Eye floaters after Avastin injection, a common treatment for many eye disorders, have been linked to silicone oil.
Avastin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a cancer-treatment drug.
Eye floaters after Avastin injection are a side effect of such use.
What is unusual about this situation is that the drug is prepared for injection by compounding pharmacists using syringes that also are not made for this type of application –hence the silicone oil lubricant.
Any risks associated with eye floaters after Avastin injection must be balanced with an initial look at what ophthalmologists treat with the drug.
Avastin is often used to treat wet age-related macular degeneration.
Diabetic eye diseases are also treated with Avastin.
The high blood sugars of a diabetic tend to damage the blood vessels at the back of the eye on the retina leading to these conditions.
The eye floaters after Avastin injection can also at their worst contribute to retinal tearing and detachment and vision loss or blindness –the very situation the drug was given to prevent.
. An Arkansas woman has added a lawsuit to the growing Xarelto MDL on behalf of her late husband, claiming the injuries that eventually caused his death were the result of his treatment with Xarelto.
Tillman began taking Xarelto in May 2015 and continued to use the popular blood thinner through Oct. 13, 2015, when he suffered from major gastrointestinal bleeding injuries.
In response, plaintiff Jan M. filed her lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals after her husband’s untimely passing, alleging that his injuries and death were a direct result of using Xarelto.
The Xarelto lawsuit was filed on Sept. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on multiple counts, including strict liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and wrongful death, among others.
Xarelto was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 1, 2011.
These anticoagulants are marketed as replacement anticoagulants for warfarin (Coumadin), which had remained the dominant anticoagulant on the market for decades.
In general, blood clots are dangerous and can cause serious or even life-threatening conditions. However, if unable to form these life-saving blood clots while on a blood thinner, the body has no other way of slowing the bleeding, which increases the risk of permanent Xarelto bleeding injury or even death.
If you or someone you love has experienced a severe Xarelto bleeding injury, or even death caused by Xarelto, you may be able to file a Xarelto lawsuit.
The recent Stryker femoral head recall removed thousands of allegedly defective metal hip implants from the market to prevent future orthopedic injuries.
The injury reports specifically focused on the Stryker LFIT Cobalt/Chromium V40 femoral heads, with the medical community and patient population concerned over potential metal hip implant complications and need for revision surgery.
The Stryker femoral head recall primarily affects device components manufactured before 2011, with the sizes of the Stryker LFIT V40 femoral heads ranging between 36 to 44 millimeters and offsets between +4 to +12.
These V40 femoral head component attaches to the upper end of the femur bone, while the other end of the components forms a joint with the pelvic bone.
Both of these complications often force patients to undergo revision surgery to explant or replace the metal hip implant.
Stryker Orthopaedics notified the medical community of its voluntary Stryker femoral head recall, stating that many patients who had received implants with the LFIT V40 femoral heads had experienced sudden device failure and metallosis.
The femoral heads are composed of cobalt and chromium alloys, which are meant to be long lasting and durable for patients opting for the device.
Patients had reported needing revision surgery, with the hip implants corroding and causing metal ions to enter the bloodstream.
A Kentucky man has filed a new lawsuit that has joined the DePuy Pinnacle MDL claiming that he was forced to undergo revision surgery because of defective hip replacement device.
Plaintiff Roger J. was implanted with the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement device on Dec. 12, 2010.
He alleges that his mobility is severely decreased and that when he walks, he walks with a limp.
This lawsuit that has joined the DePuy Pinnacle MDL claims that he most likely will have to undergo revision surgery as a result of his replacement device complications.
The DePuy Pinnacle MDL asserts that this device was not required to undergo rigorous premarket approval before it went to market and was implanted in patients like Roger.
Essentially, a device is “grandfathered” in because it is very similar to another device that has sought and received approval.
If they had properly tested their hip replacement devices they would have discovered, the MDL states, the serious complications associated with it.
The metal-on-metal design of this device has been found to contribute to a condition know as metallosis.
A plaintiff, Karene M., has filed a products liability claim in a blood clot filter complications lawsuit in Indiana federal court against Cook Medical, the manufacturers of the Cook IVC filter.
She alleges that she was implanted with the product in May 2004, but suffered severe adverse effects and complications due to the products insertion.
The alleged blood clot filter complications lawsuit is filed through a short form master complaint and does not specifically include the alleged complications suffered because of the implantation.
Karene’s blood clot filter complications lawsuit was filed as part of a large multidistrict litigation also known as an MDL. The complaint includes the alleged claims and accusations that the alleged IVC filter complications cause severe adverse effects and complications such as thrombosis, in which loose fragmented device products become stuck in a patient’s heart or lungs, and that they fail to protect the patient against the formation of a blood clot.
The primary purpose of the alleged development of the Cook IVC filter was to prevent blood clots stemming from the body’s lower extremities to migrate towards to the body’s lungs.
Some adverse event reports state that the IVC filter was ineffective at filtering out the blood clots from the bloodstream, the primary reason why the IVC filter was inserted in the first place.
Karene’s Blood Clot Filter Complications Lawsuit is Case No. The Cook IVC Filter MDL is In re: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
In general, IVC filter lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.
. A plaintiff, Nicole A., files a products liability litigation against the manufacturers of Mirena, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., alleging that she suffered severe adverse effects and complications due to the device.
