throbber
Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 58 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`PATRICIA JONES,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a
`JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. f/k/a
`ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
`JANSSEN ORTHO LLC;
`JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a
`JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL
`RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LLC;
`ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC;
`JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANY;
`TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
`R&D, INC.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`AND DEMAND
`FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, by her attorneys, DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C., upon information and belief, at all times
`
`hereinafter mentioned, allege as follows:
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the amount
`
`in controversy as to the Plaintiff exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and because
`
`Defendants have their principal places of business in New Jersey rather than the state in which the named
`
`Plaintiff resides.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 58 PageID: 2
`
`2.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants consistent with the United States
`
`Constitution as Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendants’ transaction of business and the tortuous acts
`
`within the State of New Jersey, and by virtue of Defendants’ substantial, continuous, and systematic
`
`contacts with the State of New Jersey unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
`
`testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of ELMIRON for the relief of
`
`bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants
`
`JANSSEN
`
`PHARMACEUTICALS,
`
`INC.
`
`f/k/a
`
`JANSSEN
`
`PHARMACEUTICA INC. f/k/a ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
`
`ORTHO LLC; JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
`
`PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
`
`COMPANY;
`
`ORTHO-MCNEIL
`
`PHARMACEUTICALS,
`
`LLC;
`
`TEVA
`
`BRANDED
`
`PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`
`(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) concealed, and continue to conceal, their knowledge
`
`of ELMIRON’s unreasonably dangerous risks from Plaintiff, other consumers, and the medical community.
`
`5.
`
`As a result of the defective nature of ELMIRON, persons who were prescribed and ingested
`
`ELMIRON, including Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES has suffered and may continue to suffer severe and
`
`permanent personal injuries, including but not limited to retinal pigmentary changes, vision changes, and
`
`potentially irreversible vision damage.
`
`6.
`
`After beginning treatment with ELMIRON, and as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants’ actions and inaction, Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES suffered retinal pigmentary changes,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 58 PageID: 3
`
`including macular degeneration. Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES’S ingestion of the defective and unreasonably
`
`dangerous drug ELMIRON has caused and will continue to cause injury and damage to Plaintiff.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries suffered as a proximate result of Plaintiff
`
`PATRICIA JONES being prescribed and ingesting ELMIRON. Plaintiff accordingly seeks compensatory
`
`and punitive damages, monetary restitution, and all other available remedies as a result of injuries caused
`
`by ELMIRON.
`
`PARTY PLAINTIFF
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES is a citizen and resident of the State of North Carolina.
`
`Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES was born on November 9, 1958.
`
`Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES began taking ELMIRON in or about 1998.
`
`As result of using Defendants’ ELMIRON, Plaintiff PATRICIA JONES, was caused to
`
`suffer retinal pigmentary changes, including macular degeneration on or about October 13, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`As a result of using Defendants’ ELMIRON, Plaintiff was caused to sustain severe and
`
`permanent personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
`
`13.
`
`The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff was caused by Defendants’ ELMIRON.
`
`
`
`PARTY DEFENDANTS
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a
`
`JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. f/k/a ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “JANSSEN PHARM”) is a Pennsylvania corporation, having a principal place of
`
`business at 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Titusville, New Jersey 08560, and is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANY.
`
`15.
`
`As part of its business, Defendant JANSSEN PHARM is involved in the research,
`
`development, design, licensing, manufacture, distribution, supply, sales and/or marketing, and introduction
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 58 PageID: 4
`
`into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, of
`
`pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON and pentosan polysulfate sodium.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN PHARM has transacted and conducted
`
`business in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN PHARM, has derived substantial
`
`revenue from goods and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN PHARM expected or should have
`
`expected its acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and
`
`the State of North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United
`
`States and the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant JANSSEN PHARM was
`
`in the business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute
`
`the drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO LLC (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“JANSSEN ORTHO”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, having a
`
`principal place of business at Stateroad 933 Km 0 1, Street Statero, Gurabo, Puerto Rico 00778. Defendant
`
`JANSSEN ORTHO is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.
`
`21.
`
`As part of its business, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO is involved in the research,
`
`development, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON and pentosan
`
`polysulfate sodium.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO has transacted and conducted
`
`business in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 58 PageID: 5
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO has derived substantial revenue
`
`from goods and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO expected or should have
`
`expected its acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and
`
`the State of North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United
`
`States and the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant JANSSEN ORTHO was
`
`in the business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute
`
`the drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`f/k/a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LLC (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“JANSSEN R&D”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a principal
`
`place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey 08933.
