As we have previously reported, safety concerns regarding incretin mimetics (such as Byetta, Januvia/Janumet and Victoza), led to more than a thousand lawsuits being filed across the country. Reports suggest that people taking the medications for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes may be at an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

Also as we have previously reported, the lawsuits in Multi-District Litigation (MDL), before Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, were reinstated on appeal in November 2017, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The renewed vitality of the litigation has been grudgingly conceded in the drugmaker defendants’ recent required financial disclosures.

For example, the makers of Byetta have stated:

Byetta / Bydureon (exenatide)

In the US, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca are among multiple defendants in various lawsuits filed in federal and state courts involving claims of physical injury from treatment with Byetta and/or Bydureon. The lawsuits allege several types of injuries including pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and kidney cancer. A multidistrict litigation was established in the US District Court for the Southern District of California (the District Court) in regard to the alleged pancreatic cancer cases in federal courts. Further, a co-ordinated proceeding has been established in Los Angeles, California in regard to the various lawsuits in California state courts.

In November 2015, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims alleging pancreatic cancer that accrued prior to 11 September 2015. In November 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further discovery. The appeal of a similar motion, which was granted in favour of the defendants in the California state co-ordinated proceeding in May 2016, remains pending.

Source (Page 186)

Similarly, the makers of Januvia / Janumet have confirmed:

Januvia / Janumet

As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet . As of June 30, 2018 , Merck is aware of approximately 1,260 product user claims alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called “In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation” (MDL). The MDL includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet , Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California State Court).

In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court – in separate opinions – granted summary judgment to defendants on grounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,260 product user claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal of approximately 1,100 product user claims.

Plaintiffs appealed the MDL and California State Court preemption rulings. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reversed the trial court’s ruling in the MDL and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit did not address the substance of defendants’ preemption argument but instead ruled that the district court made various errors during discovery. Jurisdiction returned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 2, 2018. The preemption appeal in the California state court litigation has been fully briefed, but the court has not yet scheduled oral argument.

On March 21, 2018, the district court in the MDL entered a case management order setting forth a schedule for completing discovery on general causation and preemption issues and for renewing summary judgment and Daubert motions. The filing deadline for Daubert and summary judgment motions is set for December 11, 2018.

As of June 30, 2018 , seven product users have claims pending against Merck in state courts other than California state court, including four active product user claims pending in Illinois state court. In June 2017, the Illinois trial court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of preemption. Merck sought permission to appeal that order on an interlocutory basis and was granted a stay of proceedings in the trial court. In September 2017, an intermediate appellate court in Illinois denied Merck’s petition for interlocutory review. Merck filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court and, on January 18, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court directed the appellate court to answer the certified question. Briefing in the intermediate appellate court has concluded. Proceedings in the trial court remain stayed.

In addition to the claims noted above, the Company has agreed to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to continue defending against these lawsuits.

Source (Pages 20 – 22)

Further, the makers of Victoza have acknowledged:

Product liability lawsuits related to Victoza

Novo Nordisk, along with the majority of incretin-based product manufacturers in the USA, is a defendant in product liability lawsuits related to use of incretin-based medications. As of 29 October 2018, 282 plaintiffs have named Novo Nordisk in product liability lawsuits, predominantly claiming damages for pancreatic cancer that allegedly developed as a result of using Victoza and other GLP-1/DPP-IV incretin-based products.182 of the Novo Nordisk plaintiffs have also named other defendants in their lawsuits. Most Novo Nordisk plaintiffs have filed suit in California federal and state courts.

In November 2015, all cases pending in the California federal and state courts were dismissed on federal pre-emption grounds. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed these rulings to the federal and California state appeals courts. In November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated the Federal District Court Judge’s ruling, thereby reinstating the dismissed federal lawsuits and sending them back to the Federal District Court in California for further proceedings. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals does not bind the California State Appeals Court, which is currently reviewing the state court judge’s pre-emption ruling. Currently, Novo Nordisk does not have any individual trials scheduled in 2018. Novo Nordisk does not expect the pending claims to have a material impact on its financial position, operating profit or cash flow.

Source (Page 19)

The drugmakers’ muted reactions to the reinstatement of the incretin mimetics cases is to be expected. However, the new procedural posture of the litigation, coupled with the latest scientific data, will likely not be totally lost on the companies’ stockholders.

If you or a loved one have suffered from pancreatic cancer after taking Byetta, Januvia/Janumet or Victoza, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any potential claims. Or click here to learn more about our defective drugs practice.