential Dupixent lymphoma risks.

Perez received the injections only until January 2024. However, she was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides in February of this year and has required extensive medical treatments as a result, including medications, phototherapy and chemotherapy, and will likely require treatment and monitoring for the rest of her life.

The lawsuit argues there was enough scientific data long before Perez’s diagnosis for the manufacturers to know Dupixent carried an increased lymphoma cancer risk, but it says they intentionally ignored and downplayed that data for the sake of the companies’ bottom lines.

“But for Defendants’ failure to provide a clear warning regarding the increased risk of CTCL with the use of Dupixent, Plaintiff’s physician would not have prescribed her Dupixent and Plaintiff, Juliana Perez would not have taken Dupixent to treat her atopic dermatitis. At the time Plaintiff, Juliana Perez was first prescribed Dupixent, the available scientific data were adequate to put Defendants on notice that there existed reasonable evidence of causal association between Dupixent and the development and progression of CTCL.”

– Juliana Perez v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.

Perez presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuits

The complaint will join other Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits in the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, who is leading the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Eventually, a group of cases will likely be selected to serve as representative Dupixent claims in a series of “bellwether” trials. These early test trials are designed to give plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to see how a jury responds to evidence and testimony likely to make up the core of most claims. They could also help the parties reach a Dupixent lymphoma lawsuit settlement.

If no settlement or other resolution is reached after the bellwether trials are completed, Judge Quraishi could end up remanding the claims back to their U.S. District Courts of origin for individual trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.