`
`Defendant JANSSEN R&D’s sole member is Centocor Research & Development, Inc., which is a
`
`Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, JANSSEN R&D
`
`is a citizen of Pennsylvania and New Jersey for purposes of determining diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN R&D has transacted and conducted
`
`business in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN R&D has derived substantial revenue
`
`from good and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JANSSEN R&D expected or should have expected
`
`its acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and the State
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 6 of 58 PageID: 6
`
`of North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United States and
`
`the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant JANSSEN R&D was in
`
`the business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute
`
`the drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “ORTHO PHARMA”) is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware
`
`with its principal place of business at 1000 US Highway 202, Raritan, New Jersey 08869, and is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANY.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ORTHO PHARMA has transacted and conducted
`
`business in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ORTHO PHARMA has derived substantial revenue
`
`from good and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ORTHO PHARMA expected or should have
`
`expected its acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and
`
`the State of North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United
`
`States and the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant ORTHO PHARMA was
`
`in the business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute
`
`the drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANY (hereinafter
`
`referred to as “J&J”) is a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of
`
`business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey 08933.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 7 of 58 PageID: 7
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendants JANSSEN PHARM,
`
`ORTHO PHARMA, and JANSSEN R&D are wholly owned subsidiaries of Defendant J&J.
`
`38.
`
`As part of its business, Defendant J&J is and at all relevant times was, involved in the
`
`research, development, design, licensing, manufacture, distribution, supply, packaging, labeling, sales,
`
`and/or marketing and introduction into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third
`
`parties or related entities, of pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON. Defendant J&J manufactures,
`
`markets, and sells a wide range of pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON and pentosan polysuflate
`
`sodium.
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant J&J has transacted and conducted business in the
`
`State of New Jersey and North Carolina.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant J&J has derived substantial revenue from goods and
`
`products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant J&J expected or should have expected its acts to
`
`have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and the State North
`
`Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United States and the State
`
`of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant J&J was in the business of
`
`and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute the drug
`
`ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL
`
`PRODUCTS R&D, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “TEVA R&D”) is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 41 Moores Road, Frazer, Pennsylvania 19355.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 8 of 58 PageID: 8
`
`44.
`
`As part of its business, Defendant TEVA R&D is involved in the research, development,
`
`sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON and pentosan polysulfate sodium.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA R&D has transacted and conducted business
`
`in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA R&D has derived substantial revenue from
`
`goods and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA R&D expected or should have expected its
`
`acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and the State of
`
`North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United States and the
`
`State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant TEVA R&D was in the
`
`business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute the
`
`drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “TEVA USA”) is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, having a
`
`principal place of business at 400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ 07054.
`
`50.
`
`As part of its business, Defendant TEVA USA is involved in the research, development,
`
`sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products including ELMIRON and pentosan polysulfate sodium.
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA USA has transacted and conducted business
`
`in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA USA has derived substantial revenue from
`
`goods and products used in the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 9 of 58 PageID: 9
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA USA expected or should have expected its
`
`acts to have consequence within the United States of America and the State of New Jersey and the State of
`
`North Carolina, and derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce within the United States and the
`
`State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina, more particularly.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times, Defendant TEVA USA was in the
`
`business of and did design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, and distribute the
`
`drug ELMIRON for the relief of bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`55.
`
`Pentosan polysulfate sodium (hereinafter referred to as “PPS”) is a semi-synthetically
`
`produced low molecular weight heparin-like compound and is marketed in the United States by Defendants
`
`under the name ELMIRON.
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TEVA R&D licenses ELMIRON to Defendant
`
`JANSSEN PHARM, a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant J&J, for manufacture, marketing, advertising,
`
`distribution, and sale of ELMIRON in the United States, including in the State of New Jersey and the State
`
`of North Carolina.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, the original New Drug Application (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“NDA”) for ELMIRON was submitted by Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“the sponsor”), which was owned by Ivax Corporation. Ivax Corporation licensed ELMIRON to Ortho-
`
`McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. n/k/a Defendant JANSSEN PHARM. Defendant TEVA R&D then purchased
`
`Ivax Corporation and continued to license ELMIRON to Defendant JANSSEN PHARM.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`ELMIRON sales in the United States total more than $150 million each year.