Nicole files the Mirena lawsuit alleging products liability in New York federal court.
Nicole’s Mirena lawsuit is filed as part of a large multidistrict litigation, or MDL, centered on allegations that the alleged “defective and unreasonably dangerous product” causes the development of PTC, or pseudotumor cerebri.
According to the Mirena lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that Bayer Healthcare had failed to sufficiently and adequately warn consumers and the medical community at large about the potential adverse effects and complications, including pseudotumor cerebri (PTC).
According to the growing number of lawsuits being filed against the defendant, allegations from plaintiffs are that the Mirena IUD causes severe injuries, including PTC.
Complications with specific kinds of birth control products have been linked to pseudotumor cerebri since the 1990s, but patients who have been implanted with the Mirena IUD are prone to other severe complications as well.
Although the condition is not fatal, it is very painful and may cause permanent damage to those who have been diagnosed with it.
Too much cerebrospinal fluid from pseudotumor cerebri can cause an increase of pressure inside the skull, causing headaches and putting dangerous pressure on the optic nerves.
Patients who have the pseudotumor cerebri condition experience similar symptoms as those suffering from a brain tumor; sometimes these PTC patients may become misdiagnosed with one at first.
. The link between Invega and gynecomastia has become a widespread concern throughout the United States, raised by male patients who reportedly experienced breast development. The alleged link between Invega and gynecomastia stems from allegations of Risperdal, Invega’s predecessor, reportedly causing male breast growth.
Both of these antipsychotics have been linked to male breast growth, allegedly due to unusual biological reactions to these drugs’ treatment mechanism.
Also known as male breast growth, gynecomastia occurs when an overabundance of prolactin is produced.
Prolactin is the hormone primarily responsible for breast growth in young girls, and it is naturally produced in small amounts in young boys.
The researchers found that Risperdal and Invega patients faced an increased risk of gynecomastia, compared to non-expose patients.
The researchers warned that Riseperdal prescribed to younger patients may cause their bodies to increase prolactin production, which may result in gynecomastia or galactorrhea.
Risperdal and Invega have the same treatment mechanism, but are metabolized differently.
. Bayer HealthCare is facing a conjoined Essure lawsuit from over a dozen women and or loved ones of Essure patients, alleging serious damage from Essure adverse effects.
The Essure adverse effects mentioned by these women range in severity, with some cases being severe enough to warrant device removal.
California plaintiff Ema H. had the Essure birth control device implanted in August 2014 and did not suffered any intial complications after implantation. She eventually underwent a hysterectomy to remove the Essure device on Sept. 15, 2017.
California plaintiff Dawn C. had the Essure birth control device implanted in November 2007, and did not suffer any initial complications after implantation. However, not long after the device was implanted, Dawn reportedly began suffering Essure adverse effects including unusual bleeding, cramping, prolonged menstruation, severe abdominal pain, hormonal fluctuations, ovarian cysts, device migration, and organ perforation. Dawn had to undergo hysterectomy to remove the Essure device in March 2017.
This Essure Lawsuit is Case No.
. The plaintiff, Tammy B., says she began taking Taxotere as part of her chemotherapy regimen in 2009. While cancer patients are generally aware that they may suffer hair loss while undergoing chemotherapy, Tammy was not aware that the hair loss could end up being permanent, instead expecting that the hair will grow back.
Tammy filed her chemotherapy hair loss lawsuit on Sept. 3, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Taxotere is a popular option for breast cancer chemotherapy treatment, but it is also used for other cancer treatment, including lung cancer.
While cancer patients generally expect that they may lose their hair while undergoing chemotherapy cancer treatment, they also expect that their hair will grow back. However, many cancer patients, including Tammy, have discovered after cancer treatment with Taxotere and other similar drugs, their hair will either not grow back or grows back with great difficulty, a condition known as alopecia.
According to this Taxotere chemotherapy hair loss lawsuit and others like it, Sanofi either knew or should have known that Taxotere was linked with the risk of permanent hair loss problems.
Indeed, Sanofi may have been aware of reports and studies linking Taxotere to permanent hair loss after chemotherapy since as far back as its initial FDA approval in 1996, according to lawsuits.
If you or someone you love has suffered from serious side effects of Taxotere including permanent hair loss, you may be able to file a chemotherapy hair loss lawsuit.
. The developer and maker of Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim, settled approximately 4,000 lawsuits with the 2014 Pradaxa settlement. Settling allowed the company to keep the details of each case under wraps, instead of allowing negative evidence to be put on the public record at trial.
Pradaxa was approved to market by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010.
These are all conditions in which blood clots can form and travel throughout the human anatomy causing heart attack, respiratory arrest, and stroke.
The anticoagulant inhibits thrombin, one of the main clotting agents in the human body.
Plaintiffs say Boehringer Ingelheim advertised their new blood-thinning medication as better than warfarin while dangerously downplaying Pradaxa’s lack of an antidote.
It was not until five years after Pradaxa’s approval by the FDA that the same drug oversight agency approved Praxbind, a specific reversal agent for Pradaxa in the event of uncontrolled bleeding.
If you are taking Pradaxa and are concerned about its risks, do not stop taking the drug without consulting your doctor. The FDA has also warned that suddenly stopping Pradaxa or intentionally omitting doses may increase the risk of blood clots.