Diabetics and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: Diabetics Should Be Aware That Some Diabetic Drugs May Cause An Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by Diabetic Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Diabetics and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: Diabetics, Physicians Treating Diabetics, and Loved Ones of Diabetic Should Be Aware That Some Diabetic Drugs May Cause An Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by Diabetic Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

 

Recent scientific studies have shown that some diabetes drugs may cause an increased health risk of pancreatic cancer and other forms of cancer.  These incretin diabetes drugs include exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon), liraglutide (Victoza), sitagliptin (Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR, Juvisync), saxagliptin (Onglyza, Kombiglyze XR), alogliptin (Nesina, Kazano, Oseni), and linagliptin (Tradjenta, Jentadueto). If you have been taking a diabetes drug and have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or you have lost a loved one who was taking a diabetes drug and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, please report the adverse action to the prescribing medical doctor and FDA as soon as possible.   For more information on diabetes drug pancreatic cancer lawsuits, please feel free to send an e-mail message to Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer Jason Coomer or go to the following pages: Januvia, Janument, Victoza, Byetta, Onglyza, Bydureon, and diabetes drugs.  

 

 Diabetics Should Be Aware of Incretin Drug Pancreatic Cancer Health Risk

 

Incretin class diabetic drugs work by mimicking the incretin hormones that the body usually produces naturally to stimulate the release of insulin in response to a meal. They are used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes.  Many of these incretin diabetes drugs already include a black box warning regarding thyroid cancer risk, but evidence is growing that these drugs may also create an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.  

Diabetics who are taking incretin diabetes drugs including: Januvia, Janument, Victoza, Byetta, Onglyza, Tradjenta,  Oseni, and other diabetes drugs should be aware of the cancer health risks and discuss these potential health risks with their physicians.

St. Judes EON Back Stimulator Adverse Events Include Burning, Pain, Disability and Required Intervention By Texas St. Judes Eon Back Stimulator Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

St. Judes EON Back Stimulator Adverse Events Include Burning, Pain, Disability and Required Intervention By Texas St. Judes Eon Back Stimulator Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Defective St. Judes EON stimulators can cause catastrophic injuries, impairment, and the need for revision surgery.  Patients considering a spinal implant should review the FDA's adverse event reports and discuss potential problems with their health care provide prior to having surgery or implants.

When investigating defective St. Judes Eon Back Stimulator lawsuits, it is important to know what implant had been used as well as to obtain medical records of the surgery.  For more information on Defective St. Judes EON lawsuits, please feel free to send an e-mail message to defective St. Judes EON lawyer Jason Coomer.

St. Judes EON Back Stimulator FDA Adverse Event Reports

Several different adverse events have been reported to the FDA regarding St. Judes EON Back Stimulators including a few of them which are listed below.  For patients that have had bad experiences with St. Judes EON Back Stimulators, it is import to make sure that these adverse events are reported to your health care provide and the FDA.  

Model Number 3851ANS
Event Date 07/15/2012
Event Type  Injury   Patient Outcome  Disability,Required Intervention
Event Description

An eon ipg spinal cord stimulator generator implant was inserted on (b)(6) 2012. On (b)(6) 2012, upon recharging the unit, client experienced pain and a burning sensation at the implant site. The client immediately stopped the recharging process at that time. On (b)(6) 2012, the client tried to recharge the unit once again and she immediately felt a burning discomfort at the implant site. She stopped the charge and reported to the surgeon's office. A company representative from st. Judes got in contact with the pt and provided her with a new charging unit on (b)(6) 2012. The pt proceeded to recharge on this date, however, this time the pt experienced severe pain with charging. Pt is scheduled to have the generator removed on (b)(6) 2012. Diagnosis or reason for use: rsd - used for pain relief.

Model Number 3851
Event Date 05/21/2012
Event Type  Injury   Patient Outcome  Disability
Event Description

The stimulator does not work as intended. Intermittent, and gets heated when charging. The stimulator shuts off periodically, when turned on, it beeps 2x then shuts off. The device has to be turned on and started over. The device has to be turned up 1 bar at a time for strength. After 4 bars, the unit shuts down. Doctors stated that it needed to scar in, st judes reps and stated it will work. Now almost a year out, this device still does not work, has had a revision of the scs, and moved a level down. It still stimulates the abdomen and causing severe stomach pain. The ipg has been reprogrammed by st judes reps many times and still does not work as expected. On (b)(6) 2011, stimulator implanted. On (b)(6) 2011, stimulator turned on and activated. Every 2 weeks after that i was up at the doctors office having it readjusted, still doesn't work. Around (b)(6) 2012 had revision done. Still didn't work. Worked intermittently and shut off. Stimulating abdomen more than any other part of back causing severe stomach pains. (b)(6), i had 14 screws and 5 rods removed from back as st judes reps and doctor thought that it might have been interfering with the pulse signals. Still to this day, (b)(6) 2013. The device still does not work correctly. Dates of use: (b)(6) 2011 - (b)(6) 2013.