`
`ELMIRON was the first oral medication approved for use to relieve bladder pain or
`
`discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 10 of 58 PageID: 10
`
`60.
`
`Interstitial cystitis is a chronic bladder condition affecting millions of people, mainly
`
`women, in the United States that causes increased bladder pressure, bladder pain, and even pelvic pain that
`
`can often be severe. There is currently no cure for interstitial cystitis.
`
`61.
`
`On August 7, 1985, the United Sates Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to
`
`as “FDA”) designated ELMIRON an orphan drug product due to the rarity of interstitial cystitis.
`
`62.
`
`The sponsor submitted its first NDA for approval on June 11, 1991 which included data from
`
`two clinical trials (referred to as study 001 and 002).
`
`63.
`
`On January 27, 1993, FDA issued its first non-approval letter due to numerous problems
`
`with the clinical trial analyses and results, as well as interaction between the clinical trial investigators.
`
`Specifically, FDA stated that the NDA lacked the requisite two (2) adequate and well-controlled studies for
`
`determining the effects of ELMIRON. FDA requested that the sponsor conduct another well-controlled,
`
`ideally blinded and randomized, clinical trial and to exclude certain investigators.
`
`64.
`
`In response, the sponsor declined to perform an additional clinical trial and instead re-
`
`analyzed the data from the two pivotal studies already submitted.
`
`65.
`
`On October 28, 1994, FDA issued a second non-approval letter due to insufficient clinical
`
`trial evidence to establish efficacy. Once again, the FDA emphasized that the studies could not be
`
`considered independent due to issues with the investigators. In removing the data generated by those
`
`investigators, neither study was powered to show statistical significance for any of the primary efficacy
`
`endpoints. While FDA did find that study 002 provide some evidence of efficacy, it once again encouraged
`
`the sponsor to perform another well-controlled, sufficiently powered clinical trial and to exclude any
`
`investigators involved in study 002.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 11 of 58 PageID: 11
`
`66.
`
`The sponsor continued to decline to perform an additional clinical trial and instead proposed
`
`an analysis of the database from its Compassionate Use program established in 1986, which it submitted to
`
`FDA on August 31, 1995.
`
`67.
`
`Ultimately, for its third resubmission of the NDA, the sponsor relied on two clinical studies.
`
`The first study (study 002) was a blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated only 151
`
`patients for three (3) months. Of the patients receiving ELMIRON, 38% reported greater than 50%
`
`improvement in bladder pain compared to 18% of the placebo patients. FDA noted that the study indicated
`
`a statistically significant treatment effect for only two (2) of six (6) identified efficacy endpoints – the
`
`patient’s evaluation of bladder pain and the investigator’s evaluation of overall improvement – both of
`
`which allow for bias that undermines the validity of the results. Further, FDA also noted that one
`
`investigator in particular influenced the results, and when the data from that investigator were removed, the
`
`results still favored ELMIRON over placebo but were no longer statistically significant.
`
`68.
`
`The second clinical trial was an unblinded retrospective analysis of 2,499 patients, mostly
`
`women, in the ELMIRON Compassionate Use program. After three (3) months, over half of the patients
`
`dropped out or were deemed ineligible for the trial; importantly, 31% of those patients reported lack of
`
`efficacy and 17% reported an adverse event. The number of patients reporting improvement in pain after
`
`three (3) months of treatment was 61% but dropped to only 13% after six (6) months of treatment.
`
`69.
`
`In reviewing the NDA for a third time, FDA accepted the Compassionate Use data in lieu of
`
`a randomized controlled clinical trial, the typical gold standard. However, FDA noted that only a subset of
`
`the patients was analyzed, and any observed efficacy from ELMIRON use could be enhanced by placebo
`
`effect since the study was unblinded and uncontrolled.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 12 of 58 PageID: 12
`
`70.
`
`In reviewing the clinical trial data overall, FDA noted that 75% of interstitial cystitis patients
`
`could be classified as non-responders to ELMIRON therapy and recommended a three (3) month trial period
`
`after drug initiation to determine if a patient will respond to ELMIRON.
`
`71.
`
`On September 26, 1996, FDA ultimately approved the NDA for ELMIRON based on these
`
`two studies despite the significant concerns. The FDA reviewers noted that, while the studies had fatal
`
`flaws, the unique situation of interstitial cystitis, the apparent lack of significant clinical safety concerns
`
`based on these short-term studies, and the appearance of efficacy in a subset of patients resulted in a small
`
`risk/benefit ratio provided the sponsor agreed to an indication with a three-month initial treatment trial and
`
`continued to monitor the safety and efficacy of ELMIRON.
