Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

Update in Prempro Case

November 4th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling
Image from Online Journal

Image from Online Journal

Even though the verdict regarding punitive damages awarded to Connie Barton in her suit against Prempro was sealed (as we wrote last week), the figure has leaked out. A Philadelphia jury awarded her $75 million in punitive damages, in addition to $3.7 million in compensation for her trouble.  Although Pfizer/Wyeth will surely appeal, it’s a substantial victory to see punitive damages in an amount that is more than 20 times the compensatory damages. The jury found Wyeth’s conduct in marketing and selling the drug was “willful and wanton,” and put their money where their mouth is.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon


2 Responses to “Update in Prempro Case”

  1. Heather Dillaway says:

    Anyone know whether anyone from WHI has responded to any of this? Just curious…

  2. Elizabeth Kissling says:

    Heather, I haven’t seen anything from WHI about the lawsuits, but a study was recently released with new analysis of the data. (Medscape requires free registration.) Defenders of hormone therapy have suggested that the risks occur when Prempro® (or other brand) is taken more than five years after menopause. The newest findings state that both estrogen-alone HT and estrogen/progestin HT adversely affected risk for CHD, stroke, and venous thromboembolism, regardless of whether they were initiated <5 years or ≥5 years after menopause.

    So much for the “timing hypothesis”, eh?

Readers should note that statements published in re: Cycling are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Society as a whole.