Model Number 3788
Event Date 01/04/2013
Event Type  Malfunction 
Event Description

Per the surgeon - failed occipital nerve stimulator; possible defective generator and/or lead. The surgeon removed and replaced the occipital nerve stimulator and lead. ======================manufacturer response for spinal cord stimulator, spinal cord stimulator generator (per site reporter). ======================rep took the device for evaluation.

Model Number 3788
Event Date 09/02/2010
Event Type  Malfunction   Patient Outcome  Other
Manufacturer Narrative

Eval method: the device history and sterilization records were also reviewed. Results: the device history and sterilization records were reviewed and were found to meet specs and no anomalies were found. Conclusion: the cause of the reported complaint could not be determined from the review of the dhr and sterilization records. Ans has limited info related to the pt's medical history and is unable to form an opinion as to the relevancy of the pt's history to the event reported. Ans defers to the pt's physician regarding medical history.

Event Description

On (b)(6) 2010, the pt was implanted with an scs system. The pt states that her system will turn off randomly. This has happened many times over the last several months. While it is off, she is not able to communicate with her ipg via the programmer. Her system will then turn back on by itself. When it turns back on, it comes on with a strong surge and then reduces to the normal stimulation level. After it turns back on, she is able to communicate with the ipg via the programmer again. The pt has not tried to communicate using the charger during a time when the stimulation was off. This problem does not appear to be position related or happen at any specific time of day. Diagnostic impedances all came back normal. The pt was reprogrammed over 6 times and all programs had the same results. The clinical specialist was never preset during a period when the stimulation was off. The doctor has decided to replace the ipg. 

Model Number 3788
Event Date 02/04/2010
Event Type  Injury   Patient Outcome  Other
Manufacturer Narrative

Method: device history and sterilization records were reviewed. Results: the device history and sterilization records reviewed were found to meet specs and no anomalies were found. Conclusion: the cause of the reported complaint could not be determined from the review of the dhr and sterilization records. Ans has limited info related to the pt's medical history and is unable to form an opinion as to the relevancy of the pt's history to the event reported. Ans defers to the pt's physician regarding medical history.

Event Description

On (b) (6) 2008, a pt with rsd of the right foot was implanted with dual percutaneous leads. It was reported that the pt complained of over stimulation. On (b) (6) 2010, the dr replaced the percutaneous leads with a surgical lead. The percutaneous leads did not have any irregularities and were functioning fine. The leads had migrated into the gutter and the pt was receiving over-stimulation. On the evening of (b) (6) 2010, it was reported that the pt was at home and felt severe over stimulation/shocking. The pt fell out of their chair and to the floor. The pt reported the symptoms were similar to a "seizure. " it took about 5 minutes before the pt was able to call 911. The emt was able to turn off stimulation with the magnet. Emt stated pt was drenched from sweat from his neck down and his hands were curling in, as if having a seizure. On (b) (6) 2010, the clinical specialist (cs) met with the pt at the hospital. Diagnostic impedance showed contact 8 was high. X-ray verified the connections were intact and that the lead may have moved left. Programs 1-6 for the previous percutaneous lead were removed so the pt could not inadvertently use the old programs.

Patients with Serious Back Injuries Including Severed Spinal Cords, Crushed Discs, Bulged Discs, and Herniated Discs when Seeking Pain Relief can sometimes Fall Victim to Defective Products, Negligent Health Care, and "For Profit" Medical Professionals Seeking to Increase Profits: Be Careful When Deciding to Have Back Surgery

The human spinal cord is basically a bundle of nerves which is surrounded by 33 bones or vertebrae.  Located between each vertebrae is a spinal disc which is a liquid filled disc shaped pouch.  These discs are stacked on top of one another and act as shock absorbers allowing the spine to flex, bend, and twist.  When functioning properly, the vertebrae and discs protect the spinal cord allow nerve impulses to travel from and to the brain to other parts of the body.  This allows us to experience sensations, move our bodies, and control many bodily functions.

Problems arise when the vertebrae, discs, or spinal cord are injured.  Broken vertebrae can damage and impinge on discs or the spinal cord causing extreme pain, numbness, and loss of control of bodily functions.  Back injuries can occur through traumatic events that result in paralysis.  Depending where and how severe the injury is will determine what type and how severe the paralysis is.   

The human body has remarkable healing potential.  Combining determination, proper medical attention, knowledge about an injury, and focus on the healing process can greatly help most injuries.  Hiring a lawyer to battle the insurance companies and responsible parties can allow the injured person to focus on the healing process.     

If you or a loved one have suffered a traumatic spinal cord injury or other serious back injury including a severed spinal cord, broken vertebrae, crushed discs, herniated discs, or a bulged discs; the most important thing you can do is to find a good medical doctor to assess the injury so you know what you are dealing with and how to best treat the injury.  From physical therapy and steroid injections to back surgeries (lumbar diskectomy, cervical fusion, and other lumbar or cervical procedures), there are many different ways to treat a back injury and it is important to know what will work best for you.  

Unfortunately, there are also medical clinics, medical implant sales people, and doctors that are more interested in profit and their bottom line than what is best for a patient.  Some of these medical professionals carelessly cause painful and difficult conditions to become much worse by paralyzing patients that are seeking relief from pain.   

As the economic pressures of the medical system keep pushing medical providers to become "for profit" and prioritize making money over the health of individual patients; unnecessary procedures, overworked staff, using defective products, and making mistakes will become more common and hurt people.  It is extremely important to thoroughly investigate any clinic, hospital, surgeon or other health care provider prior to having spinal surgery, or any other complicated procedure.  Please feel free to go to the following web pages for more information on Failed Back Surgery and Defective Implantable Neurostimulation System Lawsuits, Texas Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, and Federal Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

Spine Stimulator Lawyer: St. Jude Stimulators, Medtronic Stimulators, and Boston Scientific Stimulators May Malfunction Causing Pain and Requiring Removal by Spinal Stimulator Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Spine Stimulator Lawyer: Implantable Neurostimulation Systems Including St. Jude Stimulators, Medtronic Stimulators, and Boston Scientific Stimulators May Malfunction Causing Pain and Requiring Removal by Spine Stimulator Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Several Implanted Spine Stimulators have malfunctioned including locking on and failing to work causing significant pain and many situations additional surgeries to repair or remove the implanted stimulators. Persons with or thinking about receiving an implanted spine stimulator, should speak with their health care provider about the potential health risks of having a spine stimulator implanted in them as well as make sure that the device is being used for an FDA approved indication.

Persons that have experienced severe shocks, malfunctioning batteries, and other problems with an implanted spinal stimulator, should consult their health care provider and make sure that any adverse health events are reported to the FDA. For more information on spine stimulator lawsuits, please go to the following web page: Defective Spine Stimulator Lawsuit Information or please feel free to send an e-mail to Spine Stimulator Lawyer Jason Coomer.

Implantable Spinal-Devices Are a Multi-billion Dollar Industry and the Leaders In the Industry Are Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and Boston Scientific

Implantable Neurostimulation Systems and other spinal-devices are a huge business for the medical implant device industry.  The global market for spinal-devices is currently over $ 3 billion per year and is expected to increase to over $5 billion per year by 2018.  Currently, the major manufacturers in the neurostimulator market are Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and Boston Scientific.

Neurostimulators have been used for a variety of types of chronic back pain situations including heriniated disks, postlaminectomy paid, Complex Reginal Pay Syndrome, unsuccessful disk surgery, Degenerative Disk Disease, and Failed Back Syndrome. The Medtronic implantable neurostimulation system is indicated for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as an aid in the management of chronic, intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs—including unilateral or bilateral pain associated with several different conditions.   Unfortunately, because of the profits to be made from implanting a spinal stimulator, many people have received spinal stimulators for off-label or non-approved indications.  

Medical professionals that are aware of significant off-label use of spinal stimulators are encouraged to properly report any Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud that may be occurring.  Please feel free to go to the following web page for information on Qui Tam Whistleblower Reward Lawsuits and Reporting Medicare Fraud. 