`
`72.
`
`Following approval in 1996, Defendants have received multiple Adverse Event Reports
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “AERs”) detailing injuries including serious visual symptoms and/or damage
`
`both in the United States and internationally.
`
`73.
`
`Then, in Spring of 2018, a team at Emory Eye Center submitted a letter to the editor of the
`
`Journal of Urology reporting findings of unusual retinal pigmentary changes or maculopathy (i.e., any
`
`condition affecting the macula at the center of the retina) in six (6) female patients on long-term ELMIRON
`
`treatment (median use of 15.5 years) that did not resemble any other type of retinal disease.1 That case
`
`series was published online at the end of April 2018.2 None of the patients had family history of retinal
`
`disease or any pathogenic process that would predispose them to such a disease. Of the six (6), five (5) had
`
`received 400mg daily of ELMIRON (but two reduced their dose to 200mg pe day after 17 years of
`
`treatment), and one (1) received 300mg daily. The youngest patient was 23 years old when diagnosed with
`
`
`1 Pearce WA, et al. Re: FDA BRUDAC 2018 Criteria for Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome Clinical Trials: Future
`Direction for Research. J Urol 2018;200(5):1122-1123.
`
` 2
`
` Pearce WA, et al. Pigmentary Maculopathy Associated with Chronic Exposure to Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium.
`Ophthalmology. 2018 May 22.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 13 of 58 PageID: 13
`
`interstitial cystitis, began showing visual symptoms at 30, and by 37 had the most severe eye damage in the
`
`study. The authors also highlighted the results of the Compassionate Use study that showed vision related
`
`adverse events, including optic neuritis, amblyopia, and retinal hemorrhage.
`
`74.
`
`In May 2019, the same Emory team presented an update to their study at the American
`
`Urological Association annual meeting in Chicago. The study identified 10 patients with pigmentary
`
`maculopathy at the Emory Eye Center. The patients ranged in age from 38 to 68 and once again had a
`
`median treatment duration of 15.5 years (with the shortest duration of a little over two (2) years). The poster
`
`presentation concluded:
`
`We describe a potentially avoidable retinal degeneration phenomenon associated with
`chronic PPS exposure. Structural changes occur at the level of the retinal pigment
`epithelium, manifesting as characteristic pigmentary changes. While it remains unclear
`whether drug cessation will alter the course of retinal disease, we encourage affected patients
`to discontinue use, and patients with suggestive visual symptoms to undergo a
`comprehensive ophthalmic examination with OCT and FAF imaging.3
`
`The Emory researchers also presented at the Association for Research in Vision and
`
`75.
`
`Ophthalmology Annual Meeting at the end of Spring 2019 where they reported results from a retrospective
`
`cross-sectional study that included all patients at Emory Eye Center who had been diagnosed with interstitial
`
`cystitis within a four (4)-year period. The authors found 14 cases of this characteristic maculopathy in 80
`
`patients exposed to ELMIRON and no cases in 139 unexposed patients. The only statistically significant
`
`risk factor was ELMIRON exposure, with median use of 18.3 years in affected patients. The authors thereby
`
`concluded a strong association between ELMIRON exposure and this specific type of vision-threatening
`
`maculopathy.4
`
`
`3 Foote, et al. 2019. Chronic Exposure to Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium is Associated with Retinal Pigmentary Changes and
`Vision Loss. AUA 2019 Abstract MP47-03.
`
` Hanif AM, et al. Strength of Association between Pentosan Polysulfate and a Novel Maculopathy. Ophthalmology. 2019
`Oct;126(10):1464-1466.
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 14 of 58 PageID: 14
`
`76.
`
`The Emory research group then teamed with researchers at other institutions to conduct a
`
`multi-institutional case series published in September 2019 that analyzed 35 patients with ELMIRON-
`
`associated maculopathy. The median duration of use was 14.5 years at a median dose of 300mg per day.
`
`The most common referral diagnosis was macular or pattern dystrophy and/or age-related macular
`
`degeneration, and the most common symptoms included blurred vision and prolonged dark adaptation. This
`
`study focused on diagnostic methods (i.e., multimodal imaging) and presentation of this specific form of
`
`maculopathy, which proved distinctive from other retinal diseases and conditions.5
`
`77.
