Lilly not doing so well at trial
Mar/20/2008 05:39 Filed in: Pharma vs. the
lawyers
I'm not sure why Lilly could not reach a settlement with the state of Alaska on use of Zyprexa. I believe that they tried but for whatever reason the state has decided to take Lilly to trial and what has come out is less than flattering for Lilly. First you have eMails from the future President suggesting off label use and then an expert took the stand, a so called witness for Lilly, and said that in his opinion Zyprexa can lead to diabetes and that Lilly did not do enough to warn physicians and patients. If I am on the jury the only question I have is how many zeros to add to the suggested payout.
You like to go to trial with at least SOME advantage, but it seems here that either Lilly lawyers were ill prepared for a trial or that there is little they could do to stop the disclosures which have come out in court. Lilly of course will have a chance to present their side of the story in this trial but with some much damaging evidence so far, and I am sure Lilly was aware of this via the discovery process, Lilly had better have a real ace to put on the table to sway the jury.
The key issues of the trial are: did Lilly hide the potential side effect of diabetes data from physicians? The off-label use really has no bearing on this but it does go to show a "pattern" of deceit" and shady dealings that could make the jury think that Lilly was interested in one thing...profits and sales of Zyprexa.
Why Lilly has not put some people on the stand who have been helped by Zyprexa is something I don't frankly understand. Zyprexa may have helped millions of people with mental issues lead more productive lives and thus are less of a burden on caregivers and the healthcare system. I am sure that Lilly will argue that the data from Zyprexa did not warrant a warning to physicians because the data was either inconclusive or needed further analysis. However, in an age of transparency I don't think this will fly. Drug companies cannot hold onto data anymore under the pretense of "analyzing the data", they have to share their findings with physicians and public as soon as possible and in some cases let them draw their own conclusions. Let's face it drug companies have both hidden and are burdened with side effects in labels and consumers and patients are left to scratch their heads to try and determine what the labels mean and say. Pfizer has done a great job to simplify their labels in print ads but an even simpler approach is needed to explain what vs. placebo means.
If the jury finds for the state and awards substantial damages more dominoes could be lining up in the form of more states filing litigation against Lilly. The states are hurting right now for money and they could see the pharma industry as an easy score. The problem is that the dollars they get from pharma mean higher drug prices and less money for R&D and more for lawyers but then people want their pound of flesh and when egos take over rationale thought goes down the drain.
|