FDA Action on Spine Stimulators

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issues warning letters when it finds certain problems that it wants a company to fix.  In a letter dated July 17, 2012, the FDA issued a warning letter related to Medtronic’s process for handling complaints and stated that regulatory action might ensue should the manufacturer fail to address the agency’s request to take action. The FDA also issued a warning letter to St. Jude Medical, resulting in the company’s announcement that there were weld failures present within the internal batteries of their units. Physicians and Patients who may have been implanted with defective stimulators are being notified individually by St. Jude Medical. Since the problem surfaced in 2011, over 300 heat-related complaints have been filed on behalf of carriers of defective units and several lawsuits have been filed. The failure of a stimulator to operate correctly has had many effects on our clients. At a minimum, defective devices expose clients to the very pain the devices are supposed to relieve. In addition to increased pain, other symptoms our clients have reported experiencing include:

• Severe irritation and  burning at the battery site
• An inability to control the stimulator (resulting in unwelcome jolts, pain, or temporary paralysis)
• Severe burns while recharging the battery
• Premature battery depletion
• Bladder problems
• Increased numbness
• Lead migration and broken anchors
• Partial paralysis

In most cases, when a stimulator is found to be defective it must be removed. This surgery can be both costly and cause its own complications. Not only is there always a risk of infection with every surgery, but because the removal of a stimulator requires navigating delicate nerves in the spine, it is possible that nerves can be nicked or otherwise damages during the procedure leading to symptoms such as weakness, pain, or numbness in the body. In some cases, removal of the simulator can result in a leakage of spinal fluid from the epidural space, leading to severe and long-lasting headaches or feelings of fatigue which may heal on its own or may require its own surgery to repair.

Spinal Stimulator Lawsuit Information

In reviewing potential failed back surgery implant lawsuits, it is important to obtain copies of your medical records and to determine if the implantable neurostimulation system was properly implanted by the spinal surgeon or if the spinal stimulator was defective.  If the spinal stimulator was defective and has/had to be removed, it is important that the defective device is kept as potential evidence.  For more information on this topic, please feel free to go to the following web page, Failed Back Surgery and Defective Implantable Neurostimulation System Lawsuits  or please feel free to send an e-mail to Defective Spinal Stimulator Lawyer Jason Coomer.

Incretin Drug Cancer Risk: Diabetes Drugs in the Incretin Mimetic Class May Cause an Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer and Pancreatitis By Incretin Drug Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Incretin Drug Cancer Risk: Diabetes Drugs in the Incretin Mimetic Class May Cause an Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer and Pancreatitis By Incretin Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer and Diabetes Incretin Drug Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Diabetes drugs in the incretin mimetic class may cause an increased health risk of pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis.  These incretin diabetes drug include  exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon), liraglutide (Victoza), sitagliptin (Januvia, Janumet, Janumet XR, Juvisync), saxagliptin (Onglyza, Kombiglyze XR), alogliptin (Nesina, Kazano, Oseni), and linagliptin (Tradjenta, Jentadueto). These drugs work by mimicking the incretin hormones that the body usually produces naturally to stimulate the release of insulin in response to a meal. They are used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Many of these incretin diabetes drugs already include a black box warning regarding thyroid cancer risk, but evidence is growing that these drugs may also create an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. People that are taking incretin diabetes drugs including: Januvia, Janument, Victoza, Byetta, Onglyza, Tradjenta, Bydureon, Oseni, and other diabetes drugs should be aware of the cancer health risks. If you have been taking a diabetes drug and have been diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer or you have lost a loved one that was taking a diabetes drug and the loved one was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, please report the adverse action to the prescribing medical doctor and FDA as soon as possible.
 

For more information on this topic, please feel free to send an e-mail message to Incretin Drug Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer Jason Coomer or use our online form.

FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA investigating reports of possible increased risk of pancreatitis and pre-cancerous findings of the pancreas from incretin mimetic drugs for type 2 diabetes

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating unpublished new findings by a group of academic researchers that suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis, or inflammation of the pancreas, and pre-cancerous cellular changes called pancreatic duct metaplasia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a class of drugs called incretin mimetics. These findings were based on examination of a small number of pancreatic tissue specimens taken from patients after they died from unspecified causes. FDA has asked the researchers to provide the methodology used to collect and study these specimens and to provide the tissue samples so the Agency can further investigate potential pancreatic toxicity associated with the incretin mimetics.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits: Two Juries Awarded Large Verdicts For Vaginal Mesh That Contracted and Eroded Causing Health Problems by Texas Vaginal Mesh Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits: Two Juries Have Awarded Large Verdicts To Women That Had Vaginal Mesh Implanted In Them Contract and Erode Causing Serious Health Problems by Texas Vaginal Mesh Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Thousands of women, who have had vaginal mesh implanted in them during surgery, are at an increased risk of suffering significant health problems from recalled vaginal mesh.  These health problems can be caused by mesh erosion, mesh deterioration, and mesh contraction and can include recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence; bowel perforation; bladder perforation; blood vessel perforation; neurological problems; erosion of the mesh through vagina infection; urinary problems; and vaginal epithelium.  These health issues can often require multiple surgeries to repair or cause permanent health problems. 