`
`In October 2019, a research team at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA found that out of
`
`140 patients currently using ELMIRON for an average of 15 years (and a minimum of five (5) years),
`
`24% had eye damage and/or retinal toxicity that increased with the total amount of ELMIRON taken.
`
`That team presented their research at the 2019 Annual meeting for the American Academy of
`
`Ophthalmology in San Francisco.6 The researchers then performed multimodal image screening on 117
`
`patients exposed to ELMIRON, of which 23% had definite indications of maculopathy and demonstrated
`
`a dose-response relationship. Specifically, approximately one quarter of patients with an intake of greater
`
`than 500g developed retinal changes consistent with ELMIRON-associated maculopathy.7
`
`78.
`
`Another presentation at the October 2019 AAO meeting was “the first study to demonstrate
`
`a dose-response correlation between exposure to [ELMIRON] and retinal toxicity.”8
`
`
`5 Hanif A, et al. Phenotypic Spectrum of Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium-Associated Maculopathy: A Multicenter Study. JAMA
`Ophthalmol. 2019;137(11):1275-1282.
`
` 6
`
` “More Evidence Linking Common Bladder Medication to a Vision-threatening Eye Condition.” AAO Press Release. Oct. 12,
`2019.
`
` 7
`
` Vora RA, et al. Prevalence of Maculopathy Associated with Long-Term Pentosan Polysulfate Therapy. Ophthalmology. 2020
`June;127(6):835-836.
`
` 8
`
` Schaal, S. and Hadad, A. “Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium Retinal Toxicity
`Demonstrates a Dose-Response Curve.” AAO PA068 – 2019.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 15 of 58 PageID: 15
`
`79.
`
`In November 2019, the Emory Eye Center team released results from a U.S. retrospective
`
`cohort study using a medical claims database from 2002 to 2016 comparing ELMIRON users to matched
`
`controls at five (5) and seven (7) years of use. At the seven (7) year follow-up, ELMIRON users had
`
`significantly increased risk of developing atypical maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration.
`
`Therefore, this study concluded that ELMIRON “exposure was associated with a new diagnosis of
`
`macular disease at the 7-year follow-up in a large national cohort.”9
`
`80.
`
`Also, in November 2019, a researcher at Harvard published a case study of ELMIRON-
`
`associated maculopathy that progressed over six (6) years after discontinuing the medication. The female
`
`patient used 200mg per day for 18 years. She first presented with a year of visual symptoms at the age of
`
`62 and stopped using ELMIRON shortly thereafter. She continued to be seen for increasing visual
`
`damage over the course of the next six (6) years and was determined to have retinal atrophy and damage
`
`that could not be associated with any genetic or other potential cause. Upon release of the Emory case
`
`study in 2018, her treaters determined her case was consistent with ELMIRON-associated maculopathy.
`
`The authors stated that this case, “adds a new layer of concern by demonstrating progressive maculopathy
`
`continuing for up to 6 years after the cessation of [ELMIRON],” and called for screening that “balances
`
`the demands of patients and physicians with the importance of prompt identification of early toxicity.”10
`
`81.
`
`In July 2020, researchers at Emory and other institutions published a retrospective case series
`
`to evaluate the disease course of retinal pigmentary changes/maculopathy associated with ELMIRON use
`
`(referred to as “PPS-associated maculopathy”) after drug cessation. Of the 11 patients included in the study
`
`
`9 Jain N, et al. 2019. Association of macular disease with long-term use of pentosan polysulfate sodium: findings from a US
`cohort. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2019 Nov 6.
`
`10 Huckfeldt R, et al. Progressive Maculopathy After Discontinuation of Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium. Ophthalmic Surgery,
`Lasers & Imaging Retina. 2019;50(10):656-659. Similar screening guidelines have been established for another drug,
`hydroxychloroquine, that has been similarly associated with vision damage. See Ferguson TJ, et al. Chronic use of pentosan
`polysulfate sodium associated with risk of vision-threatening disease. Intl. Urogynecology J. (2019) 30:337-338.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-14909-BRM-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 10/23/20 Page 16 of 58 PageID: 16
`
`with confirmed PPS-associated maculopathy, none of the patients exhibited demonstrable improvement
`
`after discontinuing ELMIRON; in fact, nine (9) of the patients reported worsening visual symptoms.
`
`Imaging confirmed expansion of the affected areas of the retina over time and even atrophy encroaching on

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket