Gilead Knowingly Designed HIV Drugs To Be Unreasonably Dangerous, Lawsuit Claims

According to allegations raised in a product liability lawsuit recently filed by a group of 10 people, Gilead Sciences, Inc. allegedly sold inferior, potentially life-threatening HIV drugs knowing it had a safer formulation, in order to increase its profit margins at the expense of patients.

The complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 9, by users of Gilead’s tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) HIV drugs, including Truvada, Viread, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. The lawsuit indicates the company sold the drugs knowing they could cause kidney and bone damage when it had a safer version on the backburner for when patent protections ran out.

According to the HIV drug lawsuit, Gilead has known for years that a less toxic version of the medications could be developed, involving the antiviral tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), yet the drug maker continued to sell the more toxic versions without adequate warnings.

HIV DRUGS LAWSUITS

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 after the blockbuster drugs were about to face competition from generic TDF equivalents that the drug maker introduced TAF-based drugs, marketing them as safer than the toxic TDF-drugs they had sold for years without adequate warnings for consumers.

Plaintiffs allege the decision to withhold development of TAF-based drugs was part of a scheme intended to allow Gilead to maintain an essential monopoly on HIV treatments until at least 2032. However, as a result of this decision to place profits before consumer safety, thousands of individuals nationwide have been left with severe injuries that may have been avoided. The lawsuit indicates those drugs were “unreasonably dangerous” given its access to the TAF-based drugs.

“Falsely claiming that TAF was not different enough from TDF, Gilead abruptly shelved its TAF design in 2004. However, as John Milligan, Gilead’s President and Chief Executive Officer, later admitted to investment analysts, the real reason Gilead abandoned the TAF design was that TAF was too different from TDF,” the lawsuit states. “Once Gilead’s first TDF product, Viread, was on the market, Gilead did not want to hurt TDF sales by admitting that its TDF-based products are unreasonably and unnecessarily unsafe.”

The lawsuit joins a growing number of complaints filed by plaintiffs nationwide, who say they suffered Gilead HIV drug side effects. Most of the complaints are currently pending in California state court, but a number have also been filed in various federal district courts nationwide over the past year.

0 Comments

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

BioZorb Lawsuit Alleges Breast Tissue Marker Failed, Requiring Surgical Removal
BioZorb Lawsuit Alleges Breast Tissue Marker Failed, Requiring Surgical Removal (Posted yesterday)

A BioZorb lawsuit has been filed by several breast cancer survivors after the BioZorb implants moved out of place and failed to dissolve int he body, requiring surgical removal.

Fairness Hearing For Philips CPAP Recall Medical Monitoring Settlement Set for October
Fairness Hearing For Philips CPAP Recall Medical Monitoring Settlement Set for October (Posted yesterday)

A U.S. District Court judge has scheduled a fairness hearing for October in order to determine whether final approval should be granted to a $25 million Philips CPAP recall settlement agreement, which would pay former users $25 million to pay for future medical monitoring needs.