If you or a loved one has suffered significant health problems from a failed vaginal mesh, it is important to seek immediate medical attention.  For more information on contracted vaginal mesh lawsuits or eroded vaginal mesh lawsuits, please feel free to contact Texas Failed Vaginal Mesh Surgery Lawyer, Jason Coomer, via e-mail message or go to the following webpage: Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information.

N.J. jury awards woman $7.76 mln punitive damages for vaginal mesh | Reuters

"A New Jersey jury on Thursday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $7.76 million in punitive damages to a South Dakota nurse who claimed harm from the company's now-recalled Prolift vaginal mesh."

Johnson & Johnson Told to Pay $3.35 Million in Vaginal Mesh Case - NYTimes.com

On February 25, 2013, a jury awarded $3.35 million to a woman who suffered a failed vaginal mesh surgery.  The failed vaginal mesh implant caused the woman to suffer erosion, scar tissue, inflammation and neurologic compromise.  The woman had to seek significant medical treatment including having to endure 18 operations to repair the damage caused by the failed vaginal mesh.  

These cases are some the first vaginal mesh lawsuits to reach a jury and many more failed vaginal mesh lawsuits are currently pending.

Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Lawsuits: Jury Awards $3.35 Million in Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit by Transvaginal Mesh Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Lawsuits: A Jury Awarded $3.35 Million to a Woman Who Suffered Transvaginal Mesh Failure and Had to Have 18 Operations to Repair the Damages She Suffered from the Transvaginal Mesh Failure by Transvaginal Mesh Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

On February 25, 2013, a jury awarded $3.35 million to a woman who suffered a failed transvaginal mesh surgery.  The failed transvaginal mesh surgery caused the woman to suffer erosion, scar tissue, inflammation and neurologic compromise.  The woman had to seek significant medical treatment including having to endure 18 operations to repair the damage caused by the failed transvaginal mesh.  This case in one of the first transvaginal mesh lawsuits to reach a jury and many more failed transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently pending.

If you or a loved one has suffered from a failed transvaginal mesh surgery, it is important to seek immediate medical attention.  For more information on failed tranvaginal mesh surgery lawsuits, failed pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery lawsuits, or failed stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery lawsuits, please feel free to contact Failed Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Lawyer, Jason Coomer, via e-mail message or go to the following webpage: Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Lawsuit Information

 Transvaginal Mesh FDA Safety Communications and Actions

On July 13, 2011, the United States Food and Drug Administration released the below FDA Safety Communication update regarding Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.  This FDA Safety Communication and other FDA Actions were intended to provide adequate safety warnings to women and their health care providers regarding the potential health risk of transvaginal mesh.  Women considering transvaginal mesh surgery and their health care providers should be aware of these potential health risks.

Audience:

Health care providers who implant surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence.

Health care providers involved in the care of patients with surgical mesh implanted to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence.

Patients who are considering or have received a surgical mesh implant to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence

Medical Specialties: gynecology, urogynecology, urology, general surgery, internal medicine, family practice, emergency medicine

Device:

Surgical mesh is a medical device that is generally used to repair weakened or damaged tissue. It is made from porous absorbable or non-absorbable synthetic material or absorbable biologic material. In urogynecologic procedures, surgical mesh is permanently implanted to reinforce the weakened vaginal wall to repair pelvic organ prolapse or to support the urethra to treat urinary incontinence.

Background:

Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) occurs when the tissues that hold the pelvic organs in place become weak or stretched. Thirty to fifty percent of women may experience POP in their lifetime with 2 percent developing symptoms. When POP happens, the organs bulge (prolapse) into the vagina and sometimes prolapse past the vaginal opening. More than one pelvic organ can prolapse at the same time. Organs that can be involved in POP include the bladder, the uterus, the rectum, the top of the vagina (vaginal apex) after a hysterectomy, and the bowel.

