MDL Sought for Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuits Filed in Federal Courts Nationwide

At least 15 Dupixent lawsuits have been filed in various different U.S. District Courts, each raising similar allegations that the popular eczema treatment caused users to develop T-cell lymphoma.

A group of plaintiffs pursuing Dupixent lawsuits are asking a panel of judges to consolidate and centralize all claims over lymphoma side effects associated with the popular treatment before one U.S. District Judge, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Dupixent (dupilumab) is a blockbuster drug that was first introduced in 2017, as a treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. The label was subsequently expanded to also include approval for treating asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other inflammatory diseases, particularly those affecting the skin and respiratory system.

While the manufacturers marketed the drug as a safe and effective treatment, recent studies have linked Dupixent side effects to the development of T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer that impacts the body’s white blood cells, which are a key part of the immune system. There is now growing evidence that users face an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

As a result of the failure to warn about these potential risks, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis now face a rapidly growing number of Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits, each involving similar allegations that users could have avoided a cancer diagnosis if the drug makers had not withheld information from users and the medical community.

On February 13, three plaintiffs, Wanda Nalls, John I. Mun and Giovanni Fraioli, filed a motion for transfer (PDF) with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), asking that all of the federal lymphoma lawsuits over Dupixent be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in the Northern District of Georgia. 

The plaintiffs argue that consolidation is necessary to reduce duplicative discovery into common issues in the lawsuits, avoid contradictory rulings from different judges and serve the conveniences of common parties, witnesses and the courts.

According to the motion, there are already at least 15 Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits pending in 12 district courts, with four of those filed in the Northern District of Georgia. All of the lawsuits assert substantially similar claims arising from the same product, manufactured by the same defendants, and involving closely related cancer diagnoses.

“The pending cases allege plaintiffs were prescribed and administered Dupixent (dupilumab), a biologic used to treat various inflammatory conditions, including atopic dermatitis, moderate-to-severe asthma, inadequately controlled chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, prurigo nodularis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and bullous pemphigoid. The Plaintiffs used Dupixent for at least one of these Indications and subsequently developed various forms of T-cell lymphoma.”

– Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuits Motion for Transfer

If the panel chooses to heed the plaintiffs’ motion, the litigation would be consolidated before one U.S. District Judge, who would then lead the lawsuits through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and, if necessary, early bellwether trials.  However, each claim would remain an individual lawsuit and each plaintiff will keep their individual Dupixent injury lawyer, to establish that their damages were a direct result of the medication’s side effects.

Such centralization is a common step for litigation involving medications, medical devices and consumer products linked to widespread injuries or complications. However, if no Dupixent lymphoma settlements or comprehensive resolution is reached at the conclusion of that process, the individual lawsuits may be remanded to their original federal courts to proceed toward separate trials.