HIV Drug Study Highlights Difference In Kidney, Liver Risks Between Older and Newer Gilead Drugs

As Gilead faces thousands of HIV drug lawsuits over side effects of Truvada, Viread and other TDF-based medications, the findings of a new report highlight key safety differences between those medications and new versions, which the complaints allege were withheld for years to maximize profits.

The data has been published as a special communication in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), outlining recommendations of the International Antiviral Society’s USA Panel on October 14.

For years, Gilead has sold an evolving line of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) HIV drugs, including Truvada, Viread, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. However, according to a number of lawsuits filed against Gilead in recent months, Gilead has known for years that a less toxic version of the drugs could be developed, involving the antiviral tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), yet the drug maker continued to sell the more toxic versions without adequate warnings.


Were you or a loved one prescribed Truvada or other HIV drugs?

Gilead HIV drugs Truvada, Atripla, Stribild, Viread and Complera have been linked to increased risks of kidney and bones injuries. Lawyers are actively reviewing cases for individuals who have suffered injuries.

Learn More About this Lawsuit See If You Qualify For Compensation

It was only after the blockbuster drugs were about to face generic competition that the drug maker introduced TAF-based drugs, marketing them as safer and less toxic than the TDF-drugs they had sold for years.

The differences between the safety profiles in the TDF and TAF drugs are highlighted in the data supporting the panel’s recommendations for HIV drugs, supporting much of the concerns over risks associated with TDF drugs, including kidney damage and bone fractures.

In the portion of the recommendations dealing with kidney disease, the panel recommends any patients taking TDF-based drugs who develop a type of kidney disease known as proximal tubulopathy be switched to a TAF-based HIV drug instead, but only after common causes of kidney disease have been excluded.

The recommendations also note that bone loss appears to occur with greater frequency with TDF drugs like Truvada, than with the “newer” TAF based medications. Again, it calls for moving away from TDF-based drugs if there are signs of osteoporosis or other forms of bone loss.

In litigation being pursued by former users left with severe kidney and bone injuries, plaintiffs claim that Gilead intentionally delayed the introduction of safer TAF-based drugs for years, to maximize profits from the more toxic TDF versions while they still enjoyed exclusivity for the blockbuster medications.

Plaintiffs allege that the decision to withhold development of TAF versions was part of a scheme intended to allow Gileaad to maintain an essential monopoly on HIV treatments until at least 2032. However, in doin so, the drug makers failed to warn consumers about the risks associated with the blockbuster TDF drugs that were sold for years, exposing the company to substantial liability.


Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Master Baby Food Lawsuit Filed in MDL Outlines How Toxic Metals Caused Autism, ADHD in Children
Master Baby Food Lawsuit Filed in MDL Outlines How Toxic Metals Caused Autism, ADHD in Children (Posted yesterday)

Plaintiffs have submitted a baby food lawsuit Master Complaint that is expected to streamline the filing of lawsuits alleging that toxic heavy metals in Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain and Nurture products caused ADHD, autism and other developmental disorders.

Lawsuit Claims AGGA Device Damaged Teeth, Resulting in Disfiguring Injury
Lawsuit Claims AGGA Device Damaged Teeth, Resulting in Disfiguring Injury (Posted yesterday)

Another AGGA device lawsuit has been filed by a man who says he had to have the device surgically removed less than a year after having it implanted due to jaw problems and migraines.