Stress Urinary Incontinence:

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a leakage of urine during moments of physical activity, such as coughing, sneezing, laughing, or exercise.

Failed Transvaginal Mesh Surgery and Failed Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Lawsuits

There are still many women who have failed transvaginal mesh surgery and have suffered significant health problems from the failed surgery including recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence, erosion of the mesh through the vagina infection, pain, urinary problems, vaginal epithelium, bowel perforation, bladder perforation, and blood vessel perforation.  If you or a loved one has suffered from a failed transvaginal mesh surgery, it is important to seek immediate medical attention.  For information on a failed transvaginal mesh surgery lawsuits, please feel free to contact Failed Transvaginal Surgery Lawyer, Jason Coomer, via e-mail message or go to the following web page on Failed Transvaginal Surgery Lawsuit Information

Pancreatic Cancer Causes: Several Diabetic Drugs Have Been Shown to Cause An Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

 Pancreatic Cancer Causes: Several Different Types of Diabetes Drugs Have Been Shown To Cause An Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer Jason S. Coomer

Recent scientific studies have shown that several diabetes drugs may cause an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.  People that are taking Onglyza, Tradjenta, Bydureon, Oseni, Byetta, Victoza, Januvia, or Janumet should be aware of the potential dangers of these drugs and should discuss the potential dangers of these drugs with their physician.  

If you have lost a loved one from Pancreatic Cancer who was taking a diabetes drug or you have been taking a diabetes drug and have been diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, please report the adverse action to the prescribing medical doctor and FDA as soon as possible.  Attorneys are in the process of filing and reviewing lawsuits where a person has developed pancreatic cancer after taking Onglyza, Tradjenta, Bydureon, Oseni, Byetta, Victoza, Januvia, and/or Janumet. For more information on this topic, please feel free to contact Pancreatic Cancer Lawyer, Jason S. Coomer or go to the following webpage: Pancreatic Cancer Lawsuit Information.

Pancreatic Cancer Detection: Understanding and Identifying Symptoms of Pancreatic Cancer Can Be Important In Early Detection and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer Resulting in Higher Pancreatic Cancer Survival Rates

Symptoms of pancreatic cancer can include: dark urine and clay-colored stools, fatigue and weakness, jaundice (a yellow color in the skin, mucus membranes, or eyes), loss of appetite and weight loss, nausea and vomiting, pain or discomfort in the upper part of the belly or abdomen, back pain, blood clots, diarrhea, and indigestion.

Pancreatic cancer is often not detected early on and is often advanced when it is first found.  As such, ninety-five percent of the people diagnosed with this cancer will not be alive 5 years later.  Some patients have pancreatic cancer that can be surgically removed are cured. However, in more than 80% of patients the tumor has already spread and cannot be completely removed at the time of diagnosis.  In the few cases where pancreatic tumors can be removed by surgery. The standard surgical procedure to remove pancreatic tumors is called a Whipple procedure (pancreatoduodenectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy). This surgery should be done by an experienced surgeon and at a medical center that performs the procedure often. Some studies suggest that the Whipple procedure is best performed at hospitals that do more than five of these surgeries per year.

When the tumor has not spread out of the pancreas, but cannot be removed, radiation therapy and chemotherapy together may be recommended. When the tumor has spread (metastasized) to other organs such as the liver, chemotherapy alone is usually used. The standard chemotherapy drug is gemcitabine, but other drugs may be used. Gemcitabine can help about 25% of patients.

Patients whose tumor cannot be totally removed, but who have a blockage of the tubes that transport bile (biliary obstruction) must have that blockage relieved. There are two approaches including surgery and placement of a tiny metal tube (biliary stent) during ERCP.

Managing pain and other symptoms is an important part of treating advanced pancreatic cancer. Palliative care tams and hospice can help with pain and symptom management, and provide psychological support for patients and their families during the illness.

The Diabetes Drug Market is Over $40 Billion Each Year and Growing Rapidly Encouraging Drug Companies To Push Dangerous Diabetes Drugs For Profits

More than 300 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes, including about 30 million Americans.  In 2010, the global prevalence of diabetes was estimated to have reached 285 million and predicted to reach 438 million by 2030. The corresponding figures for North America were 37.4 million in 2010 and 53.2 million by 2030 and in Europe 55.2 million in 2010 and 66.2 million in 2030.  The global market for products in the management of diabetes currently stands at $41 billion and is on pace to grow to over $114 billion by 2018.