Helen Ge is now 0-for-2. Earlier this month, a federal judge tossed two different whistleblower lawsuits that the former drug safety consultant had filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals. She alleged the drugmaker misrepresented or altered descriptions of adverse events for the Uloric gout treatment and failed to report instances of bladder cancer and congestive heart failure concerning the Actos diabetes pill to the FDA.
A former associate medical director at Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Ge was hired as a medical reviewer in the Takeda pharmacovigilance division. As we reported previously, she repeatedly lodged complaints about alleged discrepancies and shortcomings in reporting assorted and sordid adverse events, but was shown the door for her trouble. The separate whisteblower lawsuits were subsequently filed earlier this year.
In the lawsuit concerning Uloric, Ge charged that Takeda avoided reporting adverse events caused by the drug, such as bone marrow failure, or that occurred after patients took the pill and one of several other medications. Interactions caused some patients to experience fatal reactions, severe bleeding or renal failure. She also claims Takeda failed to properly amend the labeling to reflect the alleged harm that could be caused by interactions (back stories here and here).
In the lawsuit filed over Actos adverse event reporting, Ge alleged that an internal database recorded 100 cases of bladder cancer, but the number reported to the FDA was 72, which she termed a “serious discrepancy.” The US Department of Justice, by the way, failed to intervene, or join, the lawsuits, which cited violations of the False Claims Act.
However, US District Court Judge dismissed both lawsuits. In his 12-page ruling, he wrote that Ge failed to allege specific details of any claims that were false and, therefore, prompted overpayment by federal or state healthcare programs. Specific evidence, such as is required under rule 9b of the federal law to prove a violation occurred (here is the ruling).
"Instead of providing details of allegedly false claims, (Ge) apparently suggests that all of the claims for these particular drugs in the relevant years were rendered false by Takeda’s failure to properly report adverse events. (Ge), however, has failed to provide the specific factual allegations necessary to support the inference that the FDA would have withdrawn approval from all four drugs immediately upon receiving the proper adverse reports," he wrote.
We asked Ge's attorney for comment and will update you accordingly.
gavel pic thx to walknboston on flickr






11 Comments
Actos is produced by Takeda Industries and co-marketed by Eli Lilly.
Eli Lilly Zyprexa can *cause* diabetes. I took Zyprexa olanzapine a powerful Lilly schizophrenic drug for 4 years it was prescribed to me off-label for post traumatic stress disorder was ineffective costly and gave me diabetes. Eli Lilly's #1 cash cow Zyprexa drug sale $67 billion dollars so far,has a ten times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes over the non-user of Zyprexa. So,here we have a conflict of interest that this same company Eli Lilly also is a big profiteer of diabetes treatment.
(Actos works as an insulin *sensitizer*)
Sooooo,Eli Lilly pushes a drug (Zyprexa) that can cause diabetes.... then turn around sell you the drugs (Actos) to treat the diabetes that in turn can cause cancer! What a terrible conflict of interest! -- Daniel Haszard FMI http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
Thanks, as always, for stopping by. To answer your question, as the only person in the Pharmalot newsroom, I am spread thin most days and, therefore, cannot see or get to everything as quickly as I would like.
Candidly, I missed this ruling, but since I twice wrote earlier this year about the lawsuits filed by Ge, I thought I owed to the audience -as well as Takeda and Ge - to close the loop and go on record with a piece about the ruling.
It is not as timely as I would like, but I did not feel it was best to ignore this development. However, if you are unhappy with my attempt to play catch up and offer readers some consistency in coverage, then you are free to not visit.
Regards ed
False claim suits are one thing, deliberately misleading the FDA on adverse events is something else.
Everyone can make their